Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/05

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Archive

May 1

Batch upload of Images of firearms

I'm currently batch uploading images of Firearms from flickr to Category:Images of Firearms to check If anyone is interested in helping categorizing these images and putting them in the appropriate articles...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah! Your bot is working :-) Multichill (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Category:Smith & Wesson could use a series of subcategories based on en:Smith_&_Wesson#Notable_revolvers. The filenames of your batch should allow to categorize them there. If you prepare a file with filenames and categories, my bot could upload them and remove some of the redundant categories. -- User:Docu at 11:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Watch/unwatch

 

How do we watch or unwatch a page/file with the new system ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The new system being the Vector skin? You should see a tab with a yellow star on it; click that to watch/unwatch. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes that's what I meant. Thank you (this is strange to have chosen a symbol, you have to guess for what it is !) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that I recently found out where the star came from: Firefox. see image on the right. Amada44 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a new screenshot category

It has come to my attention that there are many screenshots on commons from film trailers from before 1964. However I have been unable to figure out exactly how these pictures should be uploaded, and in most cases I have just uploaded them to wikipedia and someone else has tagged them as mtc. I think there should be a new upload category under screenshots for public domain film trailers, because these trailers are very useful for getting public domain pictures of older actors and actresses, as well as pictures from older films. From what I have seen on commons and wikipedia, it seems that all or almost all film trailers before 1964 are in the public domain, as well as some from before 1978. Givememoney17 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Use the "basic" upload form, leave the "Licensing" dropdown set on "None", and then put whatever specialized licensing tag you want in the information template in the main description box... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"File extension does not match MIME type." on new file being uploaded

I was uploading two audio files into new commmons' filenames with the file extension ".oga" which did match the mime type as they were both vorbis audio files.

After upload was over I got the warning "File extension does not match MIME type." and all the time waiting for the upload was lost.

I have no idea what's the problem since I have been, through the last weeks, uploading audio files with the same extension and created in exactly the same way as these ones.

I'm re-uploading them now, with "ignore warnings" checked.

Why isn't there a possibility to ignore those warnings after you have uploaded and reviewed them, instead of immediately throwing the received file away if there are any warnings?

This is so awful it's surprising, who would guess such? I just lost a lot of time because of this.

Did I do somethings stupid?

Hugs,

--Solstag (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Try the OGG extension. ZooFari 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure i understand what the problem is. Is it that vorbis files uploaded with the .oga extension are not allowed ? If so, i will log that problem into bugzilla. (PS, file extension warnings are no longer warnings that can be ignored. They are errors. TheDJ (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, errors, I just found that out the hard way :P. Indeed the problem seems to be that ".oga" is no longer being recognized as a valid extension for ogg vorbis audio files. If you'll log it into bugzilla, thanks folks for the help. I'll try the ogg extension now. --Solstag (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
bugzilla:23375 for tracking. We probably already found the cause, but will have to verify. TheDJ (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The fix for this problem was just deployed. It should now be possibly to upload ogg files with the following extensions: oga, ogv, ogg, ogx and spx. TheDJ (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Site notice and cookies

 
Not this kind of cookie! :-)

Hey all, this might not be interesting to all users, but I needed a central places to point a bunch of coder people to, to talk about Commons' sitenotice and how we might be able use cookies to help out.

I noticed on enwiki's MediaWiki:Watchlist-details when there is a notice sent out to everyone, each notice is able to be dismissed separately by giving it a unique cookie number. TheDJ (talk · contribs) told me, off wiki, that this is enabled through w:MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js and that it was doable for Commons, but it is complicated by the fact that we have a multilingual interface (we use MediaWiki:Sitenotice and MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation). The main feature for doing this is so once people click "dismiss" they don't miss other (important) announcements that occur in the near future. For instance, once we turned on the Vector sitenotice, some people clicked "dismiss" and missed the announcement about re-uploading being down (which has since been fixed).

I think if we could get some ideas on how to implement this cookie enabled noticed on Commons, it would be great. Killiondude (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't MediaWiki:Sitenotice id be there for this? --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There's something for that already as Evil IP says, the reason some people missed that upload-new-version-bug-announcement is that the number wasn't bumped. –Krinkletalk 22:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)I was aiming for one for each notice. During the last month we had a few times where there were a few distinctly different notices up on the sitenotice page, and when people clicked "dismiss" it would take away future notices that they weren't aware of. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
As the person who added the notice: It wasn't bumped up because I could not remember where Mediawiki:Sitenotice id was. It's not like the sitenotice stuff is documented very well. We probably should. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I still think it would be preferable to have a dismiss button for each message on the site notice. That way people don't have to see things like the vector notice each time we have to add a new message to the sitenotice and they'll still see new events. Killiondude (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2

j ai quelques projets je voudrais savoir si je peux utiliser vos images ets droits dn auteur joseph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.177.158 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Normallement, vous pouvez utiliser toutes les images d'ici, mais parfois il faut que vous citiez le nom de l'auteur et/ou que vous distributiez l'image sous la même licence. Cette information est toujours dans la page de description d'image, mais si vous n'avez pas de compte, ce texte est en anglais. Pour le traduire en francais, créez un compte, allez dans vos préférences et changez la langue. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unknown specie of Clematis

 

Is here anyone flowers-savvy? Please help identify Clematis on the left. Thanks. Laitr Keiows (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

According to my mum, it "could be a Nelly Moser, but there are a lot with stripes like that." -mattbuck (Talk) 12:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I mixed names

Hi. I mixed names of 2 different persons. Therefore I uploaded 2 pictures with a wrong name (+ a category). The gymnast I called Asal Saparbaeva is in fact Irina Volodchenko. What am I supposed to do in such a case ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Move the files to the corresponding category
2. add {{Rename}} to the files. -- User:Docu at 10:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  Done Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Th silivasmount.jpg

This file seems very dubious to me. Wouldn't it be a copyvio ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems likely. Doing a Google image search for "Daniela Silivas" turns up this page among the first page of results. The image there appears to be identical, except larger and with an earlier last modification date. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


deletion request for: File:Merkur steam loco.jpg

there is an incomplete DR here, as far as I understand. Again as far as I understand, there is no good reason for it. Can someone help? Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no link on the image description page to any deletion request. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Merkur steam loco.jpg. --GaAs11671 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cosmatesque categories

I am not sure if this is the right place for this question.

I have noticed that there are a number of related categories related to Cosmati and Cosmatesque, which I think should all be organized together, but are not. For instance: Category:Cosmatesque pavements[1], Category:Cosmatesque[2], Category:Cosmatesque mosaics in Italy[3]. There are also images that result from a search under "Cosmati" that are not now in any of these categories, but which I could gather together.

It seems to me that the best approach might be to group all these in Category:Cosmatesque, which seems the most inclusive even though it is now almost empty. But arranging and changing categories is something with which I have little experience. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Malcolm, your approach is correct: you start making a search with Comatesque and with Cosmati, you put all found items into Category:Cosmatesque, and you may diffuse later that category to possible subcategories. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do some work on it soon. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Euh, you both, is cosmatesque an english word? Euh, I mean, should it have an article on the Wiktionnaire? Ie fr:wikt:cosmatesque? --GaAs11671 18:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Cosmati was the name of a family of 12th and 13th century Italian architects who developed the style named after them. "Cosmatesque" is used in English to describe the unique style of mosaics they developed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My statistics at the wet finger about Commons

I clicked a lot on special:random/file these past weeks. I didn't make any serious statistics about that, but I would like to report my feeling about it.

  • Images about sex on Commons are very very very rare. In fact I never get to one of them by clicking on random. The only way I get to them was through discussions about the fact that there is too much of them    .
  • There is a bit less than 10% of images missing {{Information}} template.
  • There is more images missing language templates, but not so much in fact.

Regards. --GaAs11671 12:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
C'est pas gentil de te moquer de moi  . --GaAs11671 18:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Google translation of above: "It's not nice to make fun of me (lol)." - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Non non je suis sérieux. Je trouve cela vraiment intéressant. Surtout quand on voit que certains ultras s'offensent de la présence de trop de sexe sur Commons. Et les deux autres points sont rassurants en termes de travail à faire. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Google translation of above: "No no I'm serious. I find it really interesting. Especially when you see that some extremists take offense at the presence of too much sex on Commons. And the other two points are reassuring in terms of work to do." - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the sexual images part, I ran a quick process using AWB, and it told me there is over 67,000 pages (recursively) in Category:Human sexuality (edit-- I was hoping that was the top-level category for most of the human nudie pics, but I was mistaken. The number is probably much higher including all the other categories... ). Compared to the over 6.5 million files currently hosted on Commons, that's not much in comparison. However, what would be interesting to know is the pageviews of sexual content (in total) versus nonsexual content (in total). The top individual files are all sexual files, but as I've realized, that number could be trumped by the total pageviews of non-sexual content. <up next: all the people complaining about the definition of sexual content>. Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 3

Redirect

[ Sorry, I can't explain this in english! ] Italiano: Quando in modifica uso il tasto redirect, puntualmente la sua formulazione viene poi corretta da un bot (per esempio qui l'ultimo che ho fatto). Non sarebbe il caso di cambiare la funzionalità di questo tasto in modo che esso scriva subito nella maniera giusta attualmente gradita? Thank You. --DenghiùComm (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are using the edittoolbar or edittools to add "#REDIRECT[[]]"?
An easy solution could be to add <charinsert>{{Category redirect|+}}</charinsert> to MediaWiki:Edittools.
Varying either based on namespace seems more complicated. As the bot also takes care of it, I wouldn't worry too much about it. -- User:Docu at 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to use <charinsert> inside a {{#if:}} ? --GaAs11671 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I did some quick experiment in my sandbox, and it apparently works fine also inside parser functions. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So something like 
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:14}} | <charinsert><nowiki>{{Category redirect|+}}</nowiki></charinsert> | <charinsert>[[Category:+]]</charinsert> }}
should work. --GaAs11671 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I just tested

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:14}}|<charinsert>{{Category redirect|+}}</charinsert>|<charinsert>#REDIRECT [[+]]</charinsert>}}


It should work for edittools (click edit to see the source).  -- User:Docu at  14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks to a helpful admin (Kwj2772), it's now available through edittools. Try edit on any category page.   -- User:Docu at  09:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems OK for me. And the text of the button changes automatically!  --GaAs11671 09:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Media of the day


Hey, all! We've made some good progress with the Media of the Day (Motd) revamp, and I have working versions of all the necessary templates. A sample of the new translation page can be found at Template:New_Potd/2010-05. 

The only main things left to be done are adding translations to Template:Change_media_file, a stress-test (which requires that we move forwards with the test month), and, it'd be useful to get the bot that adds template:Picture of the day to images that have run on the main page to add an equivalent Motd file

I'd like to propose a test in the month of June, to try and find any issues, and to see how the community takes to this. I'd suggest allowing any media file of definite copyright status to be used for the test; if it goes well, we can easily set up a QI-like approval process later, but, weel, I'm mainly working on the revamp alone at the moment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)



New potd? I was under the impression you guys were modeling the motd after the potd, not actually changing the way the potd works. Could you please explain? Multichill (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This was mentioned in Point 2 of the original proposal, and I tried to emphasize it as much as possible, but, evidently not enough.  Basically, remember that one of the primary points of the PotD setup pages is translations. Hence, it makes sense that everything that needs translations can be found on one page. There can also be PotD-alone and MotD-alone setup pages, but, for the default, it's better to have them combined.


The revamp ONLY affects the translation page; nothing else will be changed WRT PotD, except maybe a little code cleanup, since I discovered some issues there when working on the MotD copy related to hard limits on number of parser function calls. For example, I'm kind of worried about how many #ifexist calls are in Template:Potd/Months, but I can't find the documentation on how many are allowed to see how close we are to a problem.   Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The combined template is too big, it takes over 20 seconds to parse. Multichill (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's actually about what it was on the current PotD setup last week, before I cleaned up some unnecessary #ifeqs.  Still, it's always worth making it more efficient. I'll see how much more can be cut down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

...Well, I just found a major efficiency savings. {{{month}}} is ALWAYS passed to the day setup template as YYYY-MM - not passing it that way breaks the template. So the padleft function being called CANNOT do anything, as it can only pad to two digits! That'll save over a thousand function calls. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that made it lightning-fast. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tested, double-checked all templates in which the modified template is used to confirm padding, and checked out as good =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


By the way, I'm using a speaker as a filler image for unchosen sounds; I'll probably go back to the blank area like at PotD, but I would like it if there was some easy way to tell PotD from MotD. If anyone has a good idea, say =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Commons images used in Businessweek


Diliff recently posted a message on the English Wikipedia about a number of Commons pictures which appeared on the website of Businessweek, apparently without attribution or a share-alike license. For example:




I think it would be a good idea to inform the original Commons uploaders that their work has been published, so that they can discuss the licensing of their pictures with Businessweek (if they have not already done so).

This is potentially quite a time-consuming task. The Businessweek article comprises 50 pages about US states, so we need to go through and search for each image on Commons. Since most of the images are of major US cities, the easiest way to do it is to search for that city's category on Commons. If a positive match is found, the original uploader needs to be informed and Template:Published needs to be added to the image talk page. I created a page in my user space to assist in informing uploaders. Any help in this task would be much appreciated. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)



I've just sent an e-mail to User:Sswonk, who made the Massachusetts image in the series (#22), who is off Wiki right now.  I also posted a polite note in the comment section of the BW site.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll tick that one off. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that such a major publication ignored the licensing requirements. The Houston Chronicle used my photographs, which 1. were public domain, and 2. were attributed to me anyway. BusinessWeek is capable of the same thing. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Some know more or less how to do it: vanityfair.com. --GaAs11671 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do they credit Magnus Manske's transwiki bot?   -- User:Docu at  10:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


May 4


Making other projects link images directly to Commons, not the local mirror


Guys, as a result of this discussion in Spanish Wikipedia; on which we discuss the benefits -in those projects who disabled local image uploads and choose to solely use Commons for multimedia storage- of bypassing the local mirror of images and link directly to the Commons description page. User Dodo developed a little yet powerful script that does all the dirty work for you. This script can be added to monobook.js (for individual users) or common.js (for global setting) in those projects with disabled local images.
The script is as followed:



function cbCommonsImageLinks() {
  var els = document.getElementsByTagName('A');
  var elsLen = els.length;
  for (i = 0; i < elsLen; i++)
    if (els[i].className == 'image') {
      var href = els[i].getAttribute('href')
      if (href.substring(0, 14) == '/wiki/Archivo:')
        els[i].setAttribute('href', 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:' + href.substring(14) + '?uselang=es');
    }
}

addOnloadHook(cbCommonsImageLinks);



In any individual case, the "/wiki/Archivo:" and "?uselang=es" strings should be modified according to the local language of the considered wiki. I wish to thank Dodo for his time and effort developing this script. Hope you find this script as useful as I do. Cheers, KveD (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



Don't hardcode "Archivo" and uselang=es, use wgFormattedNamespaces and wgUserLanguage. This was already active at the German and the Dutch Wikipedia. Multichill (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see a similar script for wikis such as en.wp which have not disabled local uploads: if the image is on Commons, bypass the local mirror; if the image is on the local wiki, show it there. This would be very useful for people who do categorization work, as the categories are not shown on the mirror. Is it possible? Pruneautalk  10:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood that on en.wp they use the local description page & talk page to put history of featured pictures and may be other things. See en:File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG. --GaAs11671 10:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I created nl:MediaWiki:Gadget-Direct-link-to-Commons.js a couple of weeks ago. I still have to fix it to also properly work with the secure server, but you should be able to just copy it to other Wikipedia's and use it as a gadget (or enable it by default). Multichill (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Rotatebot


The subcategories of these scans include a series of illustrations together with pages of text. Most images look better after rotating them by 90° instead of using the text layout. 

If you want to help, please apply {{rotate|90}} to these images (see Commons:FAQ#How do I fix the orientation of an image? for details). About 100+ were already rotated (see log).   -- User:Docu at  07:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



update: a somewhat quicker way could be to use Commons Commander (CC) to select the images that need rotation and add them to a temporary category (e.g. Category:To do). Another bot can then convert the category to a rotation tag. CC tends to timeout though.


BTW Years after 1890 should be done next time Rotatebot operates.    -- User:Docu at  09:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be easier to contact Rotatebot's operator (Luxo) and ask them to feed that list of images directly to the bot?  That would save two or three completely unnecessary edits per image.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The images still need to be selected in one way or the other. It works fairly well with CC. Simply adding a category "Category:Images requiring rotation by bot (90°)" would be quicker, but the conversion (by bot) to {{rotate|90}} isn't too complicated. Besides, in the meantime, I noticed that some images already have cropped and rotated versions.   -- User:Docu at  13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


You can add also use [[Category:Images requiring rotation by bot|<degree>]] if it is easier this way. --Luxo 14:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Search


А как теперь найти страницы начинающиеся с…--AndreyA (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



Special:PrefixIndex ? --GaAs11671 09:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Оно. Поставьте на страницу поиска эту ссылку, чтоб сюда не лазить.--AndreyA (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Google translation: It. Put it on the search page on the link to here is not to climb.   I suppose it means that it's what you was searching, and that we should put it somewhere it is easier to findM --GaAs11671 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Place (put) it on search page. In the first window it is unessential, but this link will be useful in a search result page. Do you understand my words?  --AndreyA (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand very well. I made that on other wikis years ago, and I should ("should" means: if I can't, someone should apply a coup de pied au cul to me...). I probably don't have the rights to make the necessary modifications on Commons, but I'll try to propose something useful, please just let me some time to think about it. --GaAs11671 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Hard to read your discussion.


If your are really looking for a link to Special:PrefixIndex/Test on Special:Search/Test, then maybe it's worth noting that it's there in the English language version, but probably not in a sufficiently visible way (look at "Other tools"). To change it, maybe we should remove the collapsible table part.


BTW, it's not visible if you use uselang=ru   -- User:Docu at  15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The collapsible table is not very visible if you don't already know it's here.
    • 

  • The collapsible table doesn't exist either in spanish.
    • 

  • In french, the links are to Special:AllPages, not Special:PrefixIndex/


I think there is cleanup to make. --GaAs11671 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Template:Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions


55 files found in "Paintings in the Brooklyn Museum" AND "Works of authors who died less than 70 years ago" are probably tagged only with {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}}. This results of the action by Jaretkbot removing (rightly so) the PD-art tag the files used to be tagged with (see this diff for example). This raises several questions :

1) When do we know a painting has been first published in the United States ? 

1-1) When do we know in which country a painting was first published ? (Is it enough to consider that the painter was a US citizen [or was living in the USA] and the painting is still owned by a US owner nowadays in the XXIst century ? What if the painting was first bought by a wealthy British art collecter and moved to Britain  some time ago and brought to the US again later ?)

1-2) What constitutes publication for a painting (so that we can determine in which year that took place) ? A similar question for sculptures was raised and partially answered at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal.

2) Is {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} a proper permission tag ?

2-1) If the answer is no, should not it be renamed and changed into a simple "source" template, similar to Template:LOC-image, with the compulsory inclusion of the « This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work » wording ?

2-2) Should not the "Remove PD-art for authors who died less than 70 years ago" bot simultaneously tag the pictures with {{No license since}} ?

Teofilo (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



You beat me to it!


1) I use http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm for reference. I wonder if these paintings are published before 1923 if you use their definition.


2) It's a source tag, it should always have an additional license tag


2-1) I already changed the look to make it look like similar templates. If you change the wording please be careful, don't want to piss of the Brooklyn Museum


2-2) See the part about pissing of the Brooklyn Museum. Probably useful to tag all the images with a tracker template and than figure out per images what to do with it.


Multichill (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


The Brooklyn Museum is using an extremely ambiguous copyright information statement about its uploads on Flickr with wording such as "are for personal research and enjoyment" and "it is the policy of the Brooklyn Museum to charge licensing fees for commercial use of these image". I don't know if it is necessary to "piss off" the Brooklyn Museum, but we have to explain them clearly and strongly if necessary that the standards for copyright information on Commons are different and higher than elsewhere. Wikimedia Commons belongs to the kind of websites which provide highly reliable and clearly written copyright information. This is a huge difference with a lot of websites reviewed in this paper : Melanie Schlosser, "Unless Otherwise Indicated: A Survey of Copyright Statements on Digital Library Collections", College and Research Libraries", v.70(4), p. 371-385 (July 2009). See also that picture, uploaded by them on Flickr although they are not able to tell who the (presumably French) sculptor is and a fortiori to certify that he died more than 70 years ago. This kind of picture is not welcome on Wikimedia Commons. And we are not going to be deluded by vague and spin-doctored "no known restriction" statements. Teofilo (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I was under impression that {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} is a license tag, just as {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is. If additional information is known about the image to ensure it is PD  than additional license trags should be added. --Jarekt (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Wrong category names


Hello!

This category with all subcategories were created by the polish speaking User:Marek Banach. Well, I think these categories do make sense, but I the word "built" is wrong. Because buses are vehicles, you have to use something like "Category:Buses manufactured by year". Or am I wrong? Greets and thanks. --80.187.106.33 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



This problem was in discussion Category talk:Buses built in the United Kingdom. Maybe manufactured is better. Marek Banach (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Well you do build them, I think so anyway. They come in various different parts, chassis, body panels, windows etc which all have to be put together, mostly by hand. If the name is a problem then do change it. I only suggested the *Buses built in United Kingdom category to solve a problem at the time. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


In US speech, "manufactured" would be pretentious -- we say cars, boats, ships, are "built" and our dictionaries support it.  It's true that the OED favors the use of "built" only for buildings, but it doesn't rule out its use for other things, as long as they are reasonably complex.  Therefore this is one of those things that will not please both sides of the Atlantic. "Built" is shorter, and, in general, shorter is better, so I vote for leaving the cats as is, and thank you to Marek Banach for creating them.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


I think maybe the words should be reordered to "Buses by year built" or "Buses by build year". That is more like how this kind of categories are usually named "<somethings> by <criterion>". /Ö 09:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Storefront in France question


Would an image of a storefront within a particular building be a free image, or would it be fair use? I am aware that France does not have freedom of panorama. I have an image of the Air France vaccination center in Paris, which takes a storefront of a modern-looking building. Can I upload an image to the Commons if it does not show the building, but only the storefront within the building? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



Hard to answer without seeing it.  As you describe this image, unless there is distinctive decoration on the building, the photo probably wouldn't be copyvio for the building, but that's not to say that it might not have something else that was a problem. Read the second paragraph of this carefully. Then, why not upload it and, if you really want to spark a discussion, hang a {{Delete}} on it yourself and see what happens? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Sounds good - Here is the image: File:AirFranceVacCenter.JPG WhisperToMe (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


National Library of Norway, CC-by on Public Domain images on flickr.


Hello!

I am worried about National Library of Norway's use of the CC-by license offered by flickr, and the impact it have on images on wikimedia. 

I have tried to adress the issue (in norwegian)  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kjetil_r#Nasjonalbibliotekets_cc-by_p.C3.A5_flickr and was sent  here.

The majority of images on http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=National+Library+of+Norway&fulltext=S%C3%B8k is in Public Domain. When wikimedia picks up and accept the present misuse of the CC-by license at flickr it all goes wrong.

They state at the 'profile' tab at: http://www.flickr.com/people/national_library_of_norway/



The documents are free to use, if no other exception is expressed. All images that are uploaded to The National Library of Norway’s photostreamon Flickr are in the public domain because the copyright has expired as to Norwegian copyright law, and/or the copyright belongs to the library and has been wavered.


Please make a clear source reference to The National Library. Please link back when sharing photos on the Internet. Questions regarding high quality reproduction should be directed to the library.




Flickr www.flickr.com/account/prefs/license/?from=privacy  (assume logged in member) offer a user with a basic account the choice between to keep all rights, or to waiver rights trough the use of this:



  • None (All rights reserved)


  • Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
    • 

  • Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
    • 

  • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
    • 

  • Attribution Creative Commons
    • 

  • Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
    • 

  • Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons


The page also states:



You should only license photos you own the copyright on.


The last sentence is important. 

The owner (normally the autor, part of the copyright can be inherited, sold,..) of a copyright to a material have the right to issue a waiver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiver and this is at flickr given as a choice between  some Creative commons licenses.

But. The owner of a copy of a work does not have the copyright to the work. (It can be transfered to, but as a separate item.) and by that no (few) right to copy (private ok) and republish that work. And no right to issue a waiver like a CC-by license on that material.

The owner of a copy of a work (or the original glass negative, and so on) in the public domain does not have the copyright to that material. And no right to issue a waiver like a CC-by license on that material.

When a owner like National Library of Norway ignore that and is issuing a cc-by lisence on material in Public Domain this happens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48220291@N04/4472475957 is picked up and rights transfereded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bjørnstjerne_Bjørnson_og_barnebarnet_Bjørnstjerne_Albert_Bjørnson-Langen,_1900.jpg 



Dato / Date: 1900


Fotograf / Photographer: Gustav Borgen (1865-1929)


Eier / Owner Institution: Nasjonalbiblioteket / National Library of Norway


The information does (IMHO) prove the work to be by large margins in Public domain. Death of autor +70 year, names suggesting norwegian copyright all over, and placed on flickr, whitin US Public domain.

On wikimedia:



Opphavsperson	Nasjonalbiblioteket


Tillatelse (Gjenbruk av denne filen)			Denne filene er lisensiert under Creative Commons Navngivelse 2.0 Generisk-lisensen




That is close to theft. When a owner of a copy of a public domain work uses the position to claim copyright. 

I have on http://www.flickr.com/photos/national_library_of_norway/4545457762/in/photostream/ argued with the National Library of Norway, and pointed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud . They continue to upload images on Flicr under a cc-by license so i have to asume they dont care.

They are violating my rights (and yours and everyones, short: our rights) on this public domain material. As a public state owned library they disapoint me, and seems to develope a policy far off from peers like http://www.abm-utvikling.no/digitalt-abm/europeana-public-domain-charter .

The images is of high value, the cc-by licenses should be ignored. 

What can be done? 

To remove all traces of unsubstantiated CC-by licenses issued  by National Library of Norway on flicr, injected into wikimedia?

To put the National Library of Norway on this list? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests ?



Mvh Vidar Andresen

Andrez1 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



The major problem is that Flickr does not allow users to upload images as being in the public domain. They have made a special exception for works generated by the United States federal government, but even then, some government sources still just use a CC license (or even full "all rights reserved" license) because the US Gov't option isn't readily apparent or available to all of them. Rather than being confrontative with them, you might try suggesting to them to contact Flickr and make available a Public Domain license, as they've done for the US Gov't. Now, there may be other issues going on, but this is not the first time that an organisation has put material on Commons under a Creative Commons tag (or other) simply because that's the only option available. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Long speech about the well known issue of copyfraud. Simple solution: Change the license to PD whereever you're certain. -- 91.115.177.40 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


They are not let into http://www.flickr.com/commons/ , yet. If and when that happens, it will solve the problem. Until then the use of cc-by function act as a kind of ad-ware. It will empty the license for value. What is a batch issued cc-by license applied on a mix of copyrighted by others, by self,  and the rest 2/3 public domain images; worth?


Agree on pragmatic simple solution :  "Change the license to PD whereever you're certain."  But the problems will arrive in large numbers, more than it will be posible to identify and change to PD. I belive that as long as the library and flickr se a win-win situation in the misuse of cc-by licenses they will not change. To use time on solving the problem i se as nothing short of facilitating the misuse of cc-by licenses on Public Domain material.


Mvh Vidar

Andrez1 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Here's the thing...you are acting way too confrontational towards the museum in this situation. Is the CC licensing correct? No. Is there any other option for them at this point? No. Would you prefer they not upload anything to Flickr till a solution is available, or would you prefer they take everything down? Seems like they just wanted to share their holdings, and chose the least-bad solution. Quit condemning them for making their holdings available to the international audience, and try to help them deal with Flickr. As said above, items that are provably in the public domain can be uploaded here with a PD license...just because they put a CC license on Flickr, doesn't mean it is enforceable. If they have mislicensed any non-public-domain works on Flickr as CC, then they will have to deal with that problem. It isn't a good situation, certainly, but it isn't the end of the world. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)







I dont agree on beeing to confrontational towards the library. They are the strong part in this conflict of interest. They are a strong national policy-maker, they have a up to date and industrial grip on what they do best: storing, ordering, (Mo i Rana in short) logistics. An even digitalised 3 decades of norwegian books. Http://bokylla.no (here i am more impressed on use of teknology than how it is delivered to the enduser.)


The culture which grows out of libraries, museums, archives is to often one of ownerships to collections. Which exludes the public. Or parts of the public.  This, and a established business-model where some of the museums\libraries\archives are generating income on  selling scans of the collection. That can be ok.


For some of the material (specially PD material) ownership or job as a guardian of a material and copyright is not the same thing.  If that is confused to generate income, it is at my expense. They might succed in continuing their business-modell on net.


They have both the means and teknology to make this accesible to an international audience. And if they wish to use flickr, thats nice. But not if that implies to putting PD-works under their copyright.


What they should do with the material already there? http://www.flickr.com/photos/national_library_of_norway/4545457762/in/photostream/ "Stop doing that. Even if that implies to delete published images and stop future publishing of public domain material under a basic Flickr account."


Mvh Vidar

Andrez1 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



May 5


HotCat on steroids


Just a pointer to a call for beta-testers for a new implementation of the HotCat gadget.  If you're interested, do give it a try! Lupo 06:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Doubts about a license


This is about File:Ontheroad-Kerouac-(theroll)-4876145.jpg. The first author is Kerouac himself, no? And in this case, this document cannot be published under a free license? What do you think? --GaAs11671 08:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Copyvio -- I just hung a {{Delete}} on it here.  Ordinarily, I might have hung a {{Speedy delete}}, but since it could clearly be used -- the one page -- in the USA on a Fair Use basis, it probably needs discussion here.


If I may make a suggestion, if you have doubts about a file, just put a {{Delete}} tag on it so that it will go through the process. That puts it in the ordinary path for such discussions. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  10:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I feared I was missing something. --GaAs11671 12:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Translating SiteNotice


I translated the SiteNotice to Hebrew. I thought that the right place to put it would be MediaWiki:Sitenotice/he, but after refreshing i still see the English SiteNotice. What have i done wrong? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



I'm not sure I understand everything, but look at MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation. --GaAs11671 12:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  Done, That's exactly what i needed. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

By "understand everything", I was speaking of the page structure of sitenotice, not your own message which was clear.  --GaAs11671 12:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Return of Checkuser rights query


Please see here for the detail.  Input or queries are welcome.  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Linux -- Silly question about the display of "ux"


Silly question -- when I type Linŭ, or anything else with abcdŭ on Commons, it does not display correctly. As shown here, it is correct in section heads, but not in the body text. Does anyone know why? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



May be you are using My Preferences/Gadget/Language support/EoMagicalConversion and it might be its "Esperanto magical conversion". --Jarekt (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much, that is it.  I have no idea how that box got checked, but I don't really need an answer to that. abcdux is OK now. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  13:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch


How to translate Special:UsabilityInitiativePrefSwitch in Finnish? (Now its only partial translated) --Olli (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Main text seems to be MediaWiki:Prefswitch-main. Maybe MediaWiki:Prefswitch-main/fi is missing (or better http://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Prefswitch-main/fi ).   -- User:Docu at  14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Using freely licensed images on clothing


 
Enough room for the credits?


Someone asked me whether it's possible to reuse freely-licensed images from Commons on clothing, bags, etc.

For Public Domain the answer is easy. But what about GFDL and CC-BY-SA? It's weird to require an embroidery artist to put the credit and the license right on the cloth. Would it be OK to distribute a cloth with a piece of paper saying what the license is and who is the author of the work from which the pattern on the cloth is derived? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



For GFDL, you have no other solution, except if you want to make a tee-shirt with the full text of GFDL  . For CC, you just need to write "Image CC-BY-SA by xxx", you certainly can find a place to write it on the tee-shirt, why not on the label inside? --GaAs11671 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that distributing a shirt or a bag with a piece of paper is reasonable, although a bit wasteful :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

But the tee-shirt is a derivative work, do you have to put the whole tee-shirt under CC-BY-SA? --GaAs11671 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. What can you copyright in a t-shirt - the stitches? Maybe a designer dress is copyrightable...


In any case, GFDL is more troublesome, if i understand correctly. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagine a Rolex with a CC-BY-SA image on it, the whole watch being CC-BY-SA, anyone could build and sell copies of it legally just by crediting Rolex  .


Yes for your comment about GFDL. --GaAs11671 16:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Unless you modify the image, I don't think the tee-shirt is a derivative work.  It's simply a copy of the image on an unconventional medium. --Carnildo (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Under U.S. law, clothing designs as such are generally considered to be "functional" or "utilitarian" and so uncopyrightable.  That's why haute couture designers can't prevent cheap knock-off imitations of their designs from being sold.  Of course, this doesn't mean that the copyright owners lose their rights if a copyrighted image is printed on clothing, or the outfit of a legally protected character (such as Batman) is made into a Halloween costume, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)





I've noticed a link to an external website in hundreds of pictures of the user Ralf Roletschek (contributions) which seems to be included solely for getting people to his private website and maybe a better google page ranking. I asked the user to remove the link from his media, his response was negative though. Since in my point of view it casts a damning light on WP as well as on Commons I want to ask how the community dealt so far with advertisements of this kind. Thanks, --Rabenkind (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
After deactivating Adblock I also see, that this is a commercial website. I see here abuse of commons for commercial purposes. --Rabenkind (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



I see no problem with that. The authors can choose how they wish to be credited and if that includes a link to their homepage so be it. --Dschwen (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@rabenkind: ¿Quin problema tens amb mi i per què no parles alemany amb mi? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


I don't have any problem with you, but with the (in my eyes) abuse of this project. And I post that in english in order to reach a broader audience since I already discussed this with you on your discussion page with no result. --Rabenkind (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wie groß muß ich eigentlich en-0 noch schreiben? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


You should definitely be more careful with allegations of abuse of this project. --Dschwen (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything inappropriate about the query.  I didn't read it as Rabenkind being insulting of Ralf Roletschek or bearing any ill will towards him, but rather that (s)he was concerned that commercial links generally are an abuse of the Commons. 
I don`t think there is anything wrong with a link back to a website of the uploader`s photographs, or a website about the uploader.  But the link back to a site on cycling seems odd -- mind you, the Google translation of it is by no means perfect.  Does the site have anything to do with the uploaded photographs and/or the uploader (besides simply being an unrelated site created by him)?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my page, see: http://www.fahrradmonteur.de/impressum.php --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


The query by itself would not be inappropriate, but a) there is a backstory to it, in which it was already attempted to explain why this constitutes no problem, b) he now explicitly calls it an abuse of this project (no more friendly "query" here). Apart from that, the section title is a bit misleading/POVish. The link is in the author/credit line, not the description field of the image - it is on the description page though. --Dschwen (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


@Rabenkind, despite its professional appearance it is a sort bicycle fan/expert website with many useful information and links. But you can buy nothing on it, so calling it a commercial website is a bit misleading. --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Wow, criticism doesn't really seem a very welcomed thing by some users. The reason I believe he does that out of commercial interest is, that on his website one can find google-ads. Therefore he might have an interest that many people visit his page to make money. And the "backstory" is simply that I politely asked why does he put the links on all his pictures - not only the cycling related ones which come form his website. The answer was simply that it's his website. Therefore I asked him to remove it. And I still can't see any advantage for the commons user. I truly have no problem with the user or his pictures and we never had any contact before. It's solely his habit to put the link on every single one of his uploads as it seems. --Rabenkind (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Bitte entschuldige Ralf Roletschek, dass ich das hier auf Englisch vorbringe, ich wollte lediglich eine breitere Nutzerbasis mit meinem Anliegen erreichen. Google-Translations ist dir sicher bekannt - da solltest du auch keine Probleme haben die Texte zu übersetzen.


English:  I can clearly state that I don't like the link. I also don't like the fact that Ralf Roletschek releases his files under GFDL-1.2-only (plus a CC-ND license). I personally think that this is done to hinder the reusability of the files (Ralf Roletschek of course has a different view on it).


But both the attribution line and the license do not conflict with any of our current rules. So this is a moot discussion.


Deutsch:  Ich muss klar sagen, dass ich den Link schlecht finde. Ebenso finde ich es negativ, dass Ralf Roletschek seine Dateien unter GFDL-1.2-only freigibt (verbunden mit einer zusätzlichen CC-ND-Lizenz). Mein persönlicher Eindruck ist, dass damit die Wiederverwendbarkeit der Dateien eingeschränkt werden soll (Ralf Roletschek selber vertritt natürlich eine andere Sicht auf die Sache).


Nichtsdestotrotz verstoßen sowohl Autorenzeile wie auch die Lizenz gegen keine der aktuellen Richtlinien. Diese Diskussion ist also müßig.


--Slomox (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Achja, die Lizenzfrage mal wieder. Spätestens seit der letzten Bundestagswahl, bei der Bilder von Dschwen und Wlady in der ganzen Republik verbreitet wurden bin ich mir sicher, daß ich bei GFDL 1.2 bleiben werde. Bei diesem Bild kann ich es nicht mehr verhindern, daß gewisse Randgruppen es für ihre Ziele benutzen und dranschreiben: "Wählt uns, sonst müssen wir Deutsche..." Ich möchte nicht, daß meine Bilder mit meinem Namen in gewissen politischen Zusammenhängen verwendet werden. Ich habe bisher auf Nachfrage jeglicher (auch kommerzieller) Nutzung zugestimmt. Ich möchte nur wissen, wer was mit meinen Bildern macht. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



Since it was stated that links inside of picture descriptions to commercial websites are not against any rule, but several users expressed that they dislike them - where is the best place to discuss such a rule? In case the majority of users dosn't want them - maybe the rule is simply missing so far. --Rabenkind (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Du kommst daher und willst mir erzählen, was ich mit meinen Bildern zu machen habe? Was ist eigentlich mit deinen zahlreichen Fotos, die du mit der teuren und selbst bezahlten Technik angefertigt hast? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


LivePict


Checking out a picture recently added to an article on it.wiki, I noticed it was licenced CC-BY-SA-3.0 using Template:LivePict.
This template links to livepict.com, a spanish website/gallery, with reference to a "licencia" subpage (at the moment non-existent) which, I suppose, contained all the licence guidelines regarding the pictures. I assume every picture was licenced CC-BY-SA-3.0 and then massively imported to Commons. When I was verifying that pic, I saw at the bottom of the main page "All Pictures Copyrighted © 2006-2009 LIVEPICT.COM" and no trace of the "licencia" page mentioned above. What to do now? --Gliu (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)



It seems that Creative Commons licences were there until a few days ago... --Jaqen (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,


Current pictures: We can keep them: CC licenses are not recovable, so no problem (except if the site weren't the copyright holder).


Future picturs: We should edit the template documentation to note the change and warn user they can't import pics from May 2010. --Dereckson (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It was me who uploaded all the pictures from LivePict as was requested at Commons:Batch uploading/livepict.com. At the moment of upload all content was licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0, but author have changed his mind since then. Maybe it's worth mentioning this in the {{LivePict}} that no additional images can be uploaded using this template from the website but for already released images licenses are not revocable so northing to do about it --Justass (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have added notice to the license text [4] --Justass (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your immediate elucidation and correction. --Gliu (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Adminship revoked without a notice


Hi, I'd like to notify the community about the procedural error regarding my desysopping by an unknown steward in February 2010. I have been actively editing Wikipedia and uploading images here and also did quite a lot of work to localise the Commons for the Slovene-speaking users. However, I was on a pause recently. Today, I wanted to resume my work but have found that I don't possess the rights needed to edit the user interface. The reason for the desysopping was my inactivity per Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2010. The linked page says: "These administrators have received a message on their user talk page on February 17 and have to respond within 30 days or will lose adminship." The COM:DESYSOP says the following: "A notice should be placed on the inactive admin's talk page linking to this policy and explaining that admin rights may be lost. An email should also be sent." I have never received either a notice or an email.[5] "The ex-admin should be notified by a talk page message." As evident from my user talk page history, I have not been notified. Therefore, I consider the correct procedure was not followed here and ask for the reversal of the action, especially as I did good work during my adminship and never abused the tools and am needing the status for my further contribution regarding the Slovene localisation of the project. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)



See meta:Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#Inactive@commonswiki. I wonder if this went wrong for more users. You should be reinstated. Just have to poke a bureaucrat or a steward to fix this. Multichill (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The message was posted see, [6] but the requirement "... and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months." was not fullfilled, as seen in your logs. So the remove of Adminright was done with notice and due to comunity guidelines. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this message was posted in August 2009, not February 2010. At that time I did enough edits to retain the adminship (activity available in the logs and in my contributions list).[7][8] The page Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2010 is from February and says: "These administrators have received a message on their user talk page on February 17 and have to respond within 30 days or will lose adminship." I did not received any message on February 17 nor have later, but only found out today through being unable to perform some actions that I have been revoked of the adminship. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I count 2 admin actions since August 2009, required where 5 in 6 months. So 6 months later the admin status was revoked due to "... and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months.". The Inactivity sections are renewed every 6 months, maybe this second necessity was checked then. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This matter is probably better over at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. I know that there's a policy that requires an admin to make at least 5 actions within half a year, but most people aren't familiar with the exact execution of this policy, since it's a bureaucrat matter. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Test it on translatewiki.net


The extension is now live on translatewiki.net, see for instance [9]. You can test it there if you like. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)



   Works for me. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I got "Error creating thumbnail:" when I tried a thumbnail of a different size then "800px": [[File:Rheinauhafen - Sport- und Olympiamuseum - Sportplatz auf dem Dach (8704) -lzw komprimiert.tif|thumb|100px]] –Krinkletalk 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


April 9


Vector issues


Reading this page, there still seem to be some issues with the new Vector skin. I'd like to summarize them here so we might be able to work on these.



  • There were concerns that the skin settings shouldn't have been changed for registered users.

    • It's certainly not the friendliest thing, but if someone pays you 300K $ to create a new design, then they expect that this new design is also used by people and doesn't become an orphaned one.
    • 

  • There are performance problems when using the enhanced toolbar, which is enabled by default for everyone.

    • Should definitely be fixed ASAP, actually before this was actually implemented.

      • I doubt this can be fixed, the toolbar is already significantly optimized. In the future a new version of jQuery will be used and this will give a few more speed improvements, but I doubt these improvements will do much for the people complaining about this. People with old browsers or old computers will just have to disable the editor themselves. The alternative is not to provide a better editor, but I don't think that is really a realistic option. TheDJ (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Cat-a-lot doesn't appear to work for some people.

    • It worked for me, but of course I can't speak for other people.

    • 

  • The star symbol isn't a good symbol for watching, an eye would or simply the word "watch" would be much better.

    • 

  • The truth of the statistics is questionable.

    • 

  • Accesskeys need more than half a second to load than in Monobook.

    • I can't say, but if it's like this, it should definitely be fixed.

      • Seems unlikely. Accesskeys are properties of links, so all links that are loaded should work directly. Only accesskeys of dynamically added elements (not part of the core software) might be problematic. TheDJ (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • The Interproject font-size is too big for Vector.

    • Fully agreed, this was one thing that annoyed me as well when I already used Vector. Another thing is that the bullets in there simply suck. Vector doesn't use them, so they shouldn't be there.

    • 

  • The buttons are poorly designed.

    • This is pretty much POV. I'm fine with them, but as many people are against anything new, it's common that they're not loved.
    • 

  • The "Nominate for deletion" button no longer works on Vector.

    • I noticed this already when first using Vector. As someone who knows the formatting, I don't mind this, but I really see a problem here. It's really essential for the DR backlog that every 4 edits are saved, otherwise the DRs remain orphaned for months. Should soon be fixed.

    • 

  • There's no more "Gallery" button on contribution pages.

    • 

  •   Thank you. for the fixes that have been made so far. --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


Why is the user menu on Commons different than Wikipedia?


By user menu at the top looks like this:



My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out


while on Wikipedia, it looks like this:



my talk my preferences my watchlist my contributions log out


Why are the "My"'s capitalized at the commons? It looks better at Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)



I suppose you are using new vector skin where letters are capitalized.  One solution would be to switch back to monobook or wait till English Wikipedia moves to vector skin too with all capitalization :) --Justass (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit that this change totally sucks. As a workaround, you might want to copy the following code into your vector.css:


/* Make all of the links lowercase */
div#p-personal li { text-transform: lowercase; }
/* Override the lowercasing for the username */
li#pt-userpage { text-transform: none !important; }



And FYI, this design will soon also be at Wikipedia, Commons is only the wiki to test the skin for any problems before rolling it out on Wikipedia. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Thank you. Now I understand why it's different. I agree with The Evil IP address that it looks bad with the capital letters. That should be changed on the Vector style. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)



We could even change it site-wide via MediaWiki:Vector.js. But I'm not sure if it looks good in other languages, so it might be better to do it solely for the English language. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, care has to be taken here. I.e. for german, using small letters would basically be wrong there (the german localization used to have all small leters, until about a year ago, when this "bug" was fixed). --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually like it lower-cased in German too, but it's indeed not gramatically correct. I've now created MediaWiki:Vector.css/en. If more languages should have this, we should probably write some Javascript instead of filling out a number of vector.css subpages. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


The Special:MyPage/vector.css solution worked for me, but I don't think MediaWiki:Vector.css/en does.   -- User:Docu at  06:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


I see The Evil IP address added a function to MediaWiki:Common.js to load language specific Common.css files and (skin).css files. I am proposing to revert and delete that, since this loads non-exising pages for a lot of people + I can't imagine anything that would have to be in those files ? For one, I use custom Portlet links in that topbar that are now being forced lower case. I think part of the change to Vector is to capitilize more. Look around the skin and compare, it's part of the design. If you believe this is a bad thing and have good reasons for it, go ahead and address it at the Usability Initiative, but unless the Commons-users are different then on other Wiki projects, I think we should not change the skin only on Commons only in English in JavaScript. –Krinkletalk 20:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a new thing, it was used before already, see for example Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Common.js/ or Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Monobook.css/. I only moved it to Common.js to reduce the need of adding this in every single skin. And there's no problem in using a customized skin. If there were one, then there wouldn't be the possibility to adjust the skin design. --The Evil IP address (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


Announcement of language preference


Is it possible to notice the user they can modify the language preference of Commons' interface whenever they visit Commons from non-English Wikimedia site. For example, the first time accessing to Commons by the link ends with ?uselang=zh, show up a message at the top of the page in Chinese (zh) language to say "You can change the interface language of Wikimedia Commons permanantly by modifying the Internationalisation in 'My Preferences' or else the interface may revert to English when you visit another page. 閣下可以到'我的參數設置'的國際化永久改變维基共享资源的界面語言，否則當你下次進入其他頁面時界面語言可能會回复為英文。" This can prevent lot of file upload with problematic file description entry because the user is unfamiliar with English language.-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)



Maybe the language preference should be set "undefined" by default and display English.


If a user visits Commons for the first time with ?uselang= option (autocreating an account here), the preferences could be set directly to that language. It could also use the language preferences from the homewiki.   -- User:Docu at  08:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

  • If you come to Commons through the description page of a file on another Wikimedia site where you are not logged in, you automatically inherit the other site's language (even if you have other preferences on Commons), try zh:File:DengXiaoping.jpg and click on 详细描述).
    • 

  • This language setting is not particular to Commons, you can do the same on every Wikimedia site (and I do it, it is very useful).


--GaAs11671 12:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Commons is different as users come to Commons for files for other wikis.


I suggested an enhancement for the default settings for the user language at Commons at Bugzilla:23335.   -- User:Docu at  07:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"If an account is autocreated at Commons, the language preference for the user should be the one from the homewiki." Good, but why only on Commons? If I have an account auto-created on dz.wp, I would be very pleased that it takes as default language the language of my main account. --GaAs11671 10:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


For other wikis this can be useful, but it might not. E.g. if you contribute to dz.wp, you might want to have the same view of the website as the main contributors of that wiki. To change it for other wikis, I think a more detailed analysis is needed, but for Commons, the answer seems easy.   -- User:Docu at  12:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of to prefer the "original language" rather than you own language on a given wiki is to work on / speak about interface and system messages of this wiki (unlike on Commons, on Wikipedia and others, language setting changes only the interface, never the content). This may be the case for a very very very small minority, but for the vast majority their native language is always the best choice to start. And you always can change back the setting.


In fact in my case it is exactly the opposite of what you say, as Commons is the only wiki where I generally don't use my native language. --GaAs11671 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


global preferences


Encountering the same problem as sameboat mentioned above I came to the question why there aren't any "global preferences" you might want to set. At least ... the registered email-address is copied automatically to any new created local account once SUL is activated ... why just the email-address and not the whole set of settings? Favourite language, signature, etc. ...? axpdeHello! 15:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)



Uploader-requested deletions


File:Dutchess County Route 9.jpg is an image I uploaded about two years ago, before I was familiar with Commons' quality. It's a poor-quality image and only barely falls into project scope, if at all. In the past I've just deleted my own images that are unused, poor-quality or duplicates, but I just want to make sure that's alright with everybody before I continue to do so. Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)



You should be very careful. Uploader request should only used when someone makes an mistake. As for poor quality, see Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality. Exact duplicates can of course be deleted just don't forget to replace all usage. We have these rules to protect Commons against it's admins. Multichill (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if the image in question is of low-quality and inferior to other files? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests (from here) seems pretty clear to me. Multichill (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have some of these from when I first started, too (I was just learning to use a digital camera). Don't sweat it: there is no harm in keeping them here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Fine; I've restored a couple that I probably should have been more careful with. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


  •   Comment: You know, uploader request deletions are often a problematic thing. I can understand the desire to remove pictures from here, but if they're in scope, we should be careful with deletions. In a perfect world, someone would propose it for speedy deletion and an admin would apply common sense, check if it's better to delete it or not, and then act accordingly. As it's not like that, we probably have to go to deletion requests in order to make sure we don't lose too many acceptable images. I'd like to see a better system, but I must honestly admit that I have no idea how it could look like. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)




Changing filename


Is it possible? File:Embassy of East Timor - Washington, D.C..jpg is actually the Embassy of Cape Verde, per page 6, and you can see the flag of Cape Verde, rather than East Timor. Thanks, Grsz11 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)



I've requested a rename for the file. Pretty straightforward evidence. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Rename to File:Embassy of Cape Verde - Washington, D.C.jpg   Done.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Would you delete the redirect too?   -- User:Docu at  07:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Oops,   Done.  Should've checked the box to suppress it to begin with.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


May 1


Theora thumbnails


I just got a Flip Video MinoHD. I recorded a couple of sample video clips, and then converted them from H.264/MP4 to Theora using ffmpeg2theora. The videos are uploaded as File:Foosball.ogv and File:Coffee machine.ogv. The videos work reasonably well, but how do I get proper thumbnails? Kjetil_r 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)



Thumbnailing for theora/ogg is temporarily broken. The developers have to deploy a fix and it is rather up in debate still. Also somewhat complicated by the whole vulcano thing that has thrown a wrench into operations. TheDJ (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so should I avoid uploading videos until this is fixed? --Kjetil_r 13:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, when it is fixed, just purge the image description page and the problem should be resolved. TheDJ (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Weird, thumbnailing seems to work well for File:E18-Lysaker (01).ogv and File:E18-Lysaker (02).ogv. These clips were also created in ffmpeg2theora (v. 0.24 on my home ubuntu box, unlike File:Foosball.ogv and File:Coffee machine.ogv which were created on my office WinXP computer using v. 0.26). Does the broken thumbnail problem only apply to files created in WinXP, or is it ffmpeg2theora v.0.26 which is to blame? --Kjetil_r 17:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither, it is a bug in the scaling software. TheDJ (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


I have also found good thumbnails from Theora videos encoded with ffmpeg2theora version 0.24. Version 0.25 always yields garbled or empty thumbnails. From now on I will be using 0.24 as a workaround, until the bug is fixed. Version 0.23 also might work. For reference, the bug is bugzilla:23160, see also Help talk:Converting video#Video thumbnail error and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Apr#Video thumbnails corrupt since 9 April. -84user (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The version of ffmpeg2theora itself isn't relevant.  It just happens that your ffmpeg2theora 0.24 binary is linked against a version of libtheora which is not happening to trigger the bug in the software at Wikimedia. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Tim Starling has fixed it now and it seems to work well for new files. But I do not really understand the way to repair the older broken thumbnails...--Pristurus (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have purged as many of the movies that I could find. Only a few are giving me problems:



TheDJ (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Tim Starling and the others that helped fix this bug. I made some derivatives of the first two videos above.



With oggz-tools version 0.9.9 I had first tried to rip and then re-merge the theora and vorbis channels into File:Kbm telemark carving apex1 remerged.ogv but that also failed to produce a thumbnail. -84user (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See also tim's analysis here: bugzilla:23402 TheDJ (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Internationalization of images themselves


Hi, I have an image with some text description inside and would like to publish it in different language versions but not as different submissions. What is the recommended way for this? -- Trilarion (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)



Create separate images with the text in different languages, and upload them separately. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Okay, this would be as if they have not much in common. Is it possible to have different versions of one file corresponding to different languages? How can one access them conveniently in an article? I would prefer if these files could be kept together as much as possible, so for others who want to translate them further, its easier. On the other hand, if there is no such solution I will upload them with name extension -en, -fr, -... -- Trilarion (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest something like this File:Anaximander world map-de.svg --Schlurcher (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was going to suggest something like that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


In principle, the svg specification supports a language switch. But a) I do not know if any browser supports it, and b) the user is served png files on the wikipedia pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so there is just no way to group images by same content (only different language) on one page. This might be a good case for interface improvement of the wikimedia commons software. I would love it. Just would have to make it more general (tag versions). -- Lexic 4712 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For text, there is {{Multilingual description}}. It is useful in descriptions of categories, it probably also works in image descriptions. Maybe it can even be a wrapper around images. So one might be able to make a gallery page that automatically chooses the image in the right language. I will try something this evening (unless someone else manages to try this first). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I made the page Anaximander world map. It is not a good solution, because all images get downloaded first. Only after that, one language is selected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Images of Signatures and BLP concerns


What do people think about us hosting images of living individual's signatures? Could these not be used in forgery and identity theft? What if we got a BLP complaint from someone concerned that their signature is now freely available on the internet? Should we reconsider hosting signatures of living people? Should we deleted only on request? Should we tell those contacting us concerned about their privacy that it isn't our concern or problem? Where is the line? Looking for additional input, and seeing where the community stands on this. Thanks! -Andrew c (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)



How many do we have? --Jarekt (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through Category:Signatures, I'd very loosely estimate a couple dozen. -Andrew c (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a privacy/identity theft concern. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here would be my proposal. Signatures of living people sourced to the individual, or a closely associated organization (such as File:Michael_Steele_signature.jpg and File:Tony Blair signature.svg (*UK law may allow for copyright of signatures so this may not be ok for that reason) and File:Joe Biden signature (blue).gif (*assuming source pans out, it is "Server not found" now) while signatures sourced to autographs and personal correspondences not made otherwise public would not be ok (maybe something like File:Gordon Brown signature.svg or File:FirmaLacalle.jpg or File:Bobby Flay Autograph.svg or File:Anwar Masood's Autograph.JPG). Does that distinction make sense? -Andrew c (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say it depends a bit on the situation. Signatures of famous persons, say Bill Clinton, Angela Merkel or Arnold Schwarzenegger to show some examples from Category:PD signature, should be kept because they clearly meet our scope and there are also no copyright issues. In other cases, I would count this as a valid argument for a DR and might even recommend a deletion then. But I dont support a mass deletion. It might be that they can be abused, but hardly anyone out there would do something like this, and in such a case the abuser should be punished, not those that properly use the signatures. Otherwise, we could go with the same argument for the deletion of company logos and similar stuff, too. --The Evil IP address (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see no conceivable use for signature images here. At least company logos (that are PD here or fair use on enwiki etc.) serve to help identify a company. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree Collecting Autographs is a popular hobby and our collection could be useful as a reference or to illustrate more in-depth articles about it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't use company logos to sign forged checks or open up fake credit card accounts or steal personal identities (or logos aren't really used for identity verification, and don't affect an individual person in the same manner). Due to the anonymity of the requester, I can't get into specifics yet, but we have had someone raise a BLP concern and ask for deletion of their signature which we are hosting. I am quite sympathetic, but told them I wanted to feel out the community on this, and perhaps maybe take it to DR instead of speedying it, but I'm also concerned the longer we host it publicly, the more possible (or speculative) damage it could cause. This isn't a case where it is a government official who has their signature posted on their official website on signed letters and stuff like that. It's an autograph sort of situation. I'm almost compelled to comply. Is there any clear argument why we should keep such an image when at the very least the subject hasn't made it public and asked for deletion?-Andrew c (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Signatures are not copyrightable in the U.S., so by normal policy we would keep them.  They are particularly heavily used for politicians, etc., so I wouldn't support deletion of signatures of living people as a general rule.  You can most certainly violate trademarks etc. with company logos, commit fraud with them (or government insignia), etc. (think forged letterheads or company checks).  You could also make the argument that having a known good signature available here makes it easier to identify forgeries elsewhere.  That all said, if somebody thinks they could come to further harm from having their own signature here, I would support deletion in those on-request cases.  So no, I can't think of a good reason to keep in this particular situation, from the sounds of it.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for everyone's input so far. Hopefully I'm not going to far in deleting the one image in question, and perhaps we can discuss general policy further if necessary. -Andrew c (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)



Yeah, i agree with Carl above. In this case I would support it, but for politians et cetera I would think that we should keep them on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Just some thoughts here.  Copyright is an interesting question but not the most important one in this context.  I think the BLP issues are much greater.  I liked the idea of... if there is a public source for it, that seems different from private correspondence or autographs.  Like many BLP issues, the relative notability of the person is certainly relevant to some extent although difficult to include in deliberations in a consistent way.  That is to say, the signature of Bill Clinton or Pete Rose is not likely to allow anyone to successfully harm them through identity theft, but the signature of a notable but non-celebrity scientist could be quite handy for a criminal or abusive person.  I think that "on request" is a decent rule but I hope we could go a bit further, on the theory that many people with their signatures here might be surprised to know it.  I was.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)



Sorry for this case. We even talked there about possibilities of abuse and assumed that nobody would use his official signature for quasi public autographs. Nevertheless, in case of doubts and/or individual request those pics should of course be deleted. Jimbo, could you please check out these three other ones with your signature: File:Free Travel Shirt Abschlussevent DSCF8063.JPG, File:Free Travel Shirt Abschlussevent DSCF8074.JPG, File:Free Travel Shirt Unterschriften DSCF8076.JPG. Thanks and sorry again. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Andrew c: Not that I want to force you to tell it to us, but would there be a way to tell us which image was asked for removal? I think that this would make discussing much easier, since I (and others probably too) don't really know what exactly is the topic (besides signatures in general). @Stifle: They're clearly useful. Just see the Barack Obama article on Wikipedia where the signature image is used within the infobox. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It was one of my photos - from the shirt serie I mentioned above - with "Wikipedia" and one autograph singled out. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


It's easy to forge signatures. Signatures have almost no value as a means of security. It's like e-mail, anybody can forge the "from" line. And whenever I signed a document I have never seen anybody comparing it to previous signatures. If anybody wanted to make sure that I am who I claimed to be they would ask for an ID or something similar.


If a publicly known signature would be a security risk it would generally be a security risk to sign letters.


It's comparable to a moral panic, a "security panic". Wit Google StreetView some people have argued that it's bad cause it could be abused by pedophiles who could search for potental victims and study their homes online. This criticism of course is nonsense cause the hard part is not "finding" a child (there are millions out there, just go to the street and grab one). The hard part is not being catched _after_ you "found" the child. Just the same with signatures. The thing that stops people from forging signatures is not that it's hard to find a specimen of the signature. It's the fact that it's illegal and doesn't work well as soon as somebody finds out that the supposed signer of a document does not approve of the document's message. --Slomox (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


"You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license."


I have tried filling the Original source buffer with many variants of what I have read here:



  • PD-self (with double brackets)
    • 

  • Own work
    • 

  • Own work, PD-self (with double brackets)
    • 

  • Own work, no copywrite (Public domain)
    • 

  • etc, etc, etc


Could someone please show me the correct way to fill the Original source buffer??
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabd sound (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Please, when you leave such messages : 1) sign your message, 2) tell us precisely what you're talking about ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "original source buffer", and what were you trying to do when you saw the message referred to in the section title? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Please forgive me for not being clearer.  I am trying to upload a scan of a photo I took years ago to Commons for an article I wrote in Wikipedia.  One of the fields that must be filled out during the "Upload your own work" process is called "Original source".  No matter what I type into that field (examples in my original post), I receive the error, "You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license."  Thanks for your patience with a complete newbie. -- Shabd sound



Use "{{Own}}" for source field and your name or username in the author field, but I suspect the error is due to lack of license which you will likely have to pick from a pull down list. Let us know if it worked. By the way sign your messages with  --~~~~ or by pressing "signature button" on your toolbar above edit window. --Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


It worked!  Thank you so much!!--Shabd sound (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



How can we prove that a law doesn't exist ?!


Hi everyone. When {{FOP-unknown}} was applied to File:Metro Tachkent MM.jpg I tried to look for informations about FoP in Uzbekistan. I asked a French-Canadian WP user with Uzbek origins to help me and he told me that there is very probably no such law that could say this is forbidden or authorized. Therefore, if there's no law forbidding it, FoP is logically authorized. But how can we prove/source the non-existence of a law ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



  • Law exists (Article 28) and Uzbekistan is already listed in COM:FOP. Only non-commercial freedom of panorama and only in the cases when the showing of the work not constitutes the main purpose of the reproduction, as in most of Ex-USSR. Trycatch (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


  • FOP stuff is generally an *exception* to derivative-rights clauses in copyright law; if the normal derivative rights clause is there, and there is no stated exception... we generally presume such photos are not OK.  Always a thorny issue, but cases have played out that way in a few countries I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree. The general rule is that derivatives of a copyrighted work such as a statue are generally not permitted without permission of the copyright owner. Freedom of panorama operates as a special exception to this rule for artworks, etc., that are permanently installed in public places. Therefore, without such a rule, the derivative works cannot be used on the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Portuguese speaker needed for discussion of someone's uploads


Hi.  Are there any Portuguese speakers available to assist at User talk:Deiwyd#Arbritariedade?  I have marked many of his uploads for deletion since they do not have appropriate sources, and he is protesting in Portuguese.  I have responded there in English.  Thank you.  Wknight94 talk 12:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Try User:Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.  Wknight94 talk 13:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Langswitch


How do I use LangSwitch while incorporating a language without a langauge code? Marshallese, Hmong, and Chuukese are among those without language codes (to my knowledge) and I want to use langswitch with those languages.

Since I do not believe it is possible to set your browser to view Commons with that language, maybe have the languages without codes displayed in addition to the code used by the user's browser? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



The codes are mh, chk, and hmn. I added the codes to {{LangSwitch}} and {{Language/en}}. Test: "use uselang to see the other languages".


But this only works for Marshallese. That's the only language with an existing Wikimedia project. Chuukese and Hmong are not present in Mediawiki's language tables and thus it cannot be chosen via the preferences or the uselang parameter. --Slomox (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know Marshallese had a Wikimedia project. Thank you for creating the codes! Hopefully in the future Hmong and Chuukese will get them too! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


edit conflict: The template {{LangSwitch}} is used to adapt texts to the language set in the preferences, so languages that cannot be chosen in the preferences don't need to be present in the LangSwitch. On which page do you want to use it? Perhaps I can come up with a solution if I know the problematic page. --Slomox (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I put them on Category:Hawai'i Department of Education - Even though it is not possible that Chuukese cannot be chosen, I still put it in the langswitch template so that when it is available, there will be little difficulty in choosing it. In addition I put Chuukese outside of the template because it is not selectable yet. - While Hmong is not included in the Hawaii category, it is present in several categories related to the State of Minnesota, so in case I have to use Langswitch there it will be helpful to be able to eventually have Hmong as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Spam


I notice that Commons:Spam does not exist. I think we need to define what "Spam" is. Should we use the definition of "spam" on the English Wikipedia? (See en:Wikipedia:Spam) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)



Does Commons see enough spam to need a definition of what it is, or is common sense sufficient? --Carnildo (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that a user referred to "Canvassing" (which I consider to be appropriate canvassing) as "Spam" on my talk pages, then yes, I do think that. In any event it is not difficult to simply adopt what the English Wikipedia says is Spam as the definition. In regards to Canvassing, I also posted a request below about defining canvassing. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons lacks a lot of "strict" definitions like enwiki has. I think people make up for that by using common sense. I mean, we haven't needed to have a project page on spam in how many years that Commons has been a project? :-) Killiondude (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's understandable since Commons has had far less activity than, say the English Wikipedia. Commons has been a project for awhile, but it also is not as busy or trafficked so far fewer disputes have arisen. However I want to be able to say "this is what spam is" or "this is called canvassing" and be able to point to a project page on the commons (so people can't use a "this isn't wikipedia" excuse) as ironclad proof. If you are wondering, the other user who I was in a dispute with is a sysop on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


--unindent--

It seems to me this thread is confusing "spam" and "canvassing", at least as the English Wikipedia defines them.



  • Spam -- External links, references to books, or even articles whose primary purpose is to advertise the subject of the link or article.
    • 

  • Canvassing -- Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians to inform them about a community discussion. Canvassing itself is not necessarily bad, if limited and neutral.


I do a fair amount of New Page Patrol on galleries and I would guess that once a day something appears that falls into the en: definition of spam.  I tag it {{speedy delete| out of scope - spam}} and it gets deleted. I suppose it might be nice to have a policy page to point to, but they've all (if I remember correctly) been IP or new users and there's been no pushback. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)



  • The user who was in a dispute with me was the one who was confusing "Spam" and "Canvassing" (if you would like, read the entries at User_talk:WhisperToMe#Please_stop_spamming_Commons:Forum and User_talk:H-stt#Air_France_447) - that is why I want Commons to have its own entries on those. I was the one saying "this is not spam" - Since my messages were only posted to one place, I would also say that whatever "canvassing" was there was appropriate. BTW when I pointed to the Wikipedia guideline entry about spam he said "because the internal definition of the enWP in their Wikipedia name space is of no relevancy at Commons." WhisperToMe (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


  Support the enwp version of spam guidelines being implemented here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)



But they are two entirely different projects. Enwiki's spam guidelines can't possibly apply to Commons. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is physically possible to place "sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website" in an image description or a Commons page with links to many images. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


  •   Comment: I don't know if Commons really needs its own guideline for this. It's clear that we don't like spamming, but to be realistic, it doesn't happen too often, which is pretty obvious after further thinking. Commons simply isn't that famous and known as Wikipedia is. An external link within an important article will highly increase their visitor count. Commons is a project that a high number of those spammers don't even know and external links here don't increase their traffic that much. To show one example, one abuse filter was copied about one year ago from en.wikipedia that deals with link spamming, but the last time I checked it, it hadn't got any hit so far. This is one advantage of not being as famous as Wikipedia is. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)



          • w:WP:Spam discusses primarily Wikipedia articles. Commons has no such articles. It can't be of much use here.   -- User:Docu at  11:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

            • Firstly I explained that it is possible to place spam on the Commons in the general manner described in the English Wikipedia document. People can make image descriptions, category descriptions, or "page" descriptions that are advertising or promotional in manner. People can also insert spam external links.
              • 

            • But the issue is because a user is inappropriately labeling a set of actions of mine as "Spam," and when I pointed him to definitions of "spam" on the English Wikipedia and "canvassing" on the English Wikipedia he said that they do not apply on the Commons. Commons may not have needed a definition of "spam," but it does now.
              • 

            • Inappropriately labeling people as "spammers" and actions as "spam" makes discussions inflammatory. People on here need to use proper terminology. I told the user, User:H-stt, to stop referring to my action (re-posting an ongoing, long translation request on one page, Commons:Forum, after repeated archiving by archive bots) as spam. He has refused to do so. He was the only user to complain about my re-posting of the long request (the items in the request decreased as time passed, as more and more were translated, so it was an on-going request) - Commons:Forum had no rule saying that such requests were prohibited, and the user made no attempt to have a message inserted in the Forum talk header to try to redirect long, repeated translation requests to another place. At the time Commons:Forum was the best place for long, repeated requests.
              • 

            • My request is there to make Commons users use proper, respectful terminology and to understand via the Wikipedia Canvassing page when canvassing is appropriate or not appropriate, and to be cautious when referring to "spam"
              • 

            • WhisperToMe (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

              • One can call your actions "spam", there's no problem in this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

                • He was the only person to do so, and no other people in the community said "We don't want to do these" or "We have seen them enough, stop posting them" - There was no way to keep outstanding translation requests on the page without the bot archiving them. -- If multiple people said "yeah, I agree it is spam" that would be one thing, but he was the only one to do so. As a matter of fact, I'll go back in the edit history and show you the diffs involved.
                  • 

                • Also you might want to see the initial messages posted: 1 and 2 (with the message "do you even notice what you are doing, spammer! Stop this crap immediately, revert your spam and never do it again. ")
                  • 

                • WhisperToMe (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


  • After some searching I found that you are probably referring to the work lists you posted to the (German language) forum, e.g. here. Even if you import the definition from WP, you can't avoid that users of a specific forum consider your posts spam (or even add this to a Commons definition of spam). 
    Personally, I don't see an overwhelming need that File:Air France Flight 447 path-it.svg (the Italian version of graphic available in several languages) would have an additional description in German nor why you would posted three times about it in the (German language) forum.    -- User:Docu at  13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


1. The reason that image needed German is the same reason why every image in that category needed German - there were a lot of passengers on the plane involved were from Germany. Air France and the French Bureau of Aviation Accident Inquiry and Analysis posted official communications about the incident in German. Therefore German is a language important to the said subject (the other three are English, French, and Portuguese). Because of that every image and page in that category needed a German description.


2. The only reason why I had to post those messages multiple times is because the bots automatically archive. There is no way (that I know of) to prevent the bots from archiving a (still) outstanding request (such as a request involving an entire category). I wanted the request to remain until it was finished. Each time I re-posted the request list, a few items at a time were done. If the bots did not automatically archive the request list, I would not have re-posted it like I would have. If it had been manually removed I would have made a talk page message to that particular user. But we are talking about a bot, so I simply re-posted the same message (minus any completed entries). -- If any images that had still not been completed had been reposted x number of times, it is because nobody had gotten to it yet.


3. "you can't avoid that users of a specific forum consider your posts spam" - As I have said before, it was one user who messaged me on my talk page - No other users posted messages saying that on the Forum page itself, nor did anyone else specifically message me saying that. The fact that a few individual requests were completed at a time sent a very different message, that the posts were okay. Therefore it is not the forum that considered the messages "spam" - it was that one user.


WhisperToMe (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Just for the record: As Commons is an international project beyond languages and cultures, it is totally unacceptable to make enWP guidelines automagically apply here. Why are enWP guidelines considered superior to those of faWP or jpWS? --h-stt !? 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I suggested English is because English is the "standard" or "default" language of Commons (after all category names must be in English) - if any language would be the "default" or "standard" it would be English. I do not believe that this concept contradicts the international mission of the Commons (as we seek to have everything from image descriptions to policy pages to templates translated in a plethora of languages). I did not anticipate that another language Wikipedia would have radically different concepts regarding, say, Canvassing or Spam.


If this is the case, then all language version policies should be compared, and then Commons can choose which one is the best for its mission, or it can combine any parts of different language policies.


How would culture factor into choosing which language Wikipedia policy is the best to be adapted to the Commons? From my understanding it mainly has to do with difference in opinion in how to handle copyrighted images (Commons does not accept unfree images, and this is a cornerstone rule of the Commons, so that is a moot point) and differences in local laws (The Japanese Wikipedia requires articles to comply with Japanese law)


It brings another point to mind - What if, say, two language versions of the same policy or guideline on the Commons, even if they are written to convey exact the same meaning, somehow conflict? If it is impossible to modify one to be in line with the ones, one could have a statement saying "If there is a conflict between the English and any non-English version of a written guideline or policy, the intent of the English version prevails" or something like that. I see that all the time with policies and guidelines related to courtesy translations of material (I.E. something like "if there is a conflict, the Japanese version is authoritative" is seen on Japan Rail documents, etc)


WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too interested in reading walls of text, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you wanna start enforcing enwiki policy and stuff on Commons. To be quite blunt, lots of other wikimedia projects try to not be like enwiki in many avenues (outside of producing so much content, enwiki isn't always the best project). We usually take things on a case by case basis here if we don't have a strict policy about it. Killiondude (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to be more concise, what I said above is that if other Wikis have differing policies on a certain subject, Commons could consider all of the different versions and pick the one best for that project. I never said that EN policy is always the best every time. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Spam can't be defined. Spam is saying the same thing too often at the wrong place. Those "same thing", "too often" and "wrong place" are hard to define. It doesn't matter whether you talk about viagra, v1agra, Viagra, V1agra (&c.), it stays (almost) the same (unless you talk about ВІАГра, of course). One can talk often about viagra in a mailing list about erectile problems, but I should probably stop talking it in Commons:Village pump now. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Foolish newbie question.


If there are images on wikipedia, that I wish were on commons instead.  What is the best way to go about requesting them to be imported? Thenub314 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



You can do this yourself by taking the following steps:

  1. First, make sure that the English Wikipedia images have been properly licensed under a suitably free licence. Commons will accept images that have been released into the public domain by the copyright owners, or those licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) or Attribution ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) licence.
    2. 

  2. Next, if you want to do the transfer yourself, apply for a TUSC password here.
    3. 

  3. Finally, use the CommonsHelper tool to transfer the image from Wikipedia over to the Commons. You will need to type your TUSC user ID and password into the online form.
    4. 

  4. Edit each image description page to make sure that the information about the image is correct, and categorize the image.


If this too fiddly for you, or you need assistance with any of the above stages, leaving a message here with a link to the file on Wikipedia will suffice. Some helpful editor will come along and lend a hand. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent.  It is working well.  Thank you. Thenub314 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that once you have transferred the image to the Commons, you can tag the image at English Wikipedia with {{Now Commons}} so that it can be deleted. This can be done by clicking on a link at the results page generated by CommonsHelper once the image has been successfully transferred. Also, if you have changed the file name at the Commons, update all articles at English Wikipedia or elsewhere with the new file name. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Silly warning of the vector skin


Can you please disable this warning "Leaving this page may cause you to lose any changes you have made. If you are logged in, you can disable this warning in the "Editing" section of your preferences." by default? This is at the most a problem of buggy web browsers. It is maddening to have to click "OK" again and again and again. The coercion to log in every time is no solution. --91.32.62.202 10:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Yes, when you are logged in, you go into you preferences > editing > uncheck "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes". Dodoïste (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"The coercion to log in every time is no solution" Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


HELP - upload from Commons to Wikipedia


Could anyone advise me on how to upload an article I've created and edited in the Wikipedia Commons onto Wikipedia itself.

I've only been able to save the page in the Sandbox, but I wish to make it a viewable article on Wikipedia now.

thanks



If you would sign this, so we could see who you are, it would be a lot easier for someone to help you.


You need an account on Wikipedia to start an article there. Do you have one?


Assuming that you are the only person who has made substantive edits to your draft on Commons, so the work is entirely yours and there is no particular reason to record other contributors in the history, you should simply be able to "create" a new (blank) article at the appropriate title on Wikipedia and copy-paste the wiki source text you have created on Commons to that page. That's all there is to it. -  Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)







Question about images e-mailed to me


Hi! I had filed a photo request for the TAP Airlines headquarters. pt:Usuário:Rbsmr on the Portuguese Wikipedia said he would try to photograph the building. He e-mailed me a few shots he had taken, but said that he felt they weren't good enough and said he would try again later. His last edit on PT was on March 2010. I had e-mailed him and posted on his talk page, asking if I should upload the images, but there have been no replies.

Should I upload the images he e-mailed me to the Commons myself? I would obviously credit him. Should I assume that he wanted GNU/GDFL/CC?
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



What exactly did you say about the potential future use of the images in your e-mail conversation with him? (I'm guessing you did not discuss how the images should be licensed.) If you merely talked about the images being used "on Wikipedia" and not "for any purposes" (including modification and commercial use), then this is a problem. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


[Edit conflict] Maybe another way of looking at the issue is that since you requested that the photographs be taken by Rbsmr, it was implied in the arrangement that the copyright in the photographs should be owned by you, in which case you are entitled to license the photographs to the Commons. However, I am not sure whether this analysis is sound because you presumably did not pay Rbsmr for the photographs. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment on this. Also, to avoid such problems in future, it might be a good idea to state clearly on the photo request page that the copyright in requested photographs belongs to the requester (or that by agreeing to an assignment, the photographer confirms that he or she releases the photographs into the public domain and/or under a CC or GFDL licence). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


I intended to use the images to display the corporate headquarters of TAP Portugal in its Wikipedia article. Portugal has Freedom of Panorama, so the images were intended to be freely licensed. - His first post regarding this was at pt:Discussão:TAP_Portugal - Other stuff is at pt:Usuário_Discussão:Rbsmr#TAP_photo - He first responded to a Wikipedia article talk page photograph request, meaning it was to fulfill a request for an image to be used in the Wikipedia article. His first edit to the Portuguese Wikipedia was in 2006. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


I had no intention of owning the copyright of any of the photos he took; I did not pay him to take any photos. The idea that I had was that the photographer would put a free license on the photo, and that it would be posted with the intention of it being used in a Wikipedia article. This happened in the cases of all of the photo requests that I made on the Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Was the photographer made aware that he cannot restrict the photograph's usage only for Wikipedia? That a license allows anybody to use his images for almost any purpose, including commercial purposes?--141.84.69.20 22:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

He himself had been a Wikipedia user since 2006, and he was fairly active until recently. I would imagine that he would have understood that. What I could do is see what other photos he uploaded. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then. Still, you cannot assume what he would say and what licence he would choose. You'll have to wait for something solid from him.--141.84.69.20 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)







Sexual content


Slashdot: "Wales Supports Purging Porn From Wikipedia"


Having read the issues, my conclusion is:



  • Having any single individual dictate content policies might be a bad idea in general.







The Actual Policy Debate


Any content that is illegal is, of course, destined for deletion.  This line is decided by lawyer types, and I think there's a strong consensus to trust the Foundation lawyers on legal questions. Thus, the only question is how we handle content that is entirely legal to us to host-- that is, non-obscene, free-licensed or public domain information.

The opinions on where to draw that line will be varied, but it's something to consider very seriously.   Not Censored is very important at one end of the spectrum, but at the other end, I don't suppose commons has the resources to be an image host for every image on the internet, so some sort of criteria is required.  

But all and all, nothing too crazy about the overall issue.   I can see why some people are hesitant at the idea of "too much" pornography hosted by Wikimedia, and I can see why some people are hesitant about policy changes that would result in the deletion of useful content.  

In short, setting these standards is going to be work, but Wikimedia has faced far larger hurdles than this, and I'm sure in time, this will all get sorted out through the usual mechanisms.  So why all the heat?



Benevolent Dictatorship


But the real source of heat here is, I think, actually the Benevolent Dictatorship itself.   A lot of people didn't like the decision that was made.   A lot of other people may bristle at the fact that ANY decision was made outside of the normal policy formation process.  

The way I see is that if you keep a benevolent dictator around the house, you shouldn't get too upset when he starts dictating.   

So, when a problem arises, we fire up the Jimbo signal, and we wind up seeing see some classic benevolent dictator behavior:



  • Rewriting policy page and declaring it policy
    • 

  • Statements such as-- "The Foundation will be doing x,y,z, no point in arguing about it"
    • 

  • Encouraging speedy deletes without discussion
    • 

  • Pretty harsh threats to that admins, all and all
    • 

  • Declarations like ... "At least some of the things that may be done in public will not be within the scope of commons".   (Emphasis is mine )


And there's the rub.   I think a lot of people get quite grumpy about being part of a community that depends on equal cooperation, only to have a single individual to dictate the answer for the entire community.   A dictated policy is bound to have a somewhat inflammatory act-- far more so if the edict is controversial. 

And yet, Jimbo is the certainly adorable puppy that nobody, myself included, can long stay mad at.   I don't think he was at his best in the handling of this particular issue, but I know over the long haul he's done better at his job than I ever could have.    

In the end, I think Jimbo's getting the rotten end of the deal.   We don't know where the dicatorship begins and ends, we don't know how much he speaks for the Foundation and how much he doesn't.   We don't know if he could ever get elected to EN:Wiki's arbcom or pass a RFA, and we don't know what his status is on other projects or commons.   Is his word law, or suggestion?   In a inter-admin dispute, does he automatically win, or only when he really wants to?    Is it kosher for him to dictate Commons policy on his own authority, or does he need to achieve a consensus first?   Does he need to go to the board first before making policy shifts, or does he make them on his own?     Is his role "by consensus" or "by founderhood"?   Where does Jimbo begin and end, how powerful is he allowed to be?

We don't know.   We've never really decided most of that, have we?  We've just sort of made it up as we went along, like the rest of Wikimedia. 

And of course-- and this is critical-- we have to remember that Jimbo's just making it up as he goes along too.   If he oversteps his bounds, that's just because nobody's explained to him where his bounds are.   The dividing line between what he can do and what he can't is defined not by constitution or consensus, but rather by the rule that he is allowed to do "whatever he can get away with"-- and where that line will fall isn't clear to anyone, not even him, until after the fact.



Clarify or Abolish The Monarchy!


We've got a dictator, Jimbo volunteered and has donated his time and energy to fulfilling that office.  He's served admirably, but I think the benevolent dictatorship, as an institution, might well be more trouble than it's worth.   

Wikimedia is too huge for any one individual to have too much control, no matter how well intentioned.   To set up a dictatorship is, literally, to invite one individual to singlehandedly make decisions that truly do affect so many lives.    

And as long as that job description exists, whoever sits in the seat will, inevitably, make some really bad decisions, offend a lot of people, step on toes in explaining to the rest of us how it's going to be.  

Whatever you think of the recent decision, the underlying question is-- do we _really_ want one person making such large decisions for the entirety of the community? 

--Alecmconroy (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Jimbo the vandal


Jimbo has now decided to delete what he considers pornographic artworks, by notable artworks.

All of them. 

I confronted him on IRC, and he said he intends for all of them to be deleted, then, maybe, sometime in future, we can discuss undeleting some of them by sifting through the remains.

After Commons delinker has removed them from use in every project. 

When there's no way to easily tell a deleted artwork from deleted amateur ponc ruft except by looking through every single deletion, and maybe getting lucky with some file names.

Despite noone, literally noone but him advocating for deleting artworks a Commons:Sexual content.

Jimbo is a vandal, he should be blocked, and I refuse to have a part of a project that thinks it knows art better than art historians. That's heathenish behaviour. 

Further, he engages in Orwellian doublethink. What does the policy which he wrote and under which he's doing these deletions say? Although there is a common saying that "Wikimedia Commons is not censored," this statement should not be interpreted to imply that we do not make editorial judgments about the appropriateness of content.

Yess it fucking is censored, you're deleting artworks by major artists from the 19th century which you consider pornographic. That's the damn definition of censorship.

Fuck you, Jimbo. I'm off, and not returning here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)




Sadly some more people has left Commons:




--Diego Grez let's talk 18:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Most of the users listed above have abused their positions as editors or administrators, made nasty attacks, and shown that they are not here for the good of Commons or our projects. It is better that they go on their own then having to waste the community's effort to force them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


It is easy be smearing the reputation of users which are not here to defend themselves and return the favor. User:Ottava Rima comments above are definitely not helping in the current situation--Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment above Ottava. No help-y. --Diego Grez let's talk 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Not only is it an easy smear, it is also nothing more than the hypocritical ramblings of a banned user at EN. Resolute (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


@Ottava Rima, Jimbo abused his position, some sycophants were "just following orders". You are sucking up to Jimbo so much that all alleged pornography pales in comparison. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


@Ottava Rima, Please do not post personal attacks. It never helps to resolve this issue. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


I have not left, just expressed my dissatisfaction with the things going on here. And btw, User:Ottava Rima certainly shouldn't bemoan "nasty attacks" after what he just wrote here. --Rosenzweig  δ 18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And what he wrote here User_talk:Ankara#Warning.--Ankara (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


  • I strongly disagree with recent cleansing of sexually explicit material and how it is done. Seems like extreme views of Jimbo and handful of other admins cloud their judgment and have very negative impact on the project and community. I am quite sadden about departure of many knowledgeable users who were donating their time and skills to the project. I also agree with some of the arguments of Jimbo and others about too much sexually explicit material here. But there has to be a way to resolve this problem without alienating large number of volunteers mostly working on other parts of the project. Many people volunteer here because they like project where all the decisions are made by consensus of the users. Reminding them that some users are more equal than others is very destabilizing. I hope that many volunteers currently departing the project will reconsider and return in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



FYI: Please take a look at this foxnews article which possibly explains the motivation Jimbo's recent involvement at Commons and the urgency it takes. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Many years ago, Jimbo took unilateral action to remove templates from the English Wikipedia that he considered "divisive and inflammatory" and authorize all administrators there to do the same. This rule has since been repealed, out of recognition that it was impractical, out of line with community standards, and had no real positive impact on the site. I'm sure Jimbo's actions have made the symbolic impact that he intended on the media - 6 months from now, when everybody calms down and forgets about it, we should open a new discussion to repeal the policy and restore the educational content. I honestly don't think he'll even notice. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


[edit conflict] I find myself writing here because of a series of edits by CommonsDelinker that can only be described as bizarre. What is going on? It seems that files used on other wikipedia projects are being deleted and then undeleted willy-nilly, if you'll pardon the pun. Whatever the righst and wrongs of the argument(s) for and against keeping or having such files on Commons, I hope it is realised that this has a potentially dispiriting and damaging effect right across the board. One minute a file is there then it is gone then it reappears. Many smaller wikipedia projects such as "mine" - Welsh Wikipedia - find it difficult to keep up with this. We don't have the manpower to keep checking to see if a file has or has not been actually deleted. And many people seeking to find out what on earth is going on, such as myself, are going to be puzzled and perhaps disillusioned. As somebody who contributes at several projects, including Commons, I'd like to say "hold on, why the rish to delete? We don't delete on a whim and then undelete a day later only - maybe - to go through the same process again. That would be completely unacceptable on a project such as Welsh Wikipedia and I don't see how the rules can be different here. The last thing we want is to damage the entire Wikipedia project - and if knowledge of this situation becomes widespread I'm afraid that will be the result. This seems so unneccessary and counterproductive. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

[ec] @Dcoetzee: Jimbo told something that follows a similar direction: We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How are we supposed to discuss the photos when we can not see them? It is now clear that there was no consensus, or support from the WMF to delete the images. Jimbo was wrong and acted on their own. Instead of undeletion should we wait a few weeks to discuss the matter.--Ankara (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


[edit conflict] Is there a list of what was purged due to the fear tactics of fox news? Historic artwork and images/illustrations of educational value? This seems to be a pretty drastic step. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is images like File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg on the chopping block? Where is the line? — raeky (talk | edits) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Don't go anywhere! Stay here and fight! I am willing to help as much as I am able to do. Although my permissions are useless in this case, you should know that at least one steward is with you. --Millosh (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



If I understand the current technical situation correctly, then I believe that a Steward could in principle strip Jimbo of his global sysop powers.  Of course, without the backing of the WMF or Board, I'd imagine such an action would end poorly for the Steward in question.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --Millosh (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need your steward bit to withdraw your vote. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I already removed my vote from supporting his founder flag. During this day I'll vote for removal, but I need to make a sensible statement. --Millosh (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


The damage seems to already of been done... there is no easy way to relink all the deleted content if after review some of these (most/many) of them get undeleted. Someone will have to search and manually relink every image. Unless theres a new bot written to relink... I'm greatly disappointed in this... reading foxnews.com to see that there was a mass purge and coming here and seeing what damage was done by the founder after a rash decision to delete many images that community consensus has determined does meet guidelines. MAAANY of these images have gone through the deletion processes and have been kept. But now, one man has removed them all, creating an IMMENSE amount of work to ever restore them. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll write a bot if everything solves well. --Millosh (talk)


I also volunteer to write bots to help relink images when the time comes. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Comment I agree that the new policy was implemented in a bad way. As I am worried that this debate is citing a deeply political organisation as a news source. Perhaps this debate would be easier to understand if contributers were explicit, and explained how these vulpine predators intended to infiltrate and subvert. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


I believe that's a time for yet another petition... VasilievVV (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@Diego Grez and for the record: I am not (yet) gone, but I strongly disagree with Jimbo and his following herd. And, of course, I wont continue to put effort it any categories which have a chance   to be vandalixxx (aka "clean up project") in the future. I've learned my lesson: I put work in categories which are deleted now altogether and probably won't be restored. If they are restored I won't do anything there - who knows how the next fabulous idea of the policy dicxxxxx might look like. --Saibo (Δ) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is vandalism pure and simple. He should be stripped of his sysop rights and blocked as a vandal. Please don't let this double standard apply to him any longer. Entheta (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



After today, I'm so unbelievably frustrated with Jimbo I can hardly speak.   What is needed now is some way to ensure he doesn't vandalize the project TOMORROW the way he did TODAY.   After today, I believe it will eventually be in the best interest of the project to remove his founder bit and make him request RFA powers from each project like the rest of us. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alec, you're nothing but a worthless troll...you've never contributed anything to Commons worth noting in anyway...your contributions at en.wiki are lackluster as well...you're a troll, nothing more so who really gives a shit what you think you snot nosed punk.--MONGO (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Weighing personal opinions of other users can be very useful, however I do not think completely ignoring their statement and engaging in ad hominem and personal attacks with vulgar obscenities, expletives & pejoratives such as 'worthless', 'troll', 'nothing more', 'snot nosed' or 'punk'. Engaging in cursing emotional expressions like 'giving a shit', are these the standards we hold ourselves to for civil discourse? Yet clearly any critic with a lack of experience or an alternative viewpoint, not to mention any who defend them, must have disruption as their sole intent? Ty (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree that removing Jimbo's special privileges is essential for the integrity of the project. He's only held onto them this long because he's normally just a figurehead who doesn't do anything. Perhaps the best way to do this is to appeal to ArbCom or the Board to hold a special hearing to determine Jimbo's privileges going forward. This kind of inanity is precisely what was needed to galvanise the community in favour of such a hearing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What if they rule in his favor? What will you do then? -Nard the Bard 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deal with his crap until he screw up badly enough that they rule against him. What else can we do, assassinate him? He's too powerful to take action against ourselves, he can block anyone for any (or no) reason. The official channels are the only possible path. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


If this goes on this way, there is only one possible reaction: QUIT !  --AM (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is THE OLD WAR: Jimbo vs Larry. Big chess with milions users. Przykuta (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Comment -- I always found hollow (not to say stupid) the statement that ‘WP is not a democracy’. Now that I understand its full meaning I’m afraid will have to retract.  Is Wikimedia really losing its innocence? Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Apparently this is similar to the situation at English Wikiversity that spurred the creation of m:Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag. -- Adrignola (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)




Dumb dumb question: I had a couple of images which were on my watchlist deleted which were NOT explicit, simply in a category which arguably should not have been placed there. The deletions did not show up on my watchlist - I only found out about them when I was trolling through the deletion log to double-check. Why did the deletion not show up on the watchlist? Is it because of Jimbo's status?? Tabercil (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Good question. Something I've noticed too with the only "risque" file that was on my watchlist - deleted and undeleted, think it's still there, but no record. Why is that? How is it possible? Anatiomaros (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I doubt a regular admin has the ability to bulk delete every image in a category, and it not showing up in regular watchlists is evidence he used some higher level tool... — raeky (talk | edits) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


The community needs to stop following the whims of one man. The right thing to do is what the German Wikipedia community did when he requested they remove their Vulva pictures: Ignore him. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



  • This is extremely saddening, clearly a significant number of hard-working admins dislike going over their heads and ignoring of the processes like this. The censorship of centuries-old art is a very frightening event. It's hard to believe that this hasn't come to attention before, is this a reaction to sponsorship changes? I would much rather have the option of viewing advertisements on here as a way of volunteering funds to support the site, rather than indulging in censorship at the whim of Google being afraid people will boycott their engine if they list Wikimedia sites. Ty (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


The hypocrisy of the purification


As far as sexuality is concerned, the law that lead to the new rules only speak about "photographs and films". Nevertheless Jimbo Wales and other admins are curently deleting sex illustrations that are not photos nor films. There's no valid reason for these deletions. Also, some seem to take advantage on the situation by deleting non-porn nudes, without respecting the fact that Commons should propose a diversity of choice on EVERY subject (therefore the argument "we already have equivalent images" is no valid). The purification of Commons seems to be even more hypocrit than it seemed to be ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



"Images tagged for deletion — though some were still viewable Friday afternoon — include pictures of men, women and young girls involved in a range of sex acts with each other and, in some cases, with animals." according to The Defenders of Western Democracy and the American Way of Life. Where are/were these images of "young girls involved in a range of sex acts with each other and, in some cases, with animals"? This is absolutely outrageous. Should we consider sueing Fox? Anatiomaros (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They're probably referring to 18th century paintings. Keep in mind these people would BURN important works of art for showing genitals. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, you're probably right. So, will this picture of depraved juvenile bestiality be next for the Pyre? Just the same, although I'm no lawyer, doesn't this amount to something like 'slander' and 'defamation of character'? Anatiomaros (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


While you're at it...


Maybe someone wants to have another go on these categories (the categories, not their content).--141.84.69.20 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Oh bloody hell no. Your request was speedily closed the last time you was brought up and it was closed out as keep the time before that. I don't see any reason why this needs to be reopened, despite the current kerfuffle. Tabercil (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the first admin never provided a valid rationale and the second one had taken part in the first discussion.--141.84.69.20 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Temporary shutdown of activity


As this is the only way I can get this done, even though I am retired, I propose here that we temporarily shutdown Commons activity until this is sorted out properly by the foundation. All these actions back and forth are truly damaging and the trustees statement is clearly not bringing the desired clarity.

If you think that all this back and forth is too much damage for the community and the communities that depend on it as a service, then vote to suspend all actions on Commons for a week or until proper OFFICE clarification has been provided. This is not a suggestion to close Commons permanently, just to put an end to the ridiculous issues that are now going on. See also bugzilla:23435 TheDJ (talk)



Support



Neutral


  • Tabercil for now (though I do fully understand your frustration, I think the activity in terms of deletion is slowly starting to die down, even if the volume about the whole mess is increasing; if I'm wrong I will cheerfully change my vote). Tabercil (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Oppose



This is ridiculous


  Support the subthread title. Killiondude (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Support I mean seriously, vandalizing the Main page in response? Come on. --Shirik (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)




  Support have some people just lost the plot?  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



*Hug* TheDJ


  • Seriously dude, I know you're frustrated.  I'm frustrated too.  But you seem to be getting a little unstable. Perhaps it is time to take a break?  It sucks now, hopefully things will suck less tomorrow.  Best wishes.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Selected statements from members of the Board of Trustees


There are multiple threads at foundation-l regarding the recent developments at Commons. As far as I can see, all members of the Board of Trustees of the WMF who commented in these threads, supported Jimbo Wales. Some quotes:




Speaking for myself I can state that Jimmy is a part of the community and that the board statement is in support of both his and the other administrators who have taken the initiative to clean up commons.



What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about  his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I fully support his engagement.


Personally, I think that the board is responsible for defining the scope  and basic rules of the projects. While for projects like Wikipedia,  Wikisource, Wiktionary the scope is more or less easier to define. On Wikipedia we have the five pillars as our basic rules. But we have also some projects that have a scope that is not quite so clear and no such basic rules. Commons is one of these projects, and the most important one.


Fact is, there is no consensus in the community as what is educational or potentially educational for Commons. And as far as I see there would probably never be a concensus. And I think this is where the board should weigh in. To define scopes and basic rules. This is why the board made this statement.


I've some thoughts on this. Given the amount of media we are hosting, we are a quite small community and so far we were quite content when we got rid of copyright violations and undebated junk. In regard to COM:SCOPE we implicitly assumed everything to be automatic in scope that was used by any of the Wikimedia projects (on regular content pages) and accepted beyond that everything we could be possibly used in the broadest possible interpretation. Editorial decisions among good-faith uploads were rarely done at Commons. The proposed changes at Commons:Sexual content and the other recent development enforce us to define the scope in regard to media for the other projects. Yes, this will help us to get rid of quite some large number of low-quality images which are unlikely to be used (we had quite some accumulation of indeed unnecessary material matching COM:PORN). I guess that most contributors support this.

But this new policy also enforces us to override editorial decisions in other projects, i.e. to delete an image as out of COM:SCOPE even if it is used by another project. I'm afraid that this will be an never-ending source of inter-wiki conflicts and I do not see yet a community at Commons which is able to handle that to some greater extent. It is easy to set up new rules top-down but it is harder to find a community that fully supports and implements this. Independent from the current heated debates and actions (everyone takes a breath, please) we need to find a path that puts us back in sync with the WMF's mission but which at the same time can be fully supported by the community. This is the challenge we are facing.

Perhaps we need some new processes to work this out. If Commons gets not just a central place to archive media but also to select media, we need new consensus driven procedures that allow us to scrutinize potentially offensive materials with the goal of assessing their educational or informational value. As I see it, the current DRs do not support this well as they focus on individual files, they are not designed to select surviving candidates among a larger set.

Regarding the recent debates about files which have been speedily deleted: My suggestion is to list any candidates that should be reconsidered at COM:UDEL, possibly with documenting their previous use using the logs of the CommonsDelinker. Similarly I suggest to use regular DRs for possibly problematic material. Even if this is more work, it makes the rationales even for speedy deletions more clear to all involved and easies a possible reevaluation. Once we have hopefully found a new workable consensus how to proceed, we can then reevaluate everything which has been deleted hastily. I agree with many who find this extremely painful and unfortunate but I personally trust Jimbo Wales that this there an urgent short-time necessity for this. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Eh. I think if we can show a given image was already in use when it was deleted, we shouldn't have to go through COM:UDEL. Tabercil (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested COM:UDEL as a measure to keep in mind what is possibly worth to be restored. As much as I feel sympathy with the admin colleagues who undeleted some of the material deleted by Jimbo, I do not think that wheel-warring puts us forward. As speedily deleted files do not leave much traces (except for the CommonsDelinker logs) it is helpful for the community, I think, to have pointers to selected images ready at COM:UDEL. I wouldn't mind another location but this page exists and such postings follow the existing guidelines. --AFBorchert (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


@AFBorchert:What does it say if members of the board speak about commons on a mailing list, but can't be bothered to use the wiki at commons? Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Support?


I've heard it claimed that Jimmy is just acting on behalf of an initiative of many commons admins.  But I don't see evidence of this support on commons. I'd personally support a reduction in the sheer mass of human sexuality images which little to no prospect of use on any of the projects— but I can't support the methods being employed here or many of the specific images which have been removed.  I thought it might be helpful to run a straw poll on this. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of other relevant polls/petitions: Meta:Petition_to_Jimbo, Meta:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag.






Supportive of the activities and methods being employed


  • Tiptoety talk 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support I'm teacher and responsible for de:Jugendmedienschutz at my school. Personally I have no objections to drawings, paintings or educational content as in en:Vulva or de:Vulva. Maybe Jimbo went too far, but as he said, deleted files can be restored. First of all we need a clean cut, make up rules conc. legal issues, prevent commons from being spammed by pornography, and then talk about permitting pictures of educational purpose! axpdeHello! 08:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

    • 

  •  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC) methodology was crap, however, a small vocal minority often kill so many discussions at WMF into becoming personal bunfights, and arguing over the minutiæ of less relevance of a bee's dick appendage, that the calm and rational just don't bother hanging around or just want to get to a decision point. In the end, there is so many good files here, and much rather focus on those. A storm in a B-cup!
    • 

  •   Support. This was a useful PR stunt to counter the PR trolling done by a certain other Wikipedia founder. I really don't think there's any reason to get so riled up about it. Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Not supportive of the methods, but would probably support some form cleanup and policy tightening


  • Gmaxwell (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Tabercil (though I'd want to see the details first on what changes on policy). Tabercil (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • User:TheDJ, fully supporting gmaxwell's foundation-l posting. TheDJ (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Yes, a tighter policy is needed, but scorched Earth is not the way to get there.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Totally unacceptable. -Atmoz (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Yes, a discussion on the subject is needed, but brute force is not the way.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • If an image isn't used in an encyclopedia article within a few months or a year, then we should remove it from Commons as it has no use - unless Commons wishes to become a public free image repository.  We don't need a voting mechanism or any such process at the image level on Commons.  The images either thrive or die based on "natural selection" (either they are used or they are not used).  We need only develop a filter that shows unused, "expired" images for human review and possible deletion.  Rklawton (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

    Throw out Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and disregard any wikis using $wgForeignFileRepos then because apparently Commons is all about supporting Wikipedia.  I trust you've seen Commons:Welcome stating "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content"? -- Adrignola (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    

    Commons is a free educational media repository. And there are numerous in scope files that never be used at any Wikipedia (or other WMF project). For example, minor artworks of notable painters.  Trycatch (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Support Media hosted on Commons must be seen to a stable resource. If vast swathes of images can be deleted without discussion (by a user with 36 edits before two days ago), what is the purpose of Commons? I agree that low-quality or very explicit (unnecessarily so) content may be deleted, but only with Deletion Request reveiw. Speedying is for copyvios, fair use, corrupted data or vanadalism only. If new policy is to be used to fuel a change, introduce it first (after discussion), and only then follow it. The current approach taken is absolutely deplorable, antithetical to the aims of the project, and anyone else doing it would banned outright. Inductiveload (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Yes. By all means, get rid of the low-quality sexual content (by "low-quality" I mean "of low educational value", not "of low erotic value"), but the approach that has been taken so far is akin to burning a city down in order to build it better, and without even bothering to evacuate everyone. I would support even a delayed-speedy-deletion (e.g., 48 or 72 hours after tagging) or proposed deletion process to reduce the load on DR, but summary deletion based on subjective, personal criteria, without discussion, and even in the face of significant opposition only serves to make a mockery of the principle of consensus-based decision-making. Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Some of the deleted images definitely needed to go, and without a doubt there needed to be a cleanup. But I do not support the bulk deletion of images just based on what category they was in without any regard to the image itself, and I do not support the delete first then correct later approach for such bulk quantities of images. Once these images have been deleted the "common" user has no way to know what it was, what it looks like, evaluate it, or even know whats missing from where. They're just gone from the regular users perspective. Only an admin can go back and dig through the logs and review the images to see if there was anything that got deleted accentually. We've discovered many examples of notable artworks that was deleted and now undeleted mostly because they was notable and people noticed they got deleted. Less watched, or currently unused in project images that are notable non-the-less or of educational value that got deleted may never be recovered simply because we don't know what was lost. All the images should be restored through a bot, relinked, then readdressed on a case-by-case basis. Bulk deletion requests can be made for clearly out-of-scope images. But the community should decide what is out-of-scope and non-educational/encyclopedic, not an overzealous admin or Jimbo with little or no oversight. My two cents. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Sure there is garbage here that needs cleaning - always has been.  However anyone who does what Wales has done is no leader/manager to me. --Herby talk thyme 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Methodology here was appalling really, how much of this "discussion" is about the issue and how much about the actual content? I'd certainly support a much tighter rulebook: Such as not allowing images that would require section 2257 record keeping, unless records sufficient for that law are provided with the image. Saying we will follow a law that restricts commercial use but maybe not us is nothing new - think about the situation with non-commerical FOP.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • I don't think that one person should have the title "benevolent dictator for life", and that the actions which have taken place here on Commons are over the top.  He certainly shouldn't get a pass on his actions here, and I think the normal discussion processes should have been followed and consensus reached to deal with the issues involved.  Had he simply posted something here on Commons and made a compelling argument for the removal... then left the implementation of that policy or even a formal debate over the issue with a strong urging on his part that something should be done.... I think that would have been significant enough to get a policy change enacted by the weight and reputation he has alone.


All this said, this was something that needed to happen and was long overdue.  There was a bunch of garbage and flat out pornography in Commons that needed to be deleted as it wasn't really applicable to any sort of project or for that matter really being used except to point out sexually explicit images on the project.  Some of it was quite dubious in terms of the licensing as well, so I'm glad that the issue was raised.  I am supportive of reviewing the Commons policy for such explicit images and even seeking out legal advise or suggestions to steer Commons away from potential conflicts in the future.  I just wish Mr. Wales had done it a bit differently than he had, and it is very disruptive to the community to be behaving in this manner.  De-sysopping the account for Mr. Wales might even be in order.  --RHorning (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


True, we have (had?) way too many low quality and low to no educational value images depicting sexual content and nudity. Likely somebody needed to be bold to upset the status quo, but the deletion of historic works of art and images already used on other projects (two categories explicitly allowed under Commons policy), went too far. Way too far, IMO. That said, I think we need a strict policy in regards to nudity and sexual content images/videos that will allow such content only if it has a couple clearances in addition to copyright: 



  1. With a few exceptions (such as the Virgin Killer image), that proper proof that the photograph subject is an adult is needed for nude and sexual content images of younger subjects even when the subject's face is not shown.
    2. 

  2. Images that don't have clear historic value or aren't of famous people, also need to have personality rights of the subject cleared.


Our aim here is to describe the full range of human knowledge. Some of that knowledge is considered offensive by some people but is needed by others. So long as what we host is legal, respects the rights of subjects, and has historic, artistic or other educational value, then it is not our role to decide what parts of human knowledge are off limits in regards to visual representations. I also think that we need to use proper meta-tagging of content to make it easier for parents and librarians to use more refined filtering methods. I think that is a valid compromise. --Mav (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



  • Yes, although with a few too many provisos to easily list here. My strongest reservation is that I'm very concerned that some people want to remove notable art, including pieces that hang on the walls of major museums. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • I believe the case can be made that the presence of certain highly pornographic materials hinders our mission more than it helps it in at least two primary ways: 1)  It may cause us to be censored unnecessarily by people who otherwise wouldn't (such as US school districts, Australia).  2)  It may dissuade donations from people who support 99% of Wikipedia's mission but cannot see themselves contributing to something that is, even in the least way, "pornographic".  --Cyde Weys 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Platonides (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Dodoïste (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Not supportive of a change from the current commons process


  1. We already had {{Nopenis}} to filter out unusable sexual materials. -Nard the Bard 04:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    2. 

  2. Existing policy is adequate. Any image can be nominated for deletion as out of scope; many have been deleted following proper discussion. Images in use should never be deleted as out of scope. By all means I commend people who locate images that are not useful (whether sexual or not) and flag them for deletion discussion, which saves us maintenance effort and clutter down the road. If volume at deletion requests has become a serious problem, then I invite discussion of a new method of deletion, but speedying is clearly not the answer - this is not Wikipedia and we should not emulate their needless urgency. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    3. 

  3. --Ankara (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    4. 

  4. Fully agree with Dcoetzee. Existing policy is adequate, people just need to be more serious about enforcing it. --Tetromino (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    5. 

  5. Grue (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    6. 

  6. Echo Dcoetzee.  He said it best.  Maedin\talk 09:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    7. 

  7. I don't see an in-Commons reason to change the things. "Porn" problem is highly exaggerated, for fighting with useless exhibitionism we already have COM:SCOPE, COM:PORN, Commons:Nudity and {{Nopenis}}. Most of uploaded bad quality "amateur porn" have been deleted fast (often without a DR) long before this intervention. Implementing of ICRA (for children and schools) is a good idea, but it's irrelevant to the scope policy tightening. Of course, Commons exists not in a vacuum, there are 2257, Larry Sanger, Fox News, reputation, sponsors and it's always possible to tighten the policy for a good reason. Not to this madness, of course.  Trycatch (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    8. 

  8. Entheta (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    9. 

  9. I am an admin, have ten thousands of edits on the Commons, and have uploaded thousands and thousands of images. I stronlgy disagree. This is censorship, and it is against everything Wikimedia has ever stood for. We should try to get rid of Jimbo Wales and bigot American censors ASAP. Let's try and set up a Commons repository in a truly free country. I am not sure yet where, but at least some prudish US states seem not the best choice. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    10. 

  10. ACK AndreasPraefcke --Histo (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    11. 

  11. Joshua (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    12. 

  12. I99pema (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    13. 

  13. Expropriate Fox News! --Melanom (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    14. 

  14. per Dcoetzee VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    15. 

  15. Existing policy is fine and perfectly adequate to clear out rubbish, if enforced.  Material that is used by or useful to editors in Wikimedia projects isn't a problem, it's the reason the Commons exists. --Simonxag (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    16. 

  16. By any count, less than one out of twenty images on Commons were related to nudity. Given the interest in every society, and the fact that sex is the single most important thing to the continuation of our species, I don't find that outrageous. Yes, rubbish needs to be filtered out, but even before this event, pictures were being held to a disproportionately high standard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    17. 

  17. I agree with Dcoetzee and, also, I would like to point out that this seems, to me, an attempt to censor commons... and I think that commons should be non-censored... what if the next thing to be censored will be war images, and next presidents pictures? I think that we should consider case by case Fale (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    18. 

  18. Another agree with Dcoetzee. Fletcher6 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Discussions on customer projects



Suspend Delinker?


Is there a practical to suspend the image removal functions of User:CommonsDelinker until the concerns over Jimbo's deletions of images are resolved?  One of the reasons undeleting an image is such a pain is because the Delinker removes all the references to it and these have to be put back by hand.  I'm wondering if stopping the Delinker would help minimize the impact of controversial deletions while the issues are being considered.  Ideally such a suspension would be short-lived and such that it could start up again where it left off when restarted.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Sure, just let an admin block him. But: also legitimate deletions on commons would cause a red link in the projects using the images. It's worth a thought. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a solution. Not unlinking regularly deleted stuff (yes, that continues to exist) generates problems as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I'd like to see a suspension that could start up again where it left off later.  Having some redlinks for a few days is not really a big deal.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


For the record, someone else has now blocked CommonsDelinker at enwiki.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


(ec)Gah... you mean we might have a repeat of this mess? *Whimpers*... Tabercil (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible sollution would be to integrate a http://toolserver.org/~delinker/ tab for deleted files. That would be an improvement in general also to track copyright violators. Is that (note: only deleted, not existing or non-existing files) possible? --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Or, step back a little ways in the process.  Since almost none of the threatened dirty pictures are used in articles, why not give a reprieve from summary execution to any picture that is?  Those few pix of naughty body parts that are actually used in an encyclopedia article, can get individual attention, being delinked first if that's encyclopedically appropriate, and then killed after a few days as naughty orphans.  Jim.henderson (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone other than Jimmy taking part in the current mass deletion activities?  I believe the idea of skipping images which were actually in use was already suggested to him. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety is. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And User:Bidgee /Lokal_Profil 13:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see lots of deletions also from Podzemnik, Lar, Killiondude, Fran Rogers (a whole lot), Alison. --Nemo 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another list here. --Nemo 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Commons' responsibility to local projects


Hi all. While I support the deletion of most if not all 'porn' commons images which are not used in any project (to precisely which extent and on their value I'm not pronouncing, I'm not particularly interested in this, only because it makes bad publicity for Wikipedia), but Commons has a responsibility to local projects. Plenty of images in use on local projects were unexpectedly deleted. The question is whether local projects can rely on Commons or not. We expect that Commons' inclusion and deletion policies will remain stable and consistent, and in case of changes that local projects will be notified in advance so we can do as needed to maintain our articles. This is a message in particular to all admins who deleted images used on local projects (I know most Commons' contributors are also unhappy with how the actions were taken). The English Wikipedia is discussing the situation but smaller wikis may not even be aware of it, so it would help to have at least a list of deleted images which are/were in use on local projects, taking into consideration removals by the delinker bot, and undelete them if possible otherwise letting know affected projects. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Hi Cenarium, the deleted images can be traced through the contributions of the CommonsDelinker and the associated logs. My recommendation is to search for deletions refering to COM:SCOPE or Out of project scope. Some projects have already started to list such losses, see for example this list at de-wp. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


As stated before, first let's get rid of all that unwanted pornography, then make up rules regarding legal and moral issues, and finally check for collateral damage! axpdeHello! 08:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it sarcasm ? Otherwise why local projects should bother uploading their images on commons (and spending significant resources on deleting images moved to commons) if they have no guarantee they'll be responsibly handled then ? Cenarium (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Unwanted? By whom? There's but one person in the US who can define what is and isn't pornographic, and while Justice Stewart found it quite easy to know pornography when he saw it, he's dead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm confused. Which pornography is wanted and which is unwanted? How many persons are actually drawing the line of "I know it where I see it"? East of Borschov (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends, but in any case commons images used on local projects should not be unexpectedly deleted. Cenarium (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


I thank all commons users helping to restore the images used on local projects, the vast majority of users I see. Cenarium (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

They have no responsibility. They often tag things or nominate them for deletion with no notification to the local project. Users only find out when commonsdelinker runs through. Most uploaders do not visit commons regularly so they'd never see the notice in time. If I could upload to en without it being auto marked to transfer here I would. As such I'm seriously considering whether or not I'll upload another image.--Crossmr (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Before Jimbo's actions, images which were in use were never deleted unless they were actually illegal to host. While I agree that informing local projects should be done whenever possible to minimize impact, no amount of discussion will affect whether an image is a copyright violation or not. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely true; one edge of contention between en.WP, en.WS and certain other projects is that Commons refuses to host images that are perfectly legal in US but not legal in their source countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that is true... and a number of projects accept fair use images too. They should have the opportunity to upload them locally to prevent disruption. (ideally, the closing admin would take care of this, but this is sometimes impractical due to the laborious requirements of uploading fair use images) Dcoetzee (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


And it is commons who decides they are illegal to host without any input or opportunity from the local project for anyone to address the issues. Like say if permissions or something were missing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Could not a bot notify local projects when commons images they use are deleted on a dedicated page, for projects requesting it ? And maybe requests for deletion too. Cenarium (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



The best way to help


So far, Jimbo and his supporters have bowed to community consensus at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests regarding our decisions to restore specific works, without rashly blocking anyone for closing undeletion discussions. Therefore I think the best path going forward is:



  1. Visit Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests and express your opinion on all of the oustanding requests.
    2. 

  2. Browse the following deletion logs and nominate for undeletion any images that you think are useful:

    3. 

  3. *User:Alison



  1. Add any users to the above list who you discover are supporting Jimbo. We'll monitor their deletions carefully to ensure that important images are nominated quickly for undeletion. I want to emphasize that we are not trying to attack or single out these users - I just think this is the most expeditious way to locate and review the deletions under the new Jimbo rule.


It's a lot of work, but if we take it one image at a time and establish a clear consensus in support of keeping each one, we will be able to do some damage control here. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Update: This section is essentially moot, since Jimbo's special sanctioning of sexual content deletions have been effectively overturned. I think most of the incorrectly deleted images have been identified and restored. Thanks for helping to locate them, and monitoring of the above deletion logs will no longer be necessary. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


May 8


I just got the error message "File extension does not match MIME type."


I just got the error message "File extension does not match MIME type."
Is this the upload robots on-strike again?  
Mozilla renders the images from this page without problems.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



What file were you trying to upload, with what file extension? The software's been updated recently to be more picky about this. Jarry1250 (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Admin Delete  >  {Speedy}  >   {delete}


re: Admin Delete  >  {{Speedy}}  >   {{Delete}}



Could several editors comment on when to use each of the three possibilities for deletion? I see all three used and often can't see the difference in the status of a file. It appears that we are using {{Delete}} when {{Copyvio}} would be appropriate and less time consuming.




They all, therefore, seem to be obvious {{Copyvio}} to me, yet I felt more comfortable putting {{Delete}} on them. Is this wrong, a waste of our time? Or is it just a matter of an editor's personal style?
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  11:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Without looking hard at this it is as much a matter of what section of "speedies" it puts them into.  Some folk tend to prefer working in one category rather than another. --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


I use all three myself. Most often I'll slap {{Copyvio}} on the image before deleting it; that way I have a message template which I can drop on the uploader's talk page as a warning. If I'm cleaning up multiple uploads from the same person at the same time, I'll usually warn and delete for the first couple then just straight delete all subsequent ones as a time saver. If my gut says it's a copyvio, but I can't find clear proof that it one then I'll {{Delete}} - that way I got others looking who might be able to find that proof. Now if I were in your shoes, dealing with the same pics, I'd probably go with {{Delete}}, but only because that's not an area I'm too familiar with (I tend to stick to images of people). Tabercil (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


PD-Italy template restore (request)


Im requesting a disscusion about PD-Italy template.
Restoring EU paragraph it was accepted in 1993. Becausue, im thing, all files published as "sample pictures" before 1993 fallen in the public domain.
Your opinion? --UstinadlabemELBE (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



I believe this request refers to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. See also: Template:PD-Italy deletion discussion on wikipedia, Template:PD-Italia (Italian) and Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC). -84user (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Vector skin bug report


I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but at least SiteNotice in Swedish tells me that... When at the log in screen in Opera, you press tab to go from user name to password, it tabs you to the new main menus on the left, participation and toolbox (that is, the buttons that shows or hides the other options that were shown as standard in Monobook). I haven't noticed if the same thing happens in other browsers. Normally I use Chrome and I haven't thought about it, so I don't think it happens there. It's of course a very minor problem but still annoying... ...And also now, when I pressed tab to go to the small edit button and further to the save button, I was tabbed to the participation link again... /grillo (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



(I think you mean "minor edit checkbox".) I get the same both in the login form and the edit form in Firefox 3 in the vector skin. /Ö 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue was reported in Bugzilla earlier today as bug 23439. It's caused by a bug in the collapsible left navigation; as a workaround, you can disable this feature in your preferences until we fix the bug. --Catrope (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to report this, but someone beat me to it. I find it very convenient to be able to "tab" from my login name to the password box. I'm glad this will be fixed. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Just another Bug


The function to put in preformated Tags like category, Defaultsort and so on in the Edit-Window of "image upload basic" are out of function, should be a missing JS. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

When I use the back-buton of my brwoser after uploading a file in order to upload another file with the same descritption, the description is set back to the preset. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



We were deceived by Jimbo.


Before Jimbo acted unilaterally, a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal issues with regards to reporting which he implied were the source  of his hurry to do something.

That was derailed by his actions, which also completely ignored the evolving community decision.  He has now revealed that the reporting issues were in fact a distraction: He was actually doing this in an attempt to prevent bad publicity from Fox News.

Wikipedia has survived bad publicity before. Can it survive Mr. Wales actively deceiving its participants?



If we are to continue policy discussions, I think it's important the board first regains the trust of the community Jimbo lied to in what turned out to be a sham effort to develop a consensus policy about the reporting issues for photographic and filmed pornography.

After actively deceiving us as to the reasons for a policy discussion, Jimbo needs dealt with, and someone we can trust to play fair and give us the actual reasons - and who won't pretend to be cooperating on building policy, then ignore every single bit of community consensus - I think it fair to say community consensus came down hard on the side of keeping artworks - before we can go back to trying to restart a policy discussion which began with active deceit of the community, first off as to the reasons, and secondly, that it was a discussion.

There is a proposal to, effectively, desysop Jimbo on meta. I think it's come to that, as the only way we can trust the foundation again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Well, Adam, what do you mean by "deceived?" Larry Sanger's letter and the Fox News article about Erik Möller as well as Erik's reply are well known; the connection with this "cleanup" spree was, although—to my knowledge—never confirmed officially before, rather obvious. Lupo 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


It's refreshing to know that Rupert Murdoch is effectively in control of Wikimedia. Grow some ball Mr Wales. -Atmoz (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


I suggest everyone who disagrees with the founder's actions should leave immediately to avoid myocardial infarction. All others will do the cleanup. Regards axpdeHello! 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


  Question - And what will happen when someone tries to enforce the consensus and desysop Jumbo? Just curious... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Science and conscience are not dictated by democracy. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

From his talk page I understand he no longer has sysop rights effectively.  Maybe per Axpde we can get on with what needs doing. --Herby talk thyme 10:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good an unexpected outcome! Credits go to the prompt reaction of the community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Don't forget he still can reinstate those "lost" powers at will, since he has kept globalpermissions.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am left with a firm feeling that if he used them on Commons again the outcome would not be very good for him. --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Also remember that the WMF can assign "powers", like they do to staff (and I presume boardmembers?) when necessary, so the possibility of technically "reinstating" rights isn't really an issue here. Self-restricting his administrative actions on WMF projects was IMO the best possible reaction from JW, and I really think we should get on with what needs to be done. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


May 9


Links to CommonsDelinker log added to deletion log entries


While following all the controversy surrounding the recent deletions of sexuality-related images, I realized that the CommonsDelinker log, showing which pages deleted files have been removed from, was not easily available from here, and indeed that many users and even admins weren't even aware of its existence.  To make things worse, the log search interface is somewhat tricky to use — you have to type the filename exactly as it's logged, with underscores for spaces, no "File:" prefix and upper case first letter.

To make it easier for admins and other users to see which pages deleted files were used on, I added some JavaScript code to MediaWiki:Common.js to add direct links to the CommonsDelinker log to file deletion log entries (as seen on Special:Log/delete and on deleted file pages themselves).  For convenience, the code also adds links to Special:GlobalUsage, which can be used to check for uses not (yet) delinked by CommonsDelinker.

If you don't see any extra links yet, try bypassing your browser cache.  For further details and discussion, see MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Add links to CommonsDelinker log to deletion log entries.  If you find any problems with the script, please let me know ASAP.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Thank you! Works for me in FF 3.5.9 and Opera 10.10. --Saibo (Δ) 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


  you rock!  just proposed it above in COM:VP#Suspend Delinker? - Thanks Ilmari!  --Martin H. (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Works like a charm! Thank you once more! That's one of the tools we needed - especially in the current mess. Cheers--Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


This will be very helpful. Glad to see some positive changes coming out of this mess. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


PD-Italy template restore (request)


Im requesting a disscusion about PD-Italy template.
Restoring EU paragraph it was accepted in 1993. Becausue, im thing, all files published as "sample pictures" before 1993 fallen in the public domain.
Your opinion? --UstinadlabemELBE (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



I believe this request refers to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. See also: Template:PD-Italy deletion discussion on wikipedia, Template:PD-Italia (Italian) and Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC). -84user (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Vector skin bug report


I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but at least SiteNotice in Swedish tells me that... When at the log in screen in Opera, you press tab to go from user name to password, it tabs you to the new main menus on the left, participation and toolbox (that is, the buttons that shows or hides the other options that were shown as standard in Monobook). I haven't noticed if the same thing happens in other browsers. Normally I use Chrome and I haven't thought about it, so I don't think it happens there. It's of course a very minor problem but still annoying... ...And also now, when I pressed tab to go to the small edit button and further to the save button, I was tabbed to the participation link again... /grillo (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



(I think you mean "minor edit checkbox".) I get the same both in the login form and the edit form in Firefox 3 in the vector skin. /Ö 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue was reported in Bugzilla earlier today as bug 23439. It's caused by a bug in the collapsible left navigation; as a workaround, you can disable this feature in your preferences until we fix the bug. --Catrope (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to report this, but someone beat me to it. I find it very convenient to be able to "tab" from my login name to the password box. I'm glad this will be fixed. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Just another Bug


The function to put in preformated Tags like category, Defaultsort and so on in the Edit-Window of "image upload basic" are out of function, should be a missing JS. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

When I use the back-buton of my brwoser after uploading a file in order to upload another file with the same descritption, the description is set back to the preset. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



We were deceived by Jimbo.


Before Jimbo acted unilaterally, a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal issues with regards to reporting which he implied were the source  of his hurry to do something.

That was derailed by his actions, which also completely ignored the evolving community decision.  He has now revealed that the reporting issues were in fact a distraction: He was actually doing this in an attempt to prevent bad publicity from Fox News.

Wikipedia has survived bad publicity before. Can it survive Mr. Wales actively deceiving its participants?



If we are to continue policy discussions, I think it's important the board first regains the trust of the community Jimbo lied to in what turned out to be a sham effort to develop a consensus policy about the reporting issues for photographic and filmed pornography.

After actively deceiving us as to the reasons for a policy discussion, Jimbo needs dealt with, and someone we can trust to play fair and give us the actual reasons - and who won't pretend to be cooperating on building policy, then ignore every single bit of community consensus - I think it fair to say community consensus came down hard on the side of keeping artworks - before we can go back to trying to restart a policy discussion which began with active deceit of the community, first off as to the reasons, and secondly, that it was a discussion.

There is a proposal to, effectively, desysop Jimbo on meta. I think it's come to that, as the only way we can trust the foundation again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



Well, Adam, what do you mean by "deceived?" Larry Sanger's letter and the Fox News article about Erik Möller as well as Erik's reply are well known; the connection with this "cleanup" spree was, although—to my knowledge—never confirmed officially before, rather obvious. Lupo 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


It's refreshing to know that Rupert Murdoch is effectively in control of Wikimedia. Grow some ball Mr Wales. -Atmoz (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


I suggest everyone who disagrees with the founder's actions should leave immediately to avoid myocardial infarction. All others will do the cleanup. Regards axpdeHello! 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


  Question - And what will happen when someone tries to enforce the consensus and desysop Jumbo? Just curious... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Science and conscience are not dictated by democracy. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

From his talk page I understand he no longer has sysop rights effectively.  Maybe per Axpde we can get on with what needs doing. --Herby talk thyme 10:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good an unexpected outcome! Credits go to the prompt reaction of the community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Don't forget he still can reinstate those "lost" powers at will, since he has kept globalpermissions.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am left with a firm feeling that if he used them on Commons again the outcome would not be very good for him. --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Also remember that the WMF can assign "powers", like they do to staff (and I presume boardmembers?) when necessary, so the possibility of technically "reinstating" rights isn't really an issue here. Self-restricting his administrative actions on WMF projects was IMO the best possible reaction from JW, and I really think we should get on with what needs to be done. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


May 9


Commonsense not working


[22] just times out for me. I would report it directly as a bug, but I'm not that familiar with the commonsense interface. Am I being stupid? Pressed the wrong button? Jarry1250 (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Not sure, but I guess it wass the "cropped" in the filename that simply gave the script to much input ( a lot of files are named somthing with cropped around here). Just searching for "David Cairns" didn't time out [23]. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think rather, that commonsense relies on the image being used in a wiki. "(cropped)" is, giving the script something to do, and consequently an excuse to timeout. I shall report it as a bug. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Burma is Burma, not Myanmar


In wikipedia Burma is Burma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma
But in commons Burma been Myanmar!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Burma
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs) , 9. Mai 2010, 18:46 Uhr (UTC)



And commons is not wikipedia. axpdeHello! 18:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Because commons is not wikipedia we support suppression, force, chase and more.haabet 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting ... how do we support that suppression? axpdeHello! 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Myanmar is the official name of the country. I don't care to fight it at Wikipedia, but if the government is scum, they're still the government, and we don't really have much business arguing about what the name of the country is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


"Unused" Genitalia Images


We have killed the king [24] and things have quieted down some, but there is still a large population of usused sexual images on Commons, including many that are redundant and of low quality.  Such images could legitimately be targets for deletion.  In order to facilitate consideration of such images, I have created Commons:List of genitalia for review which includes all the images in Category:Human genitalia and its subcats that are not currently used in the main namespace of any project.  I would encourage people to look at this list and identify images that may be worth deleting due to poor quality.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



Why? Why don't we impartially delete poor quality images, instead of going continuously after one category thereof?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm happy to give you a list of unused puppy photos if you want.  Objectively though, some materials are more controversial than others and have a greater tendency to cause the public to view us negatively.  So, I think it makes sense that we pay greater attention to quality in some areas rather than others.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


On the other hand, materials that are more controversial will get more attention already. Forcing people to defend pictures in those areas repeatedly is a good way to annoy a certain segment of editors and make Commons feel like a battlefield.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Dragons flight, how about a list of unused US government propaganda? Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


As I noted at Commons talk:Sexual content, I think interested parties should feel free to review this list, but I think it's best to discuss these in deletion review so we can use them as test cases and figure out where consensus lies (undeletion is not as nice, since users don't have access to the content). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree a lot of those are very low quality photos very unlikely to be useful in any project and as such Out of scope. --Jarekt (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


May 10


Adding images from 1910 book


The District Gazetteer of Buldhana, originally published in 1910 by the British Government in India, gives detailed account of the district of those days. This book had about 20 rare photographs taken at various places in the district including some archaeological sites, old temples, Lonar crater lake, etc.  I have a facsimile reproduction of this book published by the Government of Maharashtra in 1976.  I believe that as the pictures were taken before 1910, they should be in public domain now.  The facsimile copy in 1976 is mere a mechanical reproduction of those images and uploading those images on commons should not violate the copyright law.

Can I upload those images on commons? Shivashree (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Hi Shivashree, they would be welcome. You should use the tag {{PD-India}} and {{PD-1923}} together. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Do make sure that the images were also in the original and not just in the 1976 book. Reissues with contemporary images are not uncommon. TheDJ (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


"Categories" link on search results page (e.g. Special:Search/Test)


The search result page has now a link to filter quickly for Categories. 

As we can't edit the "Content pages - Multimedia - Help and Project pages - Everything - Advanced" line, it was added further down.

Please tell me what you think of it. If we don't like, we can remove it again.   -- User:Docu at  07:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Controversial "restoration of rights" request


A user who had his sysop rights removed after resigning under a cloud under controversial circumstances, is requesting to have his admin rights restored, without going through the RFA process. Please see Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_rights. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



What?? There is long precedence for admins having had their bit removed by they own request getting their bits back without filing a new RfA. This comment by Cirt is not at all helpful to the project. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not if they requested to have their sysop rights removed, while under a cloud under controversial circumstances. That is gaming the system. -- Cirt (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, my opinion is that you seem to be the one "gaming the system" here. We've had some trying days, with a lot of people getting upset&angry for various reasons. The worst part of this seem to be over, what we need now is to reconcile and move ahead, and in particular get the editors who resigned/ left over this process to come back. To repeat and expand: Taking advantage of people having volunterily resigned (as a protest) to make them de facto desysopped is not helpful at all to that end. I'm seriously disappointed.  Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: [25]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Can a Commons image be used but not modificated?


Good afternoon! I am a strange in Commons, first i thank you for your help. I would want to know something, its 's posible upload an image for to be used but not modificated in Commons? 

a strong hug!  ---- Plav mušketir   Živijo  15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



No.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Blatant copyvgio


File:02)_Amy_Pond.jpg is not "ineligible for copyright", it is a photograph of a British actress (Karen Gillan). Please delete. TreasuryTag (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Spéciale pédo-dédicace to all


Just for the joke, I did this image. 

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clifden 0419.JPG for the whole history.

I won't comment anymore on the subject, except through such deliriums.

Regards. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 06:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC) certains. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Cette image a été suppriméee cette nuit, sans doute qu'elle gênait certains. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is really a censorship here: the proof is on File:Clifden 0419c.jpg log. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a cute joke but don't press the point on this one, it wasn't an educationally important image. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


More unwarranted deletions


I was naive enough to assume that we had reached a consensus that no bona fide works of art would be Speedied as being "pornographic" and that any file in that category would have to be referred to the usual RfD process? Not so, apparently. Three files which had been undeleted after the recent spree have now been deleted again - see here. The reason given is "I won't rely on 18 USC 1466A(a)(2)(B) for this to be allowable as "artistic", and in the EU this might be off limits as per Council framework decision 2004/68/JHA". Surely it is not up to an individual sysop to decide that but a matter for the Community? Commons:Sexual content clearly states that Speedy will not apply if 'The material is an artwork, including, but not limited to, paintings, engravings, etchings, lithographs, needlework, and sculpture. Commons does not seek to censor the world's artistic heritage, and consensus has come down strongly in favour of continuing to host erotic and pornographic artworks, as they are an important part of the history of art.' Anatiomaros (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unwarrented speedy TheDJ (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I deleted these three files after I had restored a whole bunch of Franz von Bayros files. After having done so, I went through the category again, and noticed three that I actually rather would not have restored. So I re-deleted them. If you feel happy with restoring them, feel free to do so, but I won't for the given re-deletion reason. Since these were restorations that I myself had just done, I felt (and still feel) it's perfectly all right for me to speedy them again if I don't want my name connected with them. But as I said, if someone else wants to restore, I have no problems with that: the edit comment says that "I won't rely...". If someone else wnats to "rely on" that "artistic" clause in 18 USC 1466, that's his business. Lupo 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that I got confused about two of these three files. I had thought they were some of my restorations, but it appears they weren't. Sorry about these two deletions. The third one was one of my restorations, though. Anyway, looks like they'll be restored. Lupo 19:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

They have been [26]. Thank you for undeleting the other files, Lupo, but my point was that we should not be deleting works of art - whatever we may think of them - just because we think that should be done; there is a policy and process in place, should there be any doubt as to the file's validity here on Commons. Nothing personal. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. Just note that I, as Dcoetzee has stated quite correctly below, intended to undo a few of my own restore actions, which is a quite different motivation from deleting works of art. Heck, I was among the first to try to get the whole point about not deleting artworks across to Jimbo, including the point that documenting an artists output most completely was part of our mission. Still, I reserve the right not to do certain actions, or to undo them if I inadvertently did something I'd rather not have done. Unfortunately, I goofed in my undo this time. Had I realized before that 006 and 008 were actually not among those I had restored, I wouldn't have deleted them, but only 023. And this deletion was not motivated by what I think about that work, but by what I think about possible consequences my restoring it might have had for me. Lupo 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Lupo. It's difficult for everyone. We did not create the current climate. How tranquil Commons seemed only a few days back... Best wishes, Anatiomaros (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Any administrator has the right to reverse their own actions, for their own protection (which was Lupo's intention). No problem here. However we should be quite clear in admonishing users who delete artwork by notable artists in the future, since there is now an established precedent against this. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Would this image be OK?


Dear friends, I understand that a new policy has evolved over the last few days regarding sexually explicit images. As I would not like to have my uploads constitute an infringement, I have tried to screen them with the new policy, as I understand it to be, in mind. I am a bit uncertain as to the admissability of one image: File:Zandvoort nudist beach.jpg. Although it does not explicitly show any naked people, some users might find the thought that this spot does contain naked people later in the day stimulating. Do you think that we should ask the management of Fox News whether they feel this is OK? Best regards. MartinD (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Yes, no clothes anywhere. Nobody is recognizable. Compared to Octavo Rima's upload of this kind of naked sadism, that beach should be fine.  /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that one should have been deleted even before uploading it. But thank you for your considered judgement. By the way, I fear that some people might be offended by the content of Category:Water towers and Category:Tunnels. But perhaps it is best not to draw anyone's attention to them...  Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable at all - it still clearly displays a naked sign with the word 'nudist' shamelessly visible. I also think we should nuke Category:Balls and Category:Pipes (Francophones will know what I mean!) before Murdoch's minions spot them. I think most of the files in Category:People of Greek mythology should be deleted as well as it's clearly promoting zoophilia and other perverted practises... Anatiomaros (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to think on that. I am mainly concerned about the affect that an empty nudist beach (and suggestive F..K.K beach) may have on the phantasy of my children; will they associate beaches and sand with their wildest dreams ? Should we show empty of crowded nudist beaches ? I would be careful with the watertowers too; some of them are real fallus symbols. --Foroa (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is a water tower in Aalsmeer that is so phallic that I can't understand why it is allowed in a public place. I don't think we should draw anyone's attention to it. It would certainly never make the pages of decent and tasteful publications like The Sun. Or if it did, it would at least appear on en:Page Three. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And lighthouses! Let's not forget about them either. MartinD (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


question about project usage


G'day all - I saw this bit in the proposed notice above; 'Commons contains some material which may be deemed illegal outside of the United States.' - and I wondered if anyone has any knowledge about whether or not some commons material may be illegal in the UK and or Australia, both for minors and for all viewers - these interest me because I'm in both regularly. Some information about whether or not material may be illegal in other common jurisdictions may be useful too. Is it accurate that it's illegal for a minor to view photos of sexual activity in Germany, for example? - I may make some suggestions re the notice above once I've done a bit of homework / asked for advice :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



I wasn't referring specifically to sexual content there— what I was thinking of was that Commons (and other Wikimedia sites, wikisource, etc) contain historical hate speech and political propaganda which outlawed to various degrees in many places in Europe.  I doubt any of the laws were intended to cover our classes of usage, but many laws are poorly constructed.  Amusingly, if I wanted an experted on illegal sex images in Australia I would have first thought to ask you for pointers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Let me remind you 3 main things about Commons


  1. Admins should procede to speedy deletions only in 2 cases : A) the file is outlaw (obvious copyvio, porn photography... but NOT porn drawings since it's not covered by the law) ; B) the file is contrary to rules or principles that have been decided by a vote or a discussion among the community. Any other case, including borderline cases, should NOT be concerned by a speedy deletion and a DR has to be launched if a user (even an admin) wants to question the concerned file.
    2. 

  2. When a file is deleted or proposed to deletion, the uploader should be warned. Admins seem to have forgotten that these times.
    3. 

  3. Commons has one purpose : offering choice of illustrations for anybody who'd like to work on any subject. When you apply "commonscat" or such templates on a Wikipedia article, it tells the reader that s/he can find other illustrations on the same subject : how useful would it be if s/he only finds the exact same pictures that are used on the article and no more diversity ?! Therefore arguments such as "it's not used" or "we have better/many pictures on that subject" are not valid, even for subjects such as nudity and sexuality. Please, try to be objective (one of the main rules of Wikimedia is neutrality). Try for instance to remember that some people may perflectly make scholar works or researches on nude/sex topics, and it's perfectly normal to offer a diversity of free files for these people. Instead of thinking "is it used?", ask yourself "could it be used as a replacement of a used picture?".


I hope everybody will understand these logical principles ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



lol. Killiondude (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be funny. Are you laughing at me ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Pornographic photography is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Many such photographs have established uses in articles across many projects. Other than that, I agree with your comments. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd say "most porn photography", because of the USC 2257 law. That's why I said "borderline files" shouldn't be speedy deleted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We haven't discussed 2257 properly. I'm not yet convinced WMF is a secondary producer, and even if it is, we'd obviously keep properly documented works. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


How to display "recent changes" as a gallery?


Is there some way to make the "recent changes" special page display automatically as a gallery? All images would be thumbnailed, video files would be put in a thumbnailed playback frame, and audio files would be rendered with playback controls.

This would make it easier to find potential problem uploads since they could be quickly reviewed with very few mouse clicks, all from one compact and concise page layout. DMahalko (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



There's tools:~para/Commons:Special:NewFiles and tools:~azatoth/latest_files. Is that what you're looking for? Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or simply Special:NewFiles. For checking uploads, also consider enabling the GalleryDetails gadget. Lupo 06:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Resource for ancient maps


Hello,

On the French Wikipedia VP, User:Dr Brains pointed out this resource for ancient maps : the Boston Public Library http://maps.bpl.org/ (see also its Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/24528911@N05/).

There are already many files pointing to this source (see here and there).



  • If I am not mistaken, this maps are all in the public domain ; so should we edit the files marked as CC-BY accordingly ?
    • 

  • Should we set up a source template ?


Unless someone has an objection, it will be added to Commons:Free media resources/Map.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



With regards to the copyright status: AFAIK they remain PD, even if the library claims copyright. They should be tagged as PD-Old. Kameraad Pjotr 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


My talk page not showing up on watchlist?


When I logged in this morning, I saw that I had new messages, but my talk page didn't appear on my watchlist.  The relevant edit was this notification by a human.  Why wouldn't this edit show up in the watchlist?  I've disabled my edits from appearing in the watchlist, but not any other people's.  Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



Hmm. Both your talk pages (English and Commons) are on my respective watch lists and


  • (diff | hist) . . User talk:Nyttend‎; 07:48 . . (+93) . . John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) [rollback]


is on my Commons watch list with no obvious reason why it might not show up on yours. Have you checked your Commons watchlist preferences? A few of them are different from English Preferences. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Are you sure you checked in the right time/place?  Your watch list shows local time as set in your prefs (and not, I think, simply transferred from your English prefs), while the message footer shows UTC.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird.  If I search for "Nyttend" when looking at my watchlist, I only get two results: [1] "(for Nyttend)" at the top left, just under "My watchlist", and [2] at the top of the page, next to "My talk".  And I didn't know that it was possible to show results in local time; the most recently edited page on my watchlist is this image, and the time displayed on the watchlist is the same as the UTC time when it was edited.  Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have the answer — I just realised that I somehow unwatched my userpage and talk page!  No clue why or when I did that, but it must have been recently: last time that I had a comment at my talk, it showed up in the watchlist.  Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Catalan speaker, please


Could a Catalan speaker (I think) take a look at the bottom of 




As you will see, I tried to help in English, but without result.
He is a new user (two months) who has created an empty gallery at




twice -- obviously he wants to do something, but I don't know what. He's also posted a number of images that have no categories or other problems Thanks,  . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



From my university-catalan: "Title: Speak catalan, what the fuck. Text: What's going on with heraldic crests? They are on the net, aren't they? So, hold your horses [colloquial expression] and don't post [calar is literally intranslatable even in italian] anymore messages. Ok?." Hope to have been accurate.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Yes, it was pretty accurate. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


A postface on the deletion controversy, by an average user


While there is no reason to object to deletions of gratuitous excesses which abuse Commons as a image host, that does not justify the hurried, even desperate, "shoot first, ask questions later" way the issue is being pressed, particularly with regards to speedy deletions of useful images being linked by several projects. The sad thing about this whole endeavour is that the most probable interpretation for Jimbo's (or the board, etc.) course of action, given the circumstances and assuming good faith, is that Wikimedia is being seriously bullied and/or threatened by external forces. If that is actually happening, however, the rash way the process was carried out and the failure to address the community with a clear statement of what is actually going on (instead of claiming the enforcing of some to-be-undisclosed "cleanup project") shows lack of belief in the strength and capacity of auto-regulation of the community. And that is a very painful blow - and one that only strengthens the position of the bullies. --Duplode (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)



The external forces mentioned are the law enforcement agencies. If we don't act they'll do! The only alternatives would have been to wait until all servers are switched off ...


The good thing about deleting files is each of those can be restored again, if educational value applies ... axpdeHello! 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is emphatically and categorically untrue.  The foundation has stated that it doesn't believe that we had any major problem with unlawful images. I'm not aware of any of the recently deleted images being unlawful. Please do not spread this misinformation. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't spread misinformation? How about the misinformation that pornography reportedly would have "educational purpose"? Ridiculous ... axpdeHello! 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Where is the button to press, to bring back the ones that are used by the various Wikipedias?  Jim.henderson (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


The external forces were not law enforcement agencies, but rather smear campaigns by mass media. Jimbo has stated it clearly today on his talk page. While that confirms that the actions were done in good faith and that there was an actual emergency to be dealt with, the failure to make it clear to the community what was actually going on caused awful distress (evidence of that being scattered everywhere) and suggests we did fell prey to FUD and intimidatory tactics. Not only that, the panicky mistaken deletions of artworks, drawings and other pertinent materials (admittedly just a few, but still the most visible) coupled to the lack of a clear statement gave many people in both sides of this discussion wrong ideas about the situation. For instance, see the undeletion requests from yesterday. There are admins justifying their votes with positions like "Oppose, at least until there is a content rating system.". That has nothing to do with the actual emergency, and appears (at least if we assume good faith) to be a very unfortunate misinterpretation of the facts. --Duplode (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


The external forces were Larry Sanger and Fox News, which belongs to News Corp., founded and managed by Rupert Murdoch. I wonder whether News Corp., a massive media conglomerate and a powerful opinion-maker worldwide, has anything to fear from Wikimedia that prompted it to launch such a miserable attack. --Hispalois (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. This was a deliberate attack on Wikipedia, and a libelous one at that. I think that Wikimedia lawyers should take a good look at the Fox report that started all this and consider if we have grounds for legal redress. And in answer to your question " wonder whether News Corp., a massive media conglomerate and a powerful opinion-maker worldwide, has anything to fear from Wikimedia that prompted it to launch such a miserable attack": Yes, the Truth, the one thing they go out of their way to avoid and distort. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Scope in the wake of the sexual content deletions


This is the latest part of a slow running thread at Commons talk:Project scope those who are interested can find the rest of it there.

One of the arguments raised against historical illustrations of a sexual nature was that we do not need all the files we can of an artists work to illustrate articles on that artist, since we cannot possibly use them all.

Being in scope in this arguement is that it must be immediately useful to wikipedia and our sister projects, and that images superferlous to these needs were out of scope and could be speedily deleted. Questions were also raised as to whether we really needed all the Bundesarchiv and Tropenmuseum images we have been donated (especially those featuring nudity) since they many are not used.

I don't want to reopen the debate with regards images being deleted as being of a sexual nature. But their are many images not now used by wikimedia projects, how many pictures of Boeing 737s do we need, one in each airlines livery, a couple from each generation and a couple from different angles. By the arguement that we cannot use them all, and believe that scope is defined by images in use we should in fact now be deleting unused images in multiple categories.

The opening statement in defining the aim of Commons at Commons:Project scope is:-

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:



  • that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
    • 

  • that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.


I highlight the word all, our scope is to host files that are educationally useful to all scholars and users everywhere not just to wikimedia projects. So although an image is not in use by another wikimedia project, we still serve our eductional remit by allowing third parties to easily search for and find educational content that serves their needs. Users here and at our sister projects are so used to Commons being a backroom project that they sometimes forget that archives are educational and have a value in their own right and that if this is not what Commons is, it is ssurely omething that it should aspire to be, as a place to secure, sort and protect educational media files not only for scholars and wikipedians today, but for scholars and wikipedians to come. I therefore ask that the word archive be either substituted for or used in addition to the word repository in defining our scope.KTo288 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



(Direct responses to Commons talk:Project scope)


A valid point. The way I had understood the purpose of Commons, one might ask the uploader of any picture in which Wikipedia article he/she intended it to be used, and if we would not get a good answer, refuse upload or delete it. And, of course, in many cases the next question would be "and in what way is this a better picture of subject X than the ones in category X?", X being whatever it is, be it a Boeing 737 or the uploader's genitals. (To name two boring and irritating subjects.) In my view, it would be quite OK to "weed out" our collection and keep only the better pictures of a subject, If only because digital photography has progressed in terms of image quality. I suggested this some time ago, but was told there was no lack of space. For "donations" such as the Bundesarchiv or Tropenmuseum collections we might make an exception, since using Commons is here a special way of making those images available.


I would think that your description makes a division. In the first place (although mentioned second) Commons is a way of saving disk space. We can have one image of dog breed X and use it in 200 Wikipedias. Second, but that is something quite different, it makes educational media content available for all. OK, but don't we need some sort of restriction? We would need some definition of "educational media content", I think... Suppose I take 750 pictures of the Amstel river along its 20 kms course, and upload them, claiming every slighty different view has educational value? We would need a frighful amount of disk space to collect everything... I know the price of digital storage has fallen dramatically -I can remember the floppy disk- but still...


I think these two purposes should be kept separate as much as possible. As to 737's: if you have seen one, you have seen them all. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I guess you've understood him wrong: "it would be quite OK to "weed out" our collection and keep only the better pictures of a subject" - this is exactly what he does not want. Maybe I am wrong (I am/was also unsure about his post here) - please follow the provided link to the full discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 01:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


FWIW, re: "750 pictures of the Amstel river along its 20 kms course": while it's far short of 750 images, I've uploaded about 130 at Category:Green River Trail (about twice this length), and I think they are a good batch of pictures and that there could easily be 750 without exhausting the subject. Different seasons, different levels of human activity, river in flood, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry its part of an ongoing thread, the previous posts established my position as an inclusionist, which is not readily apparent here, that is keeping as many files as possible. With the inclusion of the word archive to prevent the word "Unused" as a valid reason to delete an image. We don't have 750 images of the Amstel river, but we do have 10s of thousands of images of places in the UK from the geograph project, many of which are just muddy fields. One day those muddy fields may be built upon or under the sea, or whatever the future brings. They may be unused and uninteresting now, but they are a record of how things are now.92.11.197.134 08:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)9forgot to sign in)KTo288 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing about all those pictures of 737's: one of them is a picture of a plane painted in KLM livery of several decades ago. I was looking for a picture of just that plane for use in nl:Retro. Found it!;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, a file not in use now may have a future use, and may already have a use by someone other than wikipedia. And in case its not clear yet I was not advocating the trimming of our 737 images (I'd rather have my eye teeth pulled out) but rather using it as an example of what might appear to be a tedious repetition of having an educational archival value in itself in addition to any service it may offer to our sister projects.KTo288 (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


As for art works, there is fairly clear agreement at least on enWP that every significant work of art by a famous artist is appropriate for an article, since there is always substantial critical and academic discussion about them. that the article may not yet have been written is no reason to delete the image--if anything the presence of the image should alert us to the need to write the article. DGG (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Suicide Girls copyright


I'm reopening this because it needs a full discussion and I'll reframe it. Many images in Category:SuicideGirls have OTRS tags. Many do not ([27], [28], [29]).

The images in flickr have a copyright statement, but OTRS had a statement that some were released (all? what about the ones not tagged by OTRS?). Their website has language suggesting that the works could not be sold, but they have the right to distribute. 

Their website says images released are under: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, a User who successfully Transmits Content to the Site grants to SuicideGirls a perpetual, world-wide, royalty free, non-exclusive, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display any or all Content so Transmitted and to incorporate such Content into other works." This does not say that they agree to allow the images to be sold (making it a little hard under our license). Then the rest says: "Content contained in any part of the Site may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted, uploaded or downloaded in any way without the prior written consent and permission of SuicideGirls." But also not to sell. 

If they gave OTRS permission, did they give it to sell? and would they have the right to under the first licensing statement to their uploaders saying they would not be giving the right to sell? Are the images not tagged under OTRS also under the OTRS release? Shouldn't the cropping of the "copyright www.suicidegirls.com" image from the images also be mentioned per stating how the image was "derived" from an original? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



I can confirm that the otrs permission only verifies that they actually own the flickr account, nothing more. In that sense they do apply to the other images from the flickr account (as far as that goes). Jamesofur (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The two copyright/license statements are not mutual exclusive. I'm pretty sure that SG sees flickr as their advertising venue. That is their prerogative. The only thing that matters, is if the SG flickr account is actually controlled by the SG website, thx for the info Jamesofur. TheDJ (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of my questions would be to determine if they had the right to re-license the right to sell (or if they knew that they would be giving the license to sell) based on a lack of that under the "uploader release". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They own the pictures, they own the flickr account, they upload some pictures (that they own) to a flickr account (which they own) under a free licence, and we then take some (as we are entitled) and put them on commons (attributing as requested) under the same free licence (which is what free licences are about). There is nothing wrong with any of this process, you are just putting up another facade of lawyering in your ongoing crusade to remove all non-U-rated content from Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the licensing. They don't own the picture. They have the right to distribute but not to sell. Thus, they can't give the right to sell away. We require the right to sell. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Please keep things civil and assume good faith. Licensing of commercial works is a legitimate concern, regardless of the content. Editors should be free to discuss this without their motives being attacked. Kaldari (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate AGF, but frankly Ottava has used all of his up with me. His actions have consistently been to ignore and misrepresent policy in order to try and get all nudity deleted, and to then try and punish those who disagree with him. I assume good faith to start with, as should we all, but we do not assume good faith indefinitely if the user in question proves time and time again to be unworthy of such faith. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It has already been demonstrated that you completely misinterpreted policy and your claims about me trying to get rid of "all nudity" is just a way to try and avoid any of the blatant violation of policies you have committed. If you honestly think you were correct, it would probably have been better for you to not start attacking things and showing you don't understand these policy concerns in addition, as that will undermine your defense when you are listed for removal for your abuse of policy and ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, you want me deadmined, get on with it. Either push the button or drop it, I don't care which, but these continual threats that you will are frankly childish. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


This is the one spot that I think may be a problem. The uploaders to SG definitely give away the right for SG to sub-licence the ability to "use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display any or all Content" which is fairly far reaching, but does it include the ability to sell it? One may be able to argue that the ability to distribute includes that but I'm not sure and it gives me pause since we basically require the ability to use it for almost any commercial purpose (with personality/trademark rights etc notwithstanding). Also, as Kaldari said: If the reasoning is correct it doesn't matter WHAT his reason for bringing it up is. Jamesofur (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "ability to sell" in the CC-BY 2.0 license text: [30], only rights to distribute, incorporate, reproduce, etc. Trycatch (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Their legal statement on their site mentions the word "sell" multiple times (example: "User agrees not to (and User agrees User has no right to) reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit for any purposes"). That means they view "sell" as an important legal term. Their original website when licensing it from the original uploader does not mention CC in any form and uses their own license per the site. The CC is a later relicense, but a relicense cannot override something they had no right to to begin with. By the way, CC has "non commercial" that denotes others allow commercial use. The license on the website does not have any such denotation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


As a note, I came upon this by seeing the one image was different from the main image and looked up the copyright (the image I found had no OTRS tag so I went to see the license on the website). It was filled with quite a lot of problems, which was why I stopped tagging some of the images (I know I tagged at least one that had an OTRS tag that was pointed out after the fact, which was confusing why they were so many without). I personally feel a clarification from suicidegirls "CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS" might be able to clarify on the selling aspect. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If people are interested I am willing to open an OTRS ticket (from our end) and send an email to them asking the question.  Jamesofur (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Ottava's point about right to sell is not helpful.  The flickr images are released by SG as CC-BY; we have retained the same license.  If he thinks SG doesn't have sufficient rights to release these images as CC-BY, he should take his concern to SG and flickr. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



I believe that is what Jamesofur is proposing. Kaldari (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, John, but they already have a clear statement and it does not matter what a flickr account says if they don't have the right to release it as such. There is no special rule saying that if it is on flickr we ignore everything else about an image, especially when flickr does very little to enforce copyright on its own. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Think of it this way - you agree to GFDL here, but the WMF could not put up a clone and relicense it under PD, especially without going through the process of getting a relicensing of the material by those who originally posted it. This is no different. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


If it is their account -- as they confirmed to OTRS -- and they've marked their images as CC-BY(-SA), it is not up to us to speculate what do they think. If they think that their rights are endangered, they will call us. Thus, I am agreed that Ottava Rima is raising this issue because of reasons other than interests of Commons. --Millosh (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



Ottava is not discussing the rights of Suicide Girls, she is discussing the copyrights of the photographers who upload to Suicide Girls. Suicide Girls does not own the copyrights to most of their images. They are licensees just like we are. Kaldari (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"He", by the way. And yes, you are correct. And Kaldari, I would suggest we are the "sublicenses" per their legal statement (if that makes a difference?). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the pronoun :P Yes, it seems we are the sublicensees in this case. Kaldari (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, But I just read SG's legal page and I searched for all the instances of the word "sell": they are about people selling parts of their site, or making derivative content, or about them selling part of their own company. I don't see any problem with SG relicensing under CC-by-2.0 via Flickr. I think that "[the user grants a] fully sublicensable license [to SG]" is quite clear language. 

I suggest that Jamesofur contacts SG directly to ask them about this concern (you know, just in case that there is a remote chance that there is something wrong that they might have missed), but I don't see any reason for inmediate concern. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



By mentioning others having the right (or lack thereof) to "sell" their content, they acknowledge that it is a legitimate right. By not having such in the uploader's portion (what rights they give to the website), then there is no ability for them to give away the right to sell. It is that simple. Facebook, for instance, can't sell your images unless you give them the specific permission to. They do not tell their uploaders they are "licensing under CC" in any regard, so there is no way to say there is a license that allows for it to be sold. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that the CC license doesn't even use the word "sell" anywhere (hell, it doesn't use the words "commercial usage" or even "commercial"). We are making amateur analysis, we are not trained as copyright lawyers, nobody has cited any expert opinion saying that there is a problem. OTRS can ask SG to consult their legal team, or we can consult our own legal counsel (Mike Godwin). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Try searching for the word "sale" instead of "sell", or better yet, read the actual text of the licenses. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I think the central question of the issue is: does the term "distribute", as used in the SG agreement, include commercial resale. You would probably have to ask a contract lawyer about that one. Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that people having problems with SG's relicensing should cite some expert advice (contract lawyer, copyright lawyer, etc) that says that there is a problem. (<whining> The CC page only says that it doesn't restrict or limit first sale rights. The SG page talks about sale or rental of site content for users of the site.</whining>) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


The Legal page is not a CC-BY 2.0 license. So the uploaders aren't agreeing to CC-BY 2.0. They are agreeing to a license that uses the term "sell" multiple times but not in any of the rights they give up to SuicideGirls.com.  Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Legal page is not the page to consult for images that SG have uploaded to flickr.  You have yet to provide any evidence that they do not have the rights to upload those pictures to flickr.  You are wasting a lot of peoples time.  Please go talk to SG first, come back when you have a real concern; then we'll be happy to delete them. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Legal page is not the page to consult for images that SG have uploaded to flickr" Actually, it is. They do not own the images and are not the originator. Uploaders are. SG is a host site. Their licensing between uploader and host is necessary to determine the legitimacy of sublicenses. Now, John, people who are actual members of OTRS and have background in the area see this as a legitimate concern. You have expressed your pointy point of view on related matters quite openly and even edit warred. Your statements are crossing the line and show no basis in either law or policy. Please desist. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting that they are pushing images onto flickr without any additional agreements with the subjects, and in asserting this you are accusing SuicideGirls of breaking the law.  Do you have evidence for that?


I am an actual member of OTRS, and have substantial background in this area. ;-)


This is a copyright discussion; what do you believe is my pointy point of view?  Where is this related edit war you speak of?


John Vandenberg (chat) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not our duty to prosecute law breakers. It is our duty to ensure that items are able to meet our copyright standards. The evidence points that these images do not. That much is certain based on their own licensing which is provided on their website. And John, the other OTRS people here and at least 7 on IRC made it very clear that this was a clearly serious matter. If you disagree with them, then you are in the vast minority. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


By the way, John, if you bothered to look at the images you would see that they are clearly marked "Copyright www.suicidegirls.com". This is a very important item that seems to be what you have not yet considered when making your claims above. Also, flickr washing is quite common and is a serious concern here on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, you really do not know when to give up. We have OTRS confirmation from SuicideGirls that they own the account and release them under the licence. What about that is unclear? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"they own the account and release them under the licence" Not enough. They have to have the rights to license it. They are not the primary owners of the images. They are a licensee. Wikipedia cannot relicense material here under PD even if they tried. SuicideGirls.com is no different. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Ohhh, IRC people.  Please tell them to comment here.  So far, only you have stated here that you believe there is evidence that these images don't meet our copyright standards. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Many have commented here. If you were active on OTRS you would recognize that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


By the way, John, you look kinda silly when you say I'm the only one who believes something when both Kaldari and Jamesofur took this very serious from the very beginning. This was reopened here from the beginning because of the dubious OTRS release which merely stated that the account on flickr was connected but had no legitimate rationale providing proof that suicidegirls, not a primary source of the images as per their legal statement, had any authority to sublicense the images without an NC. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One last note, John, I think you need to reconsider your stance here. [31]: "We take copyright seriously, any image or media with questionable authorship may get nominated for deletion, and media uploaded without proper permission or licensing information may be speedily deleted" The author is not SuicideGirls but the original uploaders. The last statement here is your very argument: The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained.” Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


(outdent) The problem is that people don't agree that the licensing is improper. Please find some expert advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Would it help to send an email to Mike Godwin, pointing him to this discussion? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



Mike Godwin doesn't deal with such matters. Commons as a community does. Please read the policy on the matter. Furthermore, there has already been a complaint by a uploader calling foul to the changing of the license and permissions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, Godwin is the WMF's legal counsel. This, as you keep asserting, is a legal matter. We are NOT lawyers, he IS. So how is asking him for an opinion a bad thing? I think I know why, I think it's because you know he would disagree with you, and that if you just keep fighting then eventually you'll win because everyone else will just say "fuck it, it's not worth bothering anymore" because you repeatedly hound them until they leave. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


How to mark content on commons "for adults only"


After all the discussion about porn, I ask how to mark content on commons "for adults only", so that parent supervision blocks access to that content? --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



You don't. If people want to censor through filters or textual checks, that's their right; but they cannot ask everyone else to do your censorship for them.


This is because such things tend towards the lowest common denominator - if we start by tagging explicit sex, it'll eventually end up tagging Renaissance art, pictures of the prophet Muhammad, and anything anyone anywhere finds objectionable. And a lot of people are going to have deep ethical revulsion at some point in the tagging, when it crosses some line. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


We're not talking about censorship, we're talking about legal issues (at least I do). The server of commons are located in the United States of America, thus local law of this country applies. And local law determines it's illegal to grant access to "pornography" (whatever this may be in detail) without prove of age!


And I still question, that commons needs to store any picture that's questionable. Go to "adult links 4 adults" if you want to see those ... axpdeHello! 10:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Adults only *in which country*? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



in the www (world wide web) community space. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


If you're an "adult" or not depends on local law. Has to take into consideration if applicable ... axpdeHello! 10:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if such things tend towards the lowest common  denominator, than make it a tag of the kind "explicit sexual content" or so, but give parents the choice in filtering between no access to commons at all, or restricted access. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


US law does not, as far as I know, still require web providers to limit access of children to explicit material. This was at one time required, and many web sites voluntarily do so to avoid drama. If someone can cite the relevant law we'll talk. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Couldn't we create a special banner that would make the filters work without any problem for any porn illustration ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



Not and remain true to our anti-censorship liberal principles.  Rememeber, we had a situation with depictions of the prophet Muhammed, and were able to get around that one precisely because we refused to censor offensive material. In a worldwide repository of images, where what people find offensive can vary so much, any attempt to censor is inherently dangerous.


However, I think we can reasonably state that, at the least, the material we have is educational. As Tom Lehrer sung "To be smut / It must be ut- /Terly without redeeming social importance." Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Also, let's be frank here. There may be a few photographs of explicit sexual acts, but the number's quite small. The controversy was almost entirely over artworks, diagrams and a few anatomical illustrations. We have over 6.6 million files, of those, 400 got deleted in the purge, and (call it half) have returned, as they shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. That's less than a thousandth of 1 percent (0.0006%, if anyone's counting) of our content.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



If I remembered correctly, during the Muhammed controversy we offered some kind of special tags to be able to hide those illustrations, why not do the same with sexual images? Create a special template to be put on all (and I mean all) pages depicting nudity. Then we won't have to decide what's porn and what's not, just state the obvious: this person's genitalia are shown. The only problem is: should female breasts be considered genitalia...? Dammit! /grillo (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Maybe a better way is to tag certain categories, so we don't have to consider individual images inside that category? /grillo (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I said "content", I thought of categories as most suitable, also of catscan possiblities see e.g. [32]. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a simple category tagging scheme before this whole controversy erupted, but it was shot down, ostensibly due to concerns over potential false positives. Really though, I think the false positives issue is negligible and a red herring thrown out by people who want to obstruct any type of tagging system. No tagging system is perfect, but it seems that a lot of people would appreciate if we offered one. Kaldari (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari, can you point to that proposal?  –SJ+ 04:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


A negligable amount of false positives or false negatives are going to be inevitable in any system, the various systems that were proposed would likely have had more false positives than correct positives. One proposal would have resulted in Category:Vrigin Mary (and all sub-categories, which include things like churches dedicated to her) being tagged as sexual content. I was heavily involved in the discussions about a tagging system, and as I have said many times there I have no objection to a system of tagging that is all of (a) workable, (b) neutral and (c) controlable by degrees (i.e. allow people to choose which types of images they see and which they don't - some people want to filter photos of sexual intercourse but not diagrams, some want to filter both, some people want to filter all images penises, others only want to filter photographs of erect ones) - an all or nothing system will never gain consensus. At the point of Jimbo's intervention (which derailed the entire discussion) no system had been proposed that met any of these criteria, let alone all three. Part of the problem with the discussion was that a couple of users were apparently unable to understand that the definitions and attitudes of some contemporary Americans were not universal. If you can come up with a proposal for a system that meets the three criteria above, and can fight your way through all the noise and moral panic, then go ahead. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The system I proposed didn't traverse subcategories. I explained that in the proposal. It was a flat hidden category of other categories which consist primarily of explicit images (directly, not through subcategories). It's a simple workable solution that has some false positives, but not a lot. I have yet to see anything better proposed. Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As for <<(a) workable>>, it shall progress by tryal and error; as for <<(b) neutral>>, wikipedia has large experience in maintaining neutrality by discussions. But for <<(c)controlable by degrees>>, the filter should be simple (single), as the supervisers have the possibility to temporarely desinstall the supervision filter. Oké, it's not all that practical, but it puts the responsability were it belongs: in hands of the supervisor. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral is mainly about having descriptions that are objective. It can be objectively agreed whether an image shows, for example, a close-up of vaginal intercourse between two fully-developed adults; the same cannot be said about whether an image is "explicit" or "suitable for adults only" as experience shows that consensus will never occur for all but a tiny proportion of possible images. For example, is an image of a bare-breasted adult woman "explicit" or not? Does whether the subject is a western woman on a suburban American street or a member of a tribe where such dress is the norm standing outside her house make any difference to the answer? What about whether the photograph was taken in 2010 or 1910? Some cultures say that all these images should be filtered, others say only some should while some others say none should - which culture is right?


Controlable by degrees does not mean taking control away from administrators, but rather allowing them to choose which images they want to block and which they don't want to block. The administrator of a school might want to allow users to see anatomical drawings but not mass graves at WWII concentration camps, while the administrator of a different school may wish to allow users to see photographs of mass graves but not anatomical drawings. With a controlable filter, both can achieve what they want. With a single filter both have to choose between blocking images required for school work so the students don't see images they don't want them to, or not blocking any images at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If a filtering method is implemented, I don't see why it would need to be restricted to a single "filter category" (a category of categories to filter). Theoretically, people could implement several filter categories and point the filter gadget to whatever filter category or categories they choose. I imagine the entire system could be decentralized and fully customizable. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Are those 6 ppm of our content worth to discredit the remaining 999.994 ppm? axpdeHello! 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



Are we willing to discredit all of Commons by censoring one little part? Once we do that, either we're saying that we will censor based on one parochial viewpoint, or we're open to all takers; what Tiananmen Square? Katyn Massacre--never heard of it. Pictures of the Prophet? Scandalous, but not found here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

100% agreement.  TheDJ (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


And w:The Joy of Sex spent more than 70 weeks on the bestseller list. What other 6 ppm of our content can claim numerous non-fiction bestsellers on the subject?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Too many deletions


Because the content for this month no longer fits on one page :D  See: Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05 TheDJ (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



In categorizing I've noticed that lately people are uploading a bit more crap than before. But it's just an impression. Anywyay, in sharing, people have to start from something. Even from their dicks (one every X uploadings) or their boy-bands (one every x-10 uploadings and only boys, really no girls). Dicks disappear immediately, but the boy-bands finish all in the black hole of the uncategorized. God bless creativity, however. Better than workalcoholism.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Well, sharing in general is quite allright. Sharing images in general? Yes please. Sharing dicks, uploaded or not? No, thanks. Quite right that uploaded dicks disappear immediately. Or, at least, the images thereof.;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Aren't we overreacting?


Aren't we overreacting? 

While I appreciate that we should not allow Commons to be turned into a repository for obviously illegal content -and please note that I was the first one to object to Stan Spanker's uploads, see my comments on the Village Pump of January 26, 2010- I do think that we are now overreacting. 

As I see it, and I stand ready to be corrected, two things have happened. 1. Larry Sanger says that he has told the U.S. law enforcement authorities that in his view U.S. law is being infringed upon here. As far as I am aware, no U.S. authority shares this view or has looked into the matter. (I think it is not open to doubt that we would cooperate with these authorities. After all, everything that happens here can be traced.) 2. Fox News has apparently started a crusade against Wikipedia, trying to hurt Wikipedia financially. Whether this could be a succes, I don't know. But yielding to such pressure, even when it is clear that this does materialise, seems a very bad idea to me. I have noted with satisfaction that Wikipedia has resisted attempts at censorship from, for instance, the Chinese government. Why we should give in to financial pressure from the same media group that gave the world the Page Three Girl (see en:Page Three), I cannot understand. 

Furthermore, I think that it is very unlikely that anyone looking for pornography on the Internet would start at Wikipedia and/or Commons. 

Before adding filters, content warnings, tags or whatever, could we please reconsider the situation? Fox News is merely a U.S. right-wing TV channel. Over here (the Netherlands) they are generally considered to be at least slightly biased, and should not be taken too seriously. 

Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



Actually, the channel are just a bunch of hypocrites, see http://foxnewsporn.com/   /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


There is a slight difference in the URL. Not that much, just four letters. But I understand that the English language uses four letters where the Dutch language uses three. MartinD (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I do tend to agree that reation is way out of proportion to the event, if one looks through the number of deletion reviews that have occurred compared to the number of images deleted there was a need.  I also think that the way in which the reaction has occurred has done more the strengthen the views that have been expressed outside about Commons purpose.  These types of images are always going to be an issue because of our principles of not being censored and being a repository of free images what we really lack is a review of uploaded images especially from new contributors. Maybe instead of all these complex popups, and banner warning etc all we need is a flagged revisions that requires images to be view by approved users and tagged before they become public or linkable to other projects that way we can address not only scope concerns, but also copyright, derivative works, FOP, and permissions etc. Gnangarra 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A fine idea.  And since all of the images of concern have people in them, strengthen the criteria for indicating who the subject of an image is, and for confirming that they gave permission for their image to be published.  That will help confirm the images are legal, and protect subjects' right to privacy. –SJ+ 09:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Hispanic politicians


 
I have just uploaded Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sanchez and I would like to place her photo in a category "Hispanic politicians" but I find that this would be a new category. There is the category "Hispanic" and this would be a subcategory.  Any advice or help with this new category? --Davidt8 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For information about creating a new category, please see Help:Category#Creating_a_new_category. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Go on, fella. What are you afraid of? People will fill it, don't worry. Categories and categorizing, here on Commons, are, according to my point of view, a huge collective effort but taken individually. A category missing? You create it. A picture can be associated to others? You add the category. And it's not just a bureaucratic matter. As in your case, it's also creative. The more you do it the less bureaucratic become and your creativity could fly freely. A great example, in my opinion: Category:Female clothing by color. The first who had the idea and created the very first category and put the first pictures in it, he is a Picasso. For me, naturally. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But might you want to make a category more like "Hispanic politicians of the United States" instead, or "Hispanic American politicians" (parallel to Category:African American politicians? Otherwise, your category is going to embrace some overwhelming number of politicians in countries in the Spanish-speaking world, which I imagine is not your intent. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jmabel, that is the kind of advice I was seeking. "Hispanic American politicians" seems like the right category for my purposes.  Giorgiomonteforti, I have over 21,000 updates on English Wikipedia, so I know how to be bold, but I also like to have advice from other editors before plunging forward. --Davidt8 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hispanic American politicians mean all category:Hispanic politicians of the American continent. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


DjVu file problem


I've just tried downloading a djvu file from SORA, and I got this: File:Condor25(6).djvu. Can anybody tell what's wrong? —innotata 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



The index file at the bottom is an "indirect en:DjVu document" (that means it just links to several other documents like a html page). I opened it in my browser with the plugin DjView, saved it as "bundled DjVu" (all in one file) and uploaded it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the file to Wikisource, but I can't figure out how to extract any other files from the website, though. What exactly should I do? —innotata 01:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Which ones do you want exactly? In case the DjVu-Files you have downloaded are as small as the one above (450 bytes or so), you could also install DJView as Browser plugin (at least in Firefox it is working) and save them as bundled file if they are also indirect files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The ones I want to upload at the moment are issues of the same journal, which should be the same size. Later, I'd like to upload issues of other journals, which may be much larger. I've installed DjView, but I don't know if it is installed as a browser plugin (I also use Firefox). Opening the files downloaded from the website, I found a "save as bundled DjVu" option, but the application said the existing file can't be altered. —innotata 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice at my talk page. DjVu files are not always "indirect" - that's the first time i've seen that. So other journals from other websites are probably easier to upload. This journal seems  to be in the same indirect format for all issues. Don't forget that it needs to be PD to upload it here.


You installed it as a browser plugin if the DjVu-File opens inside you browser (rather than having to download it first). You probably know this behaviour from opening pdf files in your browser. So if I click [33] it is opened in my browser (using the plugin) and not as separate window. You can check if the plugin is installed by typing about:plugins in the address bar and hitting enter OR use the plug-in tab in the firefox addon manager (in menu tools). --Saibo (Δ) 20:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I know the things about DjVu files usually not being indirect (I ususally upload from the Internet Archive, but it doesn't have all the journals SORA has) and about copyright. I can't figure out how to install DjView as a browser plugin, however. —innotata 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's not 50 issues i'll be happy to help you convert them. Just let us move to someones discussion page to discuss this further. If you would like to do it yourself you need to descibe what you did to install it and what happend then. E.g. is it listed in about:plugins? --Saibo (Δ) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We are now on de:User talk:Saibo#DjVu thing if anybody likes to read. --Saibo (Δ) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


May 11


A list of methods to shield outsiders from our content


I have created a list of methods and approaches that we can do OUTSIDE of content management. It is displayed here below and please make changes if you desire. Note that i'm not looking for comments on what is good or bad, I'm just trying to create a list of options, much as Sue Gardner asked for.

This is a list of possible methodologies that can be applied



  1. We do nothing new, continue to delete obviously illegal material and works with no obvious educational application
    2. 

  2. A 'first visit' content warning presented to users when they first visit Wikimedia Commons. proposed by Gmaxwell
    3. 

  3. Inform people about filter systems that their school or individual parents might want to use.
    4. 

  4. Make media content that is not in use, invisible to 'normal users'
    5. 

  5. Use our current categories

    • Use those categories to create lists of URLs that organizations might want to block
      • 

    • Use dedicated rating categories
    6. 

  6. Mark images that some consider offensive with NOINDEX
    7. 

  7. Present people with an "are you 18 years or older" page before they can see 'objectionable' content
    8. 

  8. We tag pages with something like ICRA tags that can be recognized by external filters (list of external filters used by libraries)
    9. 

  9. We create our own filtering system alla Google safesearch
    10. 

  10. We create our own filtering that is even more flexible than ICRAs ratings allowing everyone to block just about anything they object to.
    11. 

  11. Blur objectionable content and only unblur by clicking it
    12. 

  12. We limit the scope of Wikimedia Commons to childsafe material
    13. 

  13. We create some open source desktop filtering software


— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 



I've found an easy method to shield outsiders from our content. I'm no longer uploading it here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I think some of these measures are actually useful: enforcing existing policies, linking people to filtering software, and contributors creating and distributing unofficial filtering software. I strongly object to any change to Commons however, particularly any that would involve adding ratings to individual images or adding a "warning" page. In particular, there are no laws against minors viewing pornographic content in the United States, as far as I know, and we should not support the idea that there are with "are you 18 or older" pages. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Flagged revisions/review of uploads would make all these filters, banners, popup message unnecessary because only images that meet our requirements would be viewable in addition to scope it would also catch many of the copyright, licensing, permissions issues as well.  Gnangarra 01:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

    • But would also make us substantially less user-friendly, as we're currently used casually by users of hundreds of Wikipedias, whereas that would mean non-regulars would have to wait to have their files to use on their home projects. I don't support any of these but enforcing existing policies, and linking people who ask to filtering sofftware. I cannot prevent people creating filtering software, but think the effort misguided. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Designing filtering software


Hey all, I've been considering our options for helping people who are concerned about the type of content that they and/or their children are exposed to on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I think we all agree that Wikimedia Commons itself should not be attempting to classify images according to their offensiveness.

On the other hand, a great compromise solution I believe is for someone - on another unaffiliated site - to make client-side filtering software available. Here's my first stab at a design.



  • It would be distributed in the form of a web browser plug-in, one for each major browser.
    • 

  • Upon loading a page at a WMF site, the plug-in which would evaluate each image against a set of blacklists before displaying it, based on the viewer's configured preferences, which are associated with their account on the client's site. Even if they change computers, the client site remembers their settings.
    • 

  • Users can configure whether to "hard block" images on their blacklist or whether to "click to show". They can also choose whether or not to show textual descriptions of blocked images.
    • 

  • The "public" blacklists would be maintained via a publically editable web interface on the client's website that would allow everyone to keep them up-to-date, and they could include both individual files and categories. Users can create new public blacklists for any purpose they want. It would also permit a hierarchy of blacklists, where some lists include all images/categories listed in another blacklist (possibly with exceptions).
    • 

  • Users can also maintain a "personal blacklist" associated with their account on the client's website, which only they can modify. At any time they can right-click an image and choose "block this image" or "unblock this image" to add/remove it from their personal blacklist.


I think this kind of self-regulation could be a great way to help address public concerns and I'm prepared to work on it. What do you guys think, good idea/bad idea, design feedback or suggested features? Dcoetzee (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



It sounds promising to me --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks already for the work you intend to invest in it. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


This is a great idea. It clearly separates our mission (providing content) from a completely unrelated service that some people may want (filtering). It has the huge advantage of allowing people who wish to filter our content to do so without imposing any constraint at all on the rest of the world (even the extra step of clicking yes, I want to proceed... on a warning page or — even worse — having to register to see all of our media can be a major annoyance and drive people away). The list of features seems to address most if not all of the concerns raised regarding our explicit content. I particularly like the idea of having several blacklists; the focus so far has been on sexually explicit content and nudity, but people may be offended by a variety of other topics (religion, violence, sunsets, etc.). Thanks to this system, it would be their choice to make, not ours. Very nice.
I don't know if you intend to keep track of your progress here on Commons or on some third party development website, but either way, let us know. Some of us might be able to help, financially or by providing patches/bug reports. Thanks, and good luck. –Tryphon☂ 09:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Am I wrong in saying that's basically how the Adblock Plus extension for Firefox currently works? (except for the "click to show" part, and the personal blacklist being remotely stored). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's similar. Main differences with Adblock: Adblock filters by domain or URL, whereas this would be "Wikipedia-smart" (e.g. it would use the Commons file name and load up the image description page to check categories). This makes it robust against changes like resizing the thumbnail or thumbnail cache invalidation on the server, which happens sometimes during upgrades and reconfiguration. I also think the "public blacklists" are important so people can collaborate on them (I think Adblock just has a master blacklist built in). Dcoetzee (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adblock plus has been supporting public blacklists for years (the most popular being EasyList). OTOH I believe that (at least from a PR point of view) said blacklists should be also available in a form which makes them readily usable with popular content filtering proxies, so organizations willing to filter content from Commons can be pointed to them and mostly be done with it. The usefulness of a browser plugin is limited (always from a PR point of view...), because browser plugins can be disabled by the final user (which is assumed to have no interest at all in being censored...).  -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And, respectfully, that's a good thing. The main ethical concern with filtering is that it may be forced on adults against their will. We don't need to support such attempts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my main goal is to support self-censorship and parental filters for children who are too young to disable plug-ins. I'm not particularly interested in filtering web proxies as I think the potential for abuse it too high. I didn't know Adblock Plus supports public blacklists, that's neat. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: saying that there'll be a browser plugin which individuals may willingly install to filter content won't be seen as an effective solution. While saying (loud) that blacklists will be made available for various kind of objectionable content will be. Regadless of their actual effectiveness. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


There's a major caveat to this proposed solution, and that being of users without user accounts, and/or without write permission on the machine on which they're browsing - e.g. library computers. And so,


    • The client-side plugin will more often be not installed, exactly where it is needed;
      • 

    • And even if installed, not in use by default when no username exists. Either due to cookie expiry / deletion, or because the user is a casual surfer without any wiki user account.
      • 

    • I believe the approach should be opposite on the two above parameters. By default, content marked as inappropriate should be filtered OUT, and only by the use of creating user profiles, you will be allowed to filter IN (reveal hidden content).
      • 

    • Also, client-side is not the way to go if you want to save the filter settings on the server. It makes no sense: if the server holds the filter data, it should be the one doing the filtering logic.
      • 

    • As for your thoughts on the customization possibilities - I think they are excellent.W00pz0r (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

      • You misunderstand my proposal. The settings would not be associated with their account on the wiki, which would be completely uninvolved; they would be associated with their account on the client's website. A username would be required for use, but it would be possible for institutions like schools and libraries to create centrally-managed institutional accounts and install the software on all of their machines. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Now I understand, that's a good proposal - as long as people are actually aware of the software's existence. W00pz0r (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


....It all makes sense.


I just realised: Every single one of Wales' actions make sense if Jimbo was trying to completely purge Commons of anything the least bit controversial to kill the story, figuring it could be brought back in a couple months. His statements lend strong support to this theory. Consider: 














...He wanted to get Commons completely purged while attention was on it, then - and then only allow the restoration of encyclopedic material when attention was off it. In other words, this was the worst PR stunt ever.

...I'm stunned. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



Well, your theory sounds reasonable up to this was the worst PR stunt ever, which is not a logical conclusion. --Dschwen (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


While I imagine it is trivial at this point to many side viewers (me being one) other than for closure purposes, I actually do think Jimbo's actions were not unforgivable. All he did was avoid one catastrophe by creating a different undesired situation. ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS COULD BE FIXED MORE EASILY THAN THE OTHER, and this is a point that many seem to miss. How easy would it be to go to all major media publications and "restore" previous status quo? How difficult was it to do it on wiki? It's about a week since the catastrophe started, and all is well in the kingdom of Wikimedia. Taking that into account, I think Jimbo did the right thing. W00pz0r (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's actions, and the consequences thereof, gave the story legs. I doubt this would've gone much beyond Fox if he hadn't had to give up his powers over it. It was a PR stunt - it was intended to get good PR, and was a stunt - however, it was one made unilaterally without any atempts to ring the user on board, hence, stupid. He managed to go from widely respected to nearly having his powers removed by force in just 3 days, for no perceivable benefit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On a side-note: this story got into "metro", a free Belgian newspaper distributed in stations, as well, under the title "Wikipedia-oprichter onder vuur" (Wikipedia founder under fire). It's about his deletion spree at commons and the reaction. Kameraad Pjotr 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


If I understand correctly, you're suggesting Wikimedia foundation (or Jimmy alone) found out about the story before it went public, and decided to take advantage of the situation and get good publicity by showing a devotion to a cause of cleansing Commons of sexual depictions. I must admit it sounds too cynical an analysis of the situation to me. (But then, I'm not really from around here.) W00pz0r (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


no perceivable benefit is easy for you to say. Keep in mind that benefit is relative to the worst possible outcome. --Dschwen (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Mobile app for uploading


More than once, I've spent minutes (sometimes even hours) trying to get ONE image uploaded to the Commons or Wikipedia from my mobile phone, and although it usually eventually works out, it's very tedious. I was quite disappointed when the (read-only) mobile version of Wikipedia was released considering they had the perfect chance to make these projects more mobile friendly for editors, yet they made it only useful for reading (something that several mirror sites was already doing). Now I have several images I took JUST for the purpose of uploading to Wikimedia projects, but it's going to probably take up an entire day to do it all. Any chance that an app could ever be made for people who want to upload pictures from mobile devices? PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



Custom ImageMagick command?


Is Commons using a custom ImageMagick command? The thumbs are much sharper and slightly larger in file size than the same image thumbs on my own wiki using ImageMagick. E.g. [1] vs [2]. If so, which is it and where to add it in MediaWiki? --Subfader (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



Nothing custom. Simply uses a sharpen filter. If you wiki is up to date and uses a recent Imagemagick version, the results should be the same TheDJ (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Using $wgSharpenParameter = '0x0.5'; now in LocalSettings. :)


Picture of the Year 2009


Picture of the Year 2009 looks to be kicking off imminently.  Please help with Translations asap.  So far we have little more than one language - English!  --99of9 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



Could you show me the things that need to be translated? --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that on the link I gave, everything under "English" needs an equivalent under the other languages.  But for now, the most crucial appear to be Message 1 and Message 2. --99of9 (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, gonna translate it. You might want to ask the following users for assistance:


  1. Jean-Frédéric: admin with high French language skills
    2. 

  2. Bjankuloski06en: long since active Commons translator
    3. 

  3. Siebrand: admin and maintainer of Translatewiki with Dutch language skills
    4. 

  4. Slomox: Lower German expert
    5. 

  5. MGA73: Danish admin
    6. 

  6. Dferg: Spanish admin and steward


I know there's more, but currently I can't remember the names. FYI, I also made a copy-edit, because this was much too formal and one would have just considered it boring. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



Something strange


File:The Grass Snake - Natrix natrix.jpg is showing up in Category:Other speedy deletions although there does not appear to be a deletion template appended to the image itself. Is this a glitch, or has one or other of the templates used in the file been changed to tag it for deletion. Its a quality image so unless there is something very wrong with its licensing I don't think that deletion is appropriate.KTo288 (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



It's there as a warning for admins ;)


Template:Potd/2010-05-05 (uk) was deleted not too long ago.   -- User:Docu at  08:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that one was tagged with {{Speedy}} so that will cause File:The Grass Snake - Natrix natrix.jpg to end up in Category:Other speedy deletions. This happens every once in a while when someone tags a template with {{Speedydelete}} and forgets about it's transclusions. Multichill (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for sorting this out.KTo288 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Duplicate and posible cpvio


Bij looking at the Volkswagen category, I discover two images wich look the same. File:Attack 4072.JPG and File:VW ATTACK 01.jpg. The second one is bigger size, but mentions some copyrigth. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



You're talking about the © foto qarispol 2009 part? User:QARISPOL claims to be the author, so he owns the copyright (and licensed the image under a free license). How is this a copyvio exactly? Multichill (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


I see no obvious copyvio: both images were uploaded by the same user (who claims ownership) on the same day, and the larger one has exif data as well (which goes in the direction of actual ownership). It seems to me that File:Attack 4072.JPG is just a scaled down version of the other file, and is redundant, IMHO. Perhaps the uploader changed his mind and tried to upload a scaled down version, but I see no deletion request in the history of the larger image... -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the licence difference. The larger image is CC-BY-SA, while the smaller one is public domain. This makes it non-redundant, I believe. Intersting approach. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


I was confused by the trademark in the source upload text. When I see a trademark I always think it is protected. : I was confused by the trademark in the source upload text. When I see a trademark I always think it is protected. Why does the uploader use the © sign? Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Some points of clarification:

  • Trademarks and copyright are not the same thing. Here at the Commons we are concerned about copyright. The © symbol is a copyright symbol, not a trademark symbol (™ for unregistered trademarks, and ® for registered trademarks).
    • 

  • There is nothing wrong with the author of the image putting the © symbol on the image description page. As he has not released the image into the public domain, he is still the copyright owner. He has only licensed his copyright to others under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licences. By licensing the image under these licences, an author does not give up his copyright in the image.


I hope this makes things clearer. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


allow cropping images when rendered


Let's support this Bug 7757 (vote)   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 13:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



English speaking church near Germering??


Hallo! I am new here from the US and I'm looking for an English speaking (or church with headset translation) to attend near Germering. Does anyone have a suggestion?



I think you might have the wrong website, we are an international project dealing with free educational media. However if you can make it into Munich theres this Methodist church, other then that I suggest asking the local expat community. Cheers and good luck in finding what you want.KTo288 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Try leaving a message at "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


funny question here - this is a list of "Gottesdienste" in Munich: http://www.muenchen.de/Rathaus/raw/Tourismusamt/veranstaltung/128737/Gottesdienste_in_Muenchen.html - I am quite sure, that there is no english speaking church directly in Germering. Call a church there or ask in the German wikipedia at the "Auskunft" Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



Category:Teddy bears


I've just discovered this category and I'm very unsure about their legacy : aren't the teddies original work and the pictures of them derivative work, hence not free ? Léna (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



I usually tag toys with "toys are art" and speedy delete, however for Teddy bears I think there is a case to be argued that bears produced today use as their basis toy bears from the 19thC and that they are themselves derivative works with varying amounts of originality. I would feel uneasy with bears that differed markedly from the traditional pattern but basically the more traditonal the bear the less originality there would be to it. We may need to go through the files on a file by file basis.KTo288 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly most of the pictures there are of the standard brown bear without much creativity.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


May 13


strange small category


Did someone know what this strange category should be: Category:Reviewed copyrighted free use provided that ? - thanx and good night (in central europe) Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



Quite odd. No idea. Anyway or we fill it or we empty it. Other options? Apropos of oddities, look what I have dug from the big dump of the uncategorized world: File:Hypomania.jpg. Great self confidence but no chances. In my opinion. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


It's populated by {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}, using the "reviewed=yes" parameter.  You can see the discussion that spawned that option waaaaaay back in 2006: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 1#Category:Copyrighted free use problem.  (Special:WhatLinksHere is your friend.)  Powers (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have made more sense if they had titled it Category:Reviewed copyrighted free use provided that..., all of them seem to carry riders as to their use.KTo288 (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


May 14


POTY 2009 open


Just in case someone missed it, the POTY 2009 may now be chosen. You can find all candidates on Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries. Happy voting! --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Image annotations


I created a list of paintings by Paul Gauguin in a table. Some images have annotations that can be useful, but when the image is in the table, it doesn't look good, it unnecessarily widens the column and moves the image off center. Is their a way to turn off the notes to avoid this ? One obvious solution would be : upload the same file without annotations, I tried this, but I somehow couldn't manage to upload it.--Zolo (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



You can switch off that caption on individual image uses using {{ImageNoteControl}}, or on the whole page using {{ImageAnnotations}}. See Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. For now, I've added {{ImageAnnotations}} on that page to suppress all image annotations display. Lupo 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. It worked when it was turned off on individual pictures, but not when it is used for the whole page.--Zolo (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


{{Nobreasts}}


Does this template restrict the upload of breast images that have no educational value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



No, it doesn't, it's just a notification template. Don't try to extrapolate policy from this template. Multichill (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Discussion on {{PD-textlogo}} at en.wikipedia -- Commons people's input needed


There's a spirited discussion currently going on here on en-wiki, regarding {{PD-textlogo}} images, as to 



  • whether to define a more narrow, more strict bright-line test to allow as free only a narrowly-definable subset of images which it is absolutely certain are PD, and on a precautionary basis to mark everything else as non-free, even if it might be free; and
    • 

  • whether or not it is worth trying to seek expert legal opinion as to where any such line should be drawn.


Input from Commons people would be welcome, as it would be pretty much essential to have en-wiki and Commons aligned on this.  Jheald (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



I think you are referring to this discussion. Nillerdk (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.  For some reason I couldn't get the inline link to work.  Jheald (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Categories to be merged


HellO!

These two categories Military people killed in action and Category:Soldiers_killed_in_action cover almost the same topic but are not linked. Is one of the two categories superfluous and must be deleted? Regards, --80.187.107.87 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



"Soldier killed in action" could be a subcategory of "military people killed in action".--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Looks to me like they should be merged.  –SJ+ 04:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Hmmm... what about partisans? If I'm not mistaken, partisans are military people but not soldiers. Also, I'm not sure that mercenaries would qualify as soldiers. Other category hierarchies currently have the "soldiers" categories below the "military people" categories (either directly or indirectly); perhaps this should be done also for this case, as Giorgiomonteforti suggests. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


I tend to agree. I am under the impression that for now, in category:Soldiers killed in action we have the rather "anonymous" soldier casualties, while in category:Military people killed in action, one seems to find "notable" people and possibly other subcategories (Pilots, sailors, ...). So making a subcat combined with proper documentation should solve the problem. --Foroa (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on that, but I think "Soldier killed in action" should be a subcat of "military people killed in action" as well. --High Contrast (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that we also have seamen and airmen and others who would not regard themselves as soldiers.KTo288 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)




As User:KTo288 suggests, we could have a complete set:




but it doesn't appear that we need that now.  Merging Military and Soldiers would be a mistake, though, because the former is broader than the latter. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



Then, is there any other possibility to connect those two categories, like this "see also"-template? --High Contrast (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


May 12


How to transfer a gallery from Wikipedia


Can anyone point me to a basic, words-of-one-syllable (as in, first you go to x page and click on ...) help on how to transfer an image gallery from Wikipedia to Commons?  Wikipedia's policy recommends that this be done in some cases, but I can't find any instructions for doing so either there or here.  I know about the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload page and I note it has a Gallery button on it, but that doesn't help much (and when I click on it nothing happens).  If it's a gallery, what do I input on that page for source, license, etc.?  Presumably all these images are already in Commons anyway, so is there some shortcut just to add all of them back as a gallery?  I should add that I have only the most rudimentary knowledge of commons, so I'd need a really basic explanation.  Can I find one anywhere?  Thanks.  Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



Can you give an example of what you are trying to transfer? I don't believe the English Wikipedia has gallery pages as such. But maybe I'm confused, or not sure what you are referring to.-Andrew c (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


You can't move "gallery" as it's simple page with the list of images and some short description.


If images are already on Commons create a page in the gallery namespace http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/YOUR_GALLERY_NAME and add images as described Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files#Gallery


If images are on Wikipedia you have to transfer them to Commons, here is detailed guide Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, please keep in mind that not all images availeble in Wikipedia are suitable for Commons, please see checklist it will give some information--Justass (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have gallery pages but some pages become so overwhelmed by gallery sections that they have a template suggesting that the gallery  be moved here. My experience of this is to search for the "gallery name" using our search function, this produces a red link with the gallery name. The markup is identical so its was a case of clicking the edit button of the wikipedia article and cutting and cloning the entire gallery section from wikipedia, (to keep work to a minimum remember to clone all of the mark up) and pasting it into the empty gallery. Saving the empty page creates it here, make a note that you are cloning from wikipedia to maintain the link to the contributions of editors there. Once the gallery has been created, you'll need to tidy up (some captions will be red wikilinks either direct to articles and pages we have here or redirect back to en wiki), some images will be red links being local uploads at wikipedia, if the image is suitably licensed you can transfer it here as detailed above. You may also need to tidy up the formatting and don't forget to add cats. For an example have a look at the Street art gallery which had as its parent the gallery section of the article w:Street art at wikipedia.KTo288 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll try to implement them and come back here if I have problems (though if anyone else still has more advice, please feel free to post it.)  Examples of the galleries I mean are the ones on the Wikipedia pages for Santorini and for Rhodes, which seem clearly the sort of galleries Wikipedia policy specifically says should be moved to Commons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries).  Strawberryjampot (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



Oh and remember to add {{Commons|Gallery name here}} or {{Commons-inline|Gallery name here}} to the article, some articles will  have a commonscat link but this will not link directly to the new gallery.KTo288 (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Well I'm investigating the above and immediately running into problems.  I'd be grateful for any advice.  The first one is:  what should be done if some images in a gallery don't meet Wikicommons permissions standards.  For instance, the checklist at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_images_to_the_Commons says: Is the copyright owner/author identified, or evidence that a search has determined it was anonymous? If no, do not move. Several images in the Wikipedia Rhodes gallery have no Author: field and the contributor user name is a red link.  If I'm correct that these images don't qualify for commons (and f I've got this wrong, please tell me), then I can't move the gallery wholesale, right?    So do I really have to add the individual images from the Wikipedia Rhodes gallery that do qualify for Commons to Commons one at a time?  And do I have to then recreate a gallery with those images in Commons?  But in that case I wouldn't really be moving the gallery from Wikipedia to Commons.  So I would be tempted just to not create the gallery, but then I also wouldn't be "moving the gallery to Commons" as the Wikpedia policy calls for.  So the question is:  what is to be done with a Wikipedia gallery that should be moved to commons if a significant number of its images aren't qualified for Commons?  Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



Downloading pictures


Does any one know whether there is a way to download pictures 2-4 on this page? (You can see them by clicking on the text "Katso lisää kuvia" on the picture). Right-clicking doesn't give such an option. --Joonundi (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



Firefox: right click -> show page information (or similar - I have a german FF version: "Seiteninformationen") -> Tab Media -> search list for image. Here are the URLs in case you do not get it working. Respect copyrights when you indent to upload them here.



Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with User:Saibo -- in this case, his method is better, but here's another way)


It's not great for quality, but there are a variety of free apps that will allow you to take a screen shot of most pages. Then you have to crop away everything but what you want. I use this one for Firefox, which picked up the three images OK. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. This is the way of last resort. By the way: there is no need (although it may me easier) for a special screen grabbing software: just press the Print screen key. It copies the current screen content to the clipboard. Afterwards you can paste this image in any raster graphics editing program, crop it, and save it as file. --Saibo (Δ) 22:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks a lot! It doesn't seem to be a difference in quality between the two methods to me. I get the same resolution in either case. As for copyright, they are all PD. --Joonundi (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only a difference in quality if the images were shown scaled down on the website which isn't the case or if you save the screen shot as jpg (lossy compression - especially if saved using a low quality level). --Saibo (Δ) 21:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Relicensing images?


Are there any policies pertaining to the relicensing of images? I'm considering relicensing my photographs from cc-by-sa-3.0 to cc-by-3.0, which is less restrictive. I could anticipate there being issues with moving from less restrictive to more restrictive, but logically, I can't see any reason why the other direction would be legally or technically problematic. (After all, it's not uncommon for people to place "all rights reserved" copyrighted works into the public domain; a change from cc-by-sa-3.0 to cc-by-3.0 would just be a much smaller change in that same direction.) Any thoughts? —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Less restrictively speaking, I cannot figure out any objection. Unless you are not the copyright older, of course. Anyway, there are here, people largely more expert than I am. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


You may always re-license your photos freely under a less restrictive license.  That's precisely what you're doing when you assign cc-by-sa rights in the first place, by the way; since copyright is vested as soon as you create the work, licensing it under any CC license is "moving from" more restrictive to less restrictive.  Powers (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


This is legal and (in my opinion) highly desirable. However, while the CC licenses form an obvious hierarchy in terms of strictness, do not assume that any CC license is strictly weaker than any non-CC license - in this case, multilicensing is a better idea. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Even in this case where the new license is simply less restrictive, it might be clearest to add the new license without removing the old one. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Highest Resolution Image on Commons


I've been browsing Category:Large_images and would like to know what the largest image (largest in resolution; largest in filesize) is on Commons. Is there a way to list the images by filesize and/or resolution? --Codell (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Yes, there is, I've done the database query several times (I operate the bot that tags LargeImages). Unfortunately the question is ill-posed and the answer bound to be meaningless. We have a number of images that were uploaded at ridiculously large sizes. In case of pixelsize we have a bunch of unsharp and noisy monster images, in case of filesize we have a bunch of way undercompressed space wasters. Though I can see the appeal of superlative images, but this kind of competition will not further the project. --Dschwen (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


But knowing which images are the largest can help find over-large images and undercompressed images, and help fix them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Hmm, true. Ok, let me run the query again. --Dschwen (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some really lovely images there. That photo of M81? Wow. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Largest JPEG images in pixel size (not a measure of image quality!)



P.S.: I restricted the query to JPEG images (size is meaningless for SVG, png may be interesting, will try later)--Dschwen (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



I've nominated Zeugma_girl_erased for deletion; I think PNG definitely would be interesting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Largest PNG images in pixel size (not a measure of image quality!)



As requested. --Dschwen (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Rememeber that, while large PNGs don't display due to the dev team stalling on the issue, they are usually necessary for restoration work, as saving images into JPEG repeatedly degrades them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I don't think anyone has any problems with that. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


What File:Burlega_family.png is? Why it was speedily deleted? Trycatch (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Random snapshot, from maybe the 70s, with file errors that make the bottom half not show. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. --Codell (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



Does adding color create a new copyright?


I just uploaded File:Cainabel.jpg.

It's a reproduction of a black and white image published in 1890.  

Does adding color create a new copyright?  The art.com source suggests it was added using digital printers via the Giclee process. ReaverFlash (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Generally, yes, adding color is a creative process and will create a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


The source [34] also says: "This product is reproduced from a publication, advertisement, or vintage print. In an effort to maintain the artistic accuracy of the original image, this final product has not been retouched."  Are all reproductions PD or just those that lack originality? ReaverFlash (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Do realise that it may mean that they're reproducing a historic hand tinting, using said process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


May 15


Template:Out of scope


Hi all! I was wondering if someone can help me to add an autotraslate tool to the Out of scope template? Thanks in advance, --Arcibel (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



If you try to upload a file over an existing file without checking 'ignore warnings', you can't


The first page lets you know, you submit, it comes back asking to "submit modified file description". When you press that button, it goes back to the first screen. You cannot upload over another file unless you select the 'Ignore warnings' checkbox, so something is up here. - Floydian (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



Internal search and terms to exclude


Any idea why Special:Search/Gellner Autoportrét -"self-portrait" keeps showing File:Gellner.jpg despite including Category:Self-portraits in its description? The result is the same with Special:Search/Gellner Autoportrét -"Self-portraits".

I wouldn't mention it if it was just a single result, but there are series of search links at Category:Self-portraits used to expand the category and several images keep showing up despite already including a corresponding category (many others have been added to the corresponding categories and disappeared from search results).   -- User:Docu at  11:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



What about Special:Search/Gellner Autoportrét -"selfportrait"? It appears search doesn't use category text? -Andrew c (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, but it does search category text. w:Help:Search#The_source_text_is_searched says anything viewable in the edit window is what is searched. Killiondude (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Special:Search/Gellner incategory:"Self-portraits" doesn't show the image either. Maybe there is a problem in the way the edit of February 27 was processed and the subsequent edits didn't fix this.


File:Jan piotr norblin autoportret.jpg has a similar problem (Special:Search/norblin autoportret -"self-portraits", but there I added another category with the term later.


I will try to blank File:Jan piotr norblin autoportret.jpg and restore the description later to see if this fixes it.   -- User:Docu at  05:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Looks like removing the text and restoring it shortly after didn't work. I removed part of the description and will restore it tomorrow, after the search index updated. Maybe this works.   -- User:Docu at  16:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


I filed Bugzilla:23527.  -- User:Docu at  16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Even removing part of the text and re-adding it the next day didn't work.   -- User:Docu at  08:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Problems with translating Sitenotice again


It seems like MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation has a translation to Hebrew, but see English nevertheless. What's wrong? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



First, when I look at that sitenotice in Hebrew, I see links to Template:Advanced options and to Template:Potd and Motd/What to add, which I probably shouldn't see, so there's probably something wrong with the text itself besides the display problem.


The display problem is caused by the JavaScript translation routine in MediaWiki:Common.js looking for a <p> tag within the sitenotice, but the current sitenotice doesn't have one, only a <ul><li>-construct. The script could be fixed to replace the contents of the first cell in the first row of a table with id "mw-dismissable-notice", but I don't have the time to do this right now, and I don't know off-hand how this might interfere with global notices. Lupo 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Support for TIFF files - just ask for it!


Hi all. Support for TIFF files has been discussed here time and time again. Uploading TIFF files has been possible for a while, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to view them directly, like other images?

There's now a working and fully featured extension for handling TIFF files: mw:Extension:PagedTiffHandler. Wikimedia Germany contracted Hallo Welt to write it, I personally oversaw the development and reviewed the code. I think it'S ready to go live, even if it could use a little more polishing here and there. In addition to normal thumbnail generation, it offers support for multi-page tiffs (like we have to DjVu and PDF), and it's possible to specify lossless thumbnailing if desired.

So... all we have to do is ask for it to be neabled. I'll file a request on Bugzilla, but we have to have "community consensus" to back it up and put some weight on it. So, if you want to be able to view TIFF files directly, say so below :) -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)



Is there a demo of the functionality somewhere ? TheDJ (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)





  • Thanks for the clarification. Providing support for TIFF files is good because TIFF can support lossless compression, whereas GIF and JPEG currently cannot. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


  • So, I understand thumbnails will be generated like is done with PDF and SVG. Will the extension also generate a lossless PNG version of the file ? That would be a great function for those who can't open TIFF files easily but do want the full resulution lossless. Link(s) could be displayed below the preview like "This image rendered as PNG: " as is done for SVGs. –Krinkletalk 00:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)



This is correct. The PagedTiffHandler per default uses ImageMagick - which supports a variety of TIFF flavours, but not all. The extension tries to detect this on upload, and rejects any image that it can't handle. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


  •   Support The possibility to share uncompressed pictures offers many possibilities to our community, for instance to help users with edits without the lossy detour over *.jpgs. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

    • No, TIFF supporting uncompressed data is really a misfeature, and the only reason people use it is because TIFF has so many compression formats with varying support (and the most generally useful, well-supported one, LZW, used to have patent issues.) PNG files offer lossless compression already, so our users can edit without JPGs. TIFF is only good for support for not reformatting external files and occasionally working in advanced colorspaces and complex print features.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support are those multilayerd photoshop tif files supported to? Amada44 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   SupportTIFF is a single format which allows multiple forms of data. Unlike JPEG data can be taken directly from hardware and stored while the tags describe how to interpret that data. This makes it far less lossy than JPEG and IHMO superior. You can store in JPEG within a TIFF. An importer should be able to read them all, the two that I have written could.--JIrate (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

    • How can it be "superior" when there is almost no software which supports all forms of TIFF, while almost all JPEG-displaying software can display all valid JPEG images?  The first point of a standard is to encourage interoperability, and TIFF somewhat fails with respect to interoperability. AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support Multi-page TIFF support is also very useful, e.g. for some book scans which are provided in that format. --Nemo 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   SupportFinally!!! But will it also have a limit on pixels like png?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support Yes please. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support I support it too, everything to be said about this has been said already. --Rosenzweig  δ 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support of course! Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support TheDJ (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Comment Based on the comments above, I think we need a policy page to accompany the introduction of TIFF support, so that users know when it's best to use JPEG, PNG, SVG or TIFF (to avoid people converting JPEG to TIFF because TIFF is "better", or using it interchangeably with PNG). Basically, it seems to me TIFF should only be used when an external source provides TIFF files directly (such as LOC or NASA), or when people really know what they're doing.
    Another concern would be the 100 MB upload limit; for TIFF, this is ridiculously low, so we may need to increase it. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support Will be very useful, as many science journals and image collections only provide their high res images as tiffs, until now they had to be converted and reduced in quality before being uploaded here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support --Avenue (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Neutral There isn't huge reasons to have TIFF support. After all we already have support for one lossless format, PNG (From where have some people above got an idea that one is "more lossless" than the other?). It isn't hard to convert from TIFF to PNG (hey, this could even be done automagicaly by server?), also PNG is more than often smaller. Legitimate reasons why it should be enabled are already uploaded TIFFs and as I can read from the comments above, multi-page files. Hluup (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


The main difference between tif and png is that tifs can contain layers and - as far as I know - png doesnt't. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



PNGs too?


What about PNGs? PNGs have MAJOR technical advantages over TIFFs: They're generally half the file size. I'm told that a fix for thumbnailing large PNGS is already created as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)



Told by who ? TheDJ (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


How about DNGs?


If lossless TIFFs are useful then how about the new(ish) DNG (Adobe's Digital Negative)? A very useful format for photographers dealing with raw files. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)



DNG seems to be highly proprietary...don't we typically take issue with that? It seems to be equivalent to TIFF, so what is the value of supporting it? Are there cameras which only output DNG? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DNG isn't proprietary at all, in fact it's an open standard. And although similar to TIFF it has advantages and facilities over and above the TIFF format, especially for photographers who prefer to use camera raw formats. DNG was originally designed as an archival format so lends itself well for Commons usage. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just TIFF isn't it. Just with a whole set of obligatory metadata. It's likely compatible with the above technology, however..., I seriously doubt if ImageMagick has support to take all that metadata into account for thumbnailing. Simply no idea whatsoever. TheDJ (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Although based on TIFF/EP along with expanded metadata facilities it also supports HDR images natively without having to store them as tone-mapped jpgs, I believe this is the only open source image format to be able to do this, but I could be wrong. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


There was already wide agreement to include DNGs in prior discussions on Commons, and I've been pushing for this very strongly. However, this requires developer action and there has been no progress on this bug in recent months (I'd do the work myself if they'd let me, but they won't). See Bug 19153. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Once TIFF support has been enabled, I suppose it only takes a little more code to also allow enable rendering support for DNG files. So I suggest to talke this step by step. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)



We don't really rendering support for DNGs right away (I'd be happy if they'd just let us upload them!) But they want to develop a filter for it first... I tried to tell them the TIFF filter would work fine but the bug has laid fallow for a while. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Imagemagic supports DNG's but it states you have to explicity tell it which graphic format your using. DNG is more of a container then an image format. Like AVI is a container for video but many video codecs and audio codecs can be used. Unless theres an easy way programicly to decode a DNG and see what format the image(s) inside are... As for useful formats, it would be useful. I don't see a problem with opening up other formats, TIFF, DNG, and PSD are two that immediately jump in my mind as useful, all can be worked on with ImageMagic. If you want something open source for HDR images.. why not OpenEXR, ImageMagic can support that as well (Just don't know of what programs can... heh)... — raeky (talk | edits) 13:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


New search box


The new search box requires me to wait after I finish typing (before hitting return) or it doesn't notice the last four/five characters. Is it possible to turn off whatever magic it's doing in my account (and/or fix it). Conrad.Irwin (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



I noticed that too. There's a lag with (what seems to be) the new ajax system or something. I don't know of any other way to fix it except by turning off ajax altogether in Special:Preferences. Killiondude (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


It would also be nice if we could make the bar longer. It seems to have shrunk. Killiondude (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Looks like the "Change the default on the searchbox from Go to Search"-gadget doesn't work anymore.   -- User:Docu at  16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


For a wider search box, you can put the following in your vector.css (or whatever your personal CSS file is):


#simpleSearch input#searchInput { width: 20em !important; }


remember to clean the cache afterwards. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


There are multiple issues with the new searchbar. See also en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TheDJ (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Is still possible to use "search" while being logged out?   -- User:Docu at  20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


There seems to be a debate about this at Bugzilla:23558.   -- User:Docu at  16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Privacy laws in Japan


Can anyone clarify or know where to go to ask for clarification of privacy laws in Japan with regards to property owned by third parties. The upholder of File:Toyota-isis 1st-front.jpg has asked for this images and an handful of others of his to be speedily deleted, seemingly in the belief that he had violated Japanese privacy laws by not asking permission of the owners before taking pictures of their vehicles. The same attitude but from the owners perspective was expressed with regards File:Cherry 001.jpg the DR of which can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cherry 001.jpg. Although the verdict of the DR expresses the opinion that such files are permissible within our rules, we really don't want our photographers and uploaders to suffer if such files are not permissible by local laws.KTo288 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



Moot point, images have now been deleted.KTo288 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Cherry 001.jpg is not deleted, but the license plate is pixelated, so I don't see the privacy concern. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Okay should have read "latest batch of images deleted" (e.g. File:Toyota-isis 1st-front.jpg). I don't see the privacy concern myself either, but laws and cultural norms as to what is privacy and its intrusion vary nation to nation, I was wanting clarification on what it is in Japan.KTo288 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Many megabytes of unwanted downloads


I have had an issue when browsing the image galleries at COM:POTY. Having been checking my bandwidth usage recently, I found that large amounts of data were being downloaded automatically. This happened after all the images had been loaded. My browser (firefox) literally downloaded over 100 megabytes, and didn't stop until I closed it. At first I thought this was a virus or a problem with Firefox. Then I tried Google Chrome, and found it did the same thing when browsing those pages. So it had to be a problem with Wikimedia, not my browser. In firefox I noticed that although the stop button wasn't active, my status bar still said "Transferring data from upload.wikimedia.org...". I searched for the most recent files on my computer, and found several multi-megabyte files in my Mozilla cache. To my knowledge, this only happens on Wikimedia Commons, and only on the POTY galleries. I realise it is probably not intentional, since it would hardly be in Wikimedia's interest to waste this much bandwidth. So what gives? Ephemeronium (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



I have just now started browsing those COM:POTY categories, and I also see my internet download use almost reach 100% of capacity. I always have the network monitor in Task Manager open and before I started the network use was normal. I noticed the rise when I started looking at image thumbnails that contain annotated notes in Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009/Galleries/Artworks, such as File:Gustave Doré - Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination" mice lossless crop.jpg. It also happens when not logged in with Chrome - as soon as the galleries page is opened the server starts sending many megabytes of data, maybe over one hundred, with Chrome I got 92 megabytes when opening Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Nature views. Close the browser window and the download stops. Open another gallery and another massive download restarts. It is as if all the data of each image is downloaded instead of just the thumbnails. Indeed, when I now look at the Chrome cache, it contains the full size of each image. -84user (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not loading thumbnails, they're loading full size copies of the images and using div tables to render them smaller in your browser. Interesting. -Nard the Bard 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Interesting, yes, they let me test my network speed! I now see at the bottom of the gallery pages the same images are also listed in index pages with tiny thumbnails but without the unnecesessary fullsize downloads. Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Galleries/Index/Category links to all the other index pages. -84user (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also a JS error on those Gallery pages. index.php:146TypeError: Result of expression 'title.match(POTYregexp)' [null] is not an object. (Safari 4) TheDJ (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And ImageAnnotator really should be fixed not to download full files in cases like this. It's like a Denial of Service attack on my poor browser. TheDJ (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ImageAnnotator should not have been active for thumbnails inside galleries anyway. Unfortunately, its detection algorithm was fooled by the dshuf code, which inserts an additional <div>. I've made this detection in ImageAnnotator more robust now, so if you refresh your browser's cache, the POTY pages should then load without downloading all these MBs.


Another problem is that it did indeed load all these MBs. Still checking why it did that. It shouldn't. Lupo 10:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All right; problem found and fixed. To check for annotations, the script gets the actual file description pages (where annotations are stored) from the server. Because it needs the HTML of the annotations, it uses a "parse" action, instructing the server to parse the description pages and to return their HTML. To minimize the number of calls, it asks for several file description pages in one request. If the result of that request gets too large, the server just refuses to do the parse properly and instead returns the full images (instead of the description pages), which then leads to the browser loading all these full images. The work-around is simply to use more requests, asking for only a few images a time, which results in smaller responses that don't have that problem. Lupo 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Situation on the Jimbo deletions


Hello. Could someone fill me in as to the current situation on the Jimbo nudity deletions? There is just too much discussion to read enough of it to see what happened. I need some kind of summary, and I prefer getting it from a better source than Fox News. Is it true that Jimbo resigned from something? (what?) Has the images been restored? The ones that were valuable and used somewhere? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



Yes, Jimbo had some privs taken away (I think the sysadmin rights or whatever. Steward? I forget). Some images have been restored, some have not. Ottava Rima has been banned, I had a nice dinner. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


That is here on commons, right? Any effects on enwp? I think I remember Ottawa getting banned there already a while ago. Has there been any attempts to attack the admins that reverted Jimbo's deletions? I understand you are probably tired of all this, but I am thankful for some quick information. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's banned from Commons now. As for people who deleted stuff under Jimbo's aegis, they've been forgiven pretty much. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Not totally accurate and complete, but at least better than what Fox News posted: The Signpost. TheDJ (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



I wasn't aware of this either.  w:The Register covered this.  So did wikinews: Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikimedia founder Jimbo Wales moves to purge pornography from Commons.


If the real question is that Larry Sanger's tip-off to the Feds will get the WMF's funders to cut off funding, then I think that should have been what Jimbo, and later the WMF Board of Directors said.

It's not.  Luckily for the projects:

  • we are not reliant on any individual funders to support the projects - the vast majority of WMF support comes from small donors, and current strategy calls for focusing on increasing that support (and limiting outreach to large funders).
    • 

  • as it happens, the large funders that we do have are pretty savvy.  Those contacted by Fox basically wrote to the Foundation to say "Just so you know, Fox is trying to smear you".


--SJ+ 03:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


I think Jimbo's encouragement of administrators to delete based on "good taste" may not have been a good idea.  In some discussions of the commons' images related to sexuality I have come across a meme that seemed similar to Ronald Reagan's comment on Redwoods.  Reagan reacted to environmentalists who wanted to preserve some of California's remaining stands of giant Redwood trees by saying: "If you have seen one Redwood you have seen them all".


It has struck me that some of who wanted to delete images related to sexuality were saying: "If you have seen one woodie you have seen them all".  Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Copyright on everyday stuff


On deletion, today, was put an image of a modern building in France, File:Immeuble postmoderniste05920.jpg, and the uploader asked why picture of buildings are not allowed to be put on Commons (because, naturally, they are copyrighted and there is no FOP in many countries) but other things yes as dresses on people that, he argues, should be copyrighted as well. Take, for example, a celebrity at same crap-awards meeting with an Armani or whoever dress. The picture is about her, ok, but her dress is clearly and fully in sight. The dress is copyrighted, I guess, so we should ban the picture? Or not. I add something mine. Recently I have reorganized the category Category:Kitchens and, following the guy reasoning, most of them should be a copyright infringement because all of them have a creator and an author. And it seems logic to me. I perfectly know that all those issues were well discussed before, but I'm very ignorant on the topic and I just want to learn more, so could you indicate me previous discussions on that or make me a quick explanation about copyright on furniture, kitchens, lamps, pots, dresses, and everyday objects that regularly appear, as main subjects, on pictures? Thank you, my friends, but it's just my will to be every time a bit better, a bit more useful to the project, and personally more informed.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



Essentially it's about something being utilitarian, and whether you can separate the possibly copyrightable from the actual item. For instance, a Mickey Mouse clock IS copyrightable because you can separate the Disney bits from the act of being a clock. On the other hand, a dress is not copyrightable, as if you take away what could be considered copyrightable it would generally cease to be a dress. I haven't explained it well, but that's the general idea. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Note that there is some disagreement between nations about this - e.g. there's a documented case in which French fashion designers successfully sued a U.S. Magazine in absentia for printing photos of their "copyrighted" fashion designs. It's also worth noting that there are probably some buildings whose form is essentially utilitarian (e.g. your everyday "gray-box-with-windows" office building). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


A photograph of clothing as actually being worn by a person almost never is considered to be an infringement on the rights of whoever originally designed the item(s) of clothing, according to U.S. copyright law. AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


FYI the case I was thinking of was Feraud v. Viewfinder, see e.g. [37]. It's a disturbing precedent but I don't expect it to be upheld by U.S. courts. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Mike Godwin is on record as saying that clothing on people -- even costumes depicting copyrighted characters like Spider-Man -- should be considered free to use.  Powers (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


wrong file...


Could someone please remove File:NL passport pre1995.jpg; as I uploaded the non-anonimized version! thanks in advance, L.tak (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC) L.tak (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



  Done --Dschwen (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Should be oversighted as well! axpdeHello! 21:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


wow that was tremendously fast! thanks a lot again... L.tak (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Removing pictures of me


Is there anything I can do to have pictures of me removed from Commons? Is there some policy on this?Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



Well, that depends on what you mean by "pictures of me":

  1. If someone took a picture of you and published it without your permission, you should ask to delete them.
    2. 

  2. If those pictures were taken by you and someone else published it without your permission, you should claim your copyright.
    3. 

  3. If you made and uploaded those pictures, the GFDL or CC licence is unrevocable, sorry.


So what door will it be? axpdeHello! 21:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


"Pictures of me" is pretty clear: the person asking is the subject of the picture. You can ask for deletion, but assuming that the pictures were taken in a public place, in most countries the photographer is perfectly entitled to publish them. Usually, if an identifiable private individual who is the subject of a picture requests that we remove it, we do so as a courtesy. Since you don't identify the pictures, I can't make any concrete prediction of whether that courtesy would be granted in this case. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


I loaded them under the login cott12 a long time ago. They were taken by my daughter. There are 6 of them here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Christopher_Jonathan_Ott  I am Christopher Ott. I can no longer remember my password under cott12 and gave no email to retrieve it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Are you at all notable? If not, deletion shouldn't be a problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


No. I'm definitely not notable. I paint houses. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



Seems pretty straightforward. Click "nominate for deletion" in the left nav for each picture in question; copy-and-paste the same text as the reason to delete each of them (something to the effect of "This is a picture of me, my daughter took it, I'm not a person of encyclopedic notability, and I am requesting deletion as a courtesy."). Deletion won't be instant, but it should roll through the usual process & I can't think why anyone would oppose it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with just speedydeleting these. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted all six of them. NW (Talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Bless you NW. (-: Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



There's one more here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chris_ott.jpg Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Thank you Mattbuck. What a relief. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



May 16


Romanian translations


 
The screen capture


Hello, there. I am a Romanian Wikipedia sysop an I need some help regarding some translations issues:



  1. If you look at the image at the right, you may notice some text displayed in English (the one that is red bordered), although the page was accessed from the Romanian Wikipedia (if you wonder the text I am talking about was translated, yes it was).
    2. 

  2. Please tell me where can I find the sources of the license tags like the one in the picture, because the text really needs revision and translation. Thank you for your help.Minisarm (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Minisarm, the translations are done at translatewiki.net, you can see an overview of Romanian translations here. It would be great if you could help, see here how. You can find the reusing message here. I have some progress statistics at my userpage at translatewiki.net. I hope this answers your questions. Multichill (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)






From what I can make out this one looks like Cc-by-sa-2.5 see Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5 for what we have of it here and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.en at creative commons. In general details of the creative commons licenses can be found here. Hope this helps.KTo288 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. It really helps.—Minisarm (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


copyright of images of Bensayah Belkacem


Over on the wikipedia another contributor recently uploaded a photo of Bensayah Belkacem, from Amnesty International, under fair use.  If you compare it with the image on the commons they are pretty similar.  The commons version is from his DoD dossier, and the PD liscense is based on that.  File:Belkacem Bensayah.jpg -- w:File:Belkacem bensayah.jpg

These two may be based on the same original.

The image on commons is from a DoD dossier.  If they are essentially identical, and the commons version can validly be considered PD, then would it be appropriate to upload the newer, color image overtop of the original black and white image?

If the DoD simply copyied a copyright image, from a family album seized when he was captured, or from his passport, or from his Bosnian arrest photograph, then the PD liscense would not be valid.

If the images are not sufficiently identical, and the DoD sourced image is validly liscensed, I have doubts the fair use claim is valid.

I welcome input.

Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



FWIW, I added this link to the now archived 234 page document. The images appear on page 13, labeled 22023, just after "Exhibit A Photographs of ..." but no indication whether they came from the DoD or the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. -84user (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Upload link in the classic skin


The link presently provided in the toolbox (left margin) is Special:Upload. I think it should be changed to Commons:Upload. The same remark might apply to other skins too. Teofilo (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if this is done, it would be good to provide a backlink to Commons:Upload from Special:Upload (in a more or less similar fashion with the "To upload work created by someone else, please use a [[Commons:Upload|different form]]" wording at the top of the "upload own work" form. Teofilo (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



This is a bug in the software, i'll look into this. bugzilla:23563 TheDJ (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And fixed :D But it might take quite a long while before that fix is deployed. TheDJ (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Teofilo (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I need help for categorization


I wanted to put File:Faute d'orthographe RATP - 1433.JPG in some category about "misspelling". But I didn't manage to find such categories. If you can help me, I'll be happy. Thanks. Regards. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



There is "Category:Spelling mistakes". I'd suggest you create a category called "Category:Spelling mistakes in French" using "Category:Spelling mistakes in Hebrew" as an example. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


May 18


Tiffhandler


As far as I now the code is finished. Does anyone know when it's gonna be deployed?--DieBuche (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



There's no fixed date. It'll be deployed whenever a server administrator finds the time to look at bugzilla:23258, decides the extension is indeed in good shape, and then enables it. Lupo 10:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


SecondLife


There is a growing concern that Second Life pictures, which litter commons, are copyright violiotions.  The reason are at follows:



  1. . LindenLabs own the background so its probably copyrighted.
    2. 

  2. . There is no way to verify whether the uploader took the screenshot or made the object
    3. 

  3. . There is no way to verify whether the author made the objects in the screenshot.


Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



This is apparently not a problem: see the usage note at "Category:Second Life". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That only apply to the subscriber that CREATED the object. There is no way to verify that. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Same issue as for almost anything anyone uploads. How is Second Life imagery any different in this respect from a user-made map? - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondlife image is a game screenshot. And most screenshot (unless of GDFL softwares), belong to their respective wiki with a "fair use" license. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Tyw7 was "too tired" to tidy up his mixed-up deletion request, but is now complaing here. Tiresome. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, look at the number of images nominated!!! Secondly, they can all go under the same umbrella of SecondLife images. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Tyw7 on this one. I'm vaguely willing to accept de-minimis on the backgrounds, but unless we have proof that the focus of the image was self-created by the uploader, or otherwise released freely, then it is a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


There's no question that "user-generated content" is derivative of models produced by Linden Labs - these people are not producing their own models of avatars from scratch. However, Linden Labs released a special license statement that appears to grant rights to these derivative works to the users who create it, as some kind of PR stunt (see {{Second Life}}, this press release). We can reasonably assume the backgrounds are de minimis in many cases and that the uploader took the screenshot and generated the content in the screenshot (this is part of our usual "assume uploaders aren't lying without evidence to the contrary" policy). I think many of these images are legit. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. People upload photographs and assert they are the photographers or copyright owners, and we take them at their word unless there is something fishy about the image (high-quality image of a celebrity, screenshot, historical image, Tineye warning, and so on). This is no different. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


The problem with these images is not the copyright of linden labs (I think the intent of that press release was for the users of second life to be able to hold copyright for work within game). There also isn't reasonable doubt about the "is the uploader/flickr user the one who took the screenshot?".


The problem is the copyright of other second life users. If I take a screenshot of my own avatar that's not an issue, but if I take a shot of someone else it is. If the shot is of 2 avatars, it is an image of the work of 2 people and only 1 released the copyright: I doubt very much that a "model release" was sought and granted. And many objects are traded within the game, so like in reality physical ownership does not imply ownership of the intellectual rights. And what about user-programmed scripts are they copyrightable and if so are there restrictions on taking screenshots? A fair amount of work would have gone into those (such as those for sexual activities), is that unprotected?


Screenshots in second life should be considered in a similar way to user-taken photographs, not user-created graphics. So we get the usual problems with photos: Is incidental stuff in this image de minimis? Do we have a model release or the subjects, which unlike a real photograph is a release of copyright? Is the subject something the user created themselves, or bought in a shop in game: if I took a photograph of a toothbrush you would not assume I created the brush (though it would not be copyrighted), why should we in SL (where it could be)?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Good point. I note that the 2003 Second Life press release states: "Second Life has committed to exploring technologies to make it easy for creators to license their content under Creative Commons licenses." I am completely unfamiliar with Second Life. Does anyone know whether there is some way to check if Second Life users have released their avatars under a Creative Commons licence? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tyw7 and think Linden Labs needs to be contacted for comment. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Someone should have a detailed look at the Second Life Terms of Service. Clause 7.4 appears to deal with the situation mentioned above:

7.4. You also grant Linden Lab and other users of Second Life a license to use in snapshots and machinima your Content that is displayed In-World in publicly accessible areas of the Service.


You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers for display In-World in any publicly accessible area of the Service, you hereby grant each user of Second Life and Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to photograph, capture an image of, film, and record a video of the Content, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the resulting photograph, image, film, or video in any current or future media as provided in and subject to the restrictions and requirements of our Snapshot and Machinima Policy. The foregoing license is referred to as the "Snapshot and Machinima Content License."


Clause 1 of the Snapshot and Machinima Content License states:

As long as you comply with the  terms and conditions below, both Linden Lab and the Residents of Second Life (collectively, "we") grant you the following copyright licenses:

1. A License To Capture. You may take snapshots and capture machinima of the 3D content we created that is displayed in-world, and


2. A License To Use. You may use the resulting snapshot or machinima within or outside of Second Life in any current or future media.


"Use" means "use, reproduce, distribute, modify, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform." For other definitions, click here.


Both the License To Capture and the License To Use (collectively, the "Licenses") are non-exclusive and royalty-free. In addition, the License To Use is worldwide, sublicenseable, and transferable.


All italics were added by me. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's well and good, but doesn't mention commercial use. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "in any current or future media" - sounds excellent to me. Free enough for commons. I think I will withdraw my DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the terms of that license do allow for commercial reuse, they look like they are based upon the permissive CC licenses (commercial use is only mentioned in the -nc variants). I only have two concerns now: One is "landowner" consent. "Landowners" can ban snapshots (and machinima) on their "property" but unlike photo bans in a museum, violating the ban breaks the terms of the license. The default is to permit snapshots and forbid machinima but we do not know if that applies to the location where the image was taken. My opinion on this is we should allow snapshots, unless the in-game location can be plausibly identified (by distinctive landmarks and the like). On the other hand, we should forbid machinima unless we can verify the landowner granted permission (in general or case-by-case basis.


The other, potentially more serious, problem is this is a recent change to policy governing second life, see this blog article. Is that policy change retroactive? If not, all these older shots would still be problematic.


In any case, {{Second life}} should be re-written to reflect the current terms of service and site policy, not an outdated press release.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Nilfanion -- If we're going to treat these like real-world photographs, then under U.S. copyright law, clothing etc. when it is actually being worn by people is considered to be "functional" or "utilitarian", and photographs of items being worn by people almost never can be considered to infringe on the rights of the designers of the items. AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


I don't think we can treat Second Life images as analogous to real-world photographs. They are graphical artworks governed by the Second Life Terms and Conditions and other relevant agreements and licences. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The photograph reference was a simple analogy, to point out that there is more than just the copyright of the person taking the screenshot to consider. You cannot copyright your own appearance, but you can the appearance of a second life avatar...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


I have created an essay at "Commons:Second Life" to clarify the conditions under which Second Life content may be used on the Commons. Please discuss the essay on its talk page. If there is sufficient consensus, the essay can be promoted to a guideline or policy (is there a difference between these two?). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



I think policy can only be se by the foundation. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong.  Policy is set by consensus.  Powers (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


May 17


Interview with Creative Commons Japan


Hi, I'm going to interview Creative Commons Japan for Wikinews. At the moment, I'm working on preparing question for my interview so would anybody please suggest me some questions?



Here might be one: "Does the japanese public support the idea of free content strongly or not? How important is that commercial usage (unlike with GPL) can be forbidden? How important is naming the author (unlike GPL)?" Although the last two questions are not japan-specific. -- Lexic 4712 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)





File:SNV31047.JPG


This picture of this particular painting has an unclear license...  My understanding is that taking photographs of existing paintings is considered derivative work.  I am not certain who is the author of the painting, as the file description is not very clear. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



It seems to be the same as File:ELIZABETH1.JPG. There is even a picture of the artist.    -- User:Docu at  09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Yes, but that doesn't clarify the painting's copyright license. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


headscarf/veil


We have three different categories Category:Headscarves, Category:Veils and Category:Kopftuch. Kopftuch is German for headscarf and there is nothing special about German headscarfs that makes necessary a different category. So 'Kopftuch' should be merged with 'headscarves', IMHO. But I'm not sure about 'headscarves' and 'veils'. Is there a clear difference between both or should they be merged? The German translation of veil is Schleier and a Schleier is different from a Kopftuch/headscarf (a Schleier is something you can put in front of your face and still see through, like the veil of a wedding dress), but the content of the categories suggests no such difference, 'veil' contains many images that would fit in 'headscarf'. So I'm not sure whether English makes the same difference German makes. Any advice? --Slomox (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



I have no idea on the German words, but a headscarf can be quite opaque (and usually is) and is worn over the hair, while a veil tends to be rather diaphanous, and is not limited to being worn only over the hair.  In terms of traditional Western fashions, headscarves and veils don't really have too much in common -- it's only in an Islamic context that the two terms sometimes seem to overlap or be confused... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree with merging Kopftuch into Headscarves. It's exactly the same. --DieBuche (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


@AnonMoos: That means the English terms are the same as the German terms. And that means most of the images in Category:Veils should actually be in Category:Headscarves. --Slomox (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I deleted 'Kopftuch' and recategorized some of the headscarves in Category:Veils. Does this qualify as a bonnet in English (German it is Haube, Frech coiffe)? --Slomox (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, a veil is (and I paraphrase here) (1) a piece of fabric used as a covering for the head and shoulders and, especially in Eastern countries, for the face; or (2) a piece of fabric worn over the head and face, or attached for protection or ornamentation to a hat or headdress. The definition says nothing about the transparency or otherwise of the fabric. Therefore, I would say that "Headscarves" should be a subcategory of "Veils". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I really don't think that would be a good move.  When many thousands of western women every day fold a red or blue paisley bandanna in half along a diagonal and pin it to the top of their head, they (and people who see them) generally don't think that they're wearing any kind of "veil".  Western women generally wear veils only on their wedding day, or as part of very fancy and old-fashioned hats worn on a few formal occasions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Slomox -- I would probably call File:Batz-sur-Mer Coiffe.jpg a "lace cap", but I'm not any kind of expert when it comes to that... AnonMoos (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



PD-UKGov liscence


The template {{PD-UKGov}} doesn't seem to complete; I inquired about the copyright status of UK government books at Wikisource's central discussion (permalink) and received an answer from user:Billinghurst that under the relevant copyright act (see s:Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)) books are covered by crown copyright's expiry after 50 years. Shouldn't the template then be altered? —innotata 22:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



I think it's auto-updating. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, shouldn't it be clarified, since there is no reason to believe that it applies to books and suchlike from the current text. —innotata 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


May 19


Evaluating sounds and videos


Right. I think, now that we have a working way of making use of such files, it's time to start thinking of ways to be selective and build a community around them.

There are three obvious ways forwards, in the first instance:

1. A new process, something like Quality Images, only without the restriction to user-created works, which seeks to quickly evaluate files against set criteria. If this goes well, it could expand into a full featured media program.

2. Add sounds and video to an existing process, such as Quality images, or Featured pictures. However, Quality images only allows user-created content - which could limit our selection too much - and expanding featured pictures may be too high of a standard to start with. 

3. Use en:WP:Featured sounds, and videos that passed the more inclusive FP there. 

What does everyone think? Does anyone have other ideas? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)



I think there is an enormous problem. While it is easy to inspect a category page of images at a glance, it takes an inordinate amount of time to look or listen to AV files. There are copyright infringements, there may be privacy problems. Some files are in languages that few people understand. A remedy might be to show a series of thumbnails on file pages of video material. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Another problem is that most of the PD licenses are aimed at images and not sounds/videos. We need to build an expertise in understanding laws as they relate to other media, and possibly create appropriate PD licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One good thing is that the copyrights for sounds are usually far less restrictive, expiring sooner. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is true for recordings, but not for the lyrics or for the composition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but it does help a lot, especially with classical music and such. We could, for example, use almost all recordings of PD music from the twenties and thirties recorded in what's now the EU, because the licence for sound recordings is recording date + 50 (there's moves to increase it to 70). That's late enough that recording technology was really quite good, and gives us a lot of things to work with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

People do not always specify what recording is used as background music... I have now nominated File:Second Life shadows.ogv for deletion, because the background music seems to be a copyright violation (and maybe the scenery too). Commons has a reasonable vigilance for copyrighted images, but for AV it is difficult. One should probably apply the limits for scope more stringently. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, but I also think there's plenty of cases where the copyright/licensing status is clear. Videos may be harder than sounds, but even there...


Most people aren't aware of this, but thanks to snapping up copies of some free-licensed archives which have since disappeared from the internet, Commons is probably now the largest repository of free-licensed music on the web. We also have some very talented content creators - take File:Sor_Op_11_No_2.ogg, a fantastic classical guitar recording by User:Jujutacular. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, free music on line is very rare. But once one starts to look, one finds serious copyright problems, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tempesta d'amore book trailer - Camocardi.ogg. Clips from Forman's Amadeus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


And Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Glass Centre.ogg with en:Nick Lowe's "I love the sound of breaking glass". These are gross and potentially expensive copyright violations. Uploaded in October. Videos do not get scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvioyusly. you'll get no argument from me that those are copyvio. But, respectfully, I think those are pretty obvious, and the whole point of the evaluation process is to screen out questionable and low-quality things. In the process, the enhanced scrutiny would be very good for the project, likely weeding out these blatant copyvios. 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


In the US, there arguably is no PD sound outside of movie soundtracks. The EU sound recordings are not in the PD in New York and possibly other places in the US (since older records are protected by state law, not federal, and there's been a New York ruling.) This strikes me as a place where our pretending like there's a rule of the shorter term that doesn't exist in the US could come back to bite us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Our servers are in Florida, and we've never really taken a view on weird places where copyright law itself is fubar, so long as they aren't origin country or directly affecting Wikipedia. Remember, if we're going to consider any weird copyright law that MIGHT apply, we're going to need to delete a LOT  of photos to get in line with places like Mexico and Côte d'Ivoire. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Florida Law is pretty much the same, protecting unauthorized copying of sound recordings with no time limit or rule of the shorter term. The only expiration date is 2067, when federal law will preempt this and dump a vast body of recordings into the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


What about File:1993 disneyland.ogg? It consists to a large part of frames that would be deleted because of no FOP for statues in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Comment: As I already said, I think we should merge sounds and videos with the "Featured pictures" and then rename the process to "Featured media". Sure, it means some work, but this is necessary anyway, and once done I think this will be best for our sounds and videos. Of course, a problem is the copyright, which many people aren't familiar with when it comes to sound or video (me, too). --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • I also think we should merge with Featured Pictures and Quality images (possibly adding an exception for videos allowing non-user created videos, since there's so few of them but that can be discussed later). Oddly, there are some existing videos that are "featured pictures" (1, 2). Doing this merge will give a much needed boost to the audio and video side of Commons. mahanga (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Copyrighted Logos


I honestly doubt the legality of these templates:

{{PD-textlogo}}
{{PD-shape}}

Under those rules, all logos are "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain" because they "consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text." 

This include logos such as:




etc.

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



I really think that these templates are a big PoV. And in some countries like France, a logo is always under copyright. Otourly (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In Germany, File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg was not eligible for copyright protection, see the description with links to the court case. In the US, File:Best Western logo.svg was not copyrightable (I found this in en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Considering Threshold of Originality - defining a tighter line, linked to above.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See [38] for a discussion. Besides, the copyright office decided Best Western logo.svg was {{PD-ineligible}}, so it has a legal basis. Kameraad Pjotr 11:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the Dell one either. It's even simpler than the BW logo--DieBuche (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But do they qualify to use freely or fair use only?  Plus, one can argue that the Symantec logo only contain a ying-yang symbol with one side shaded yellow and one black. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

They can be used freely, as long as no one is trying to represent the use of the logo as official endorsement by the logo's owner.  That's what "ineligible for copyright" means.  Powers (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


The term "free" is generally meant to mean "free from copyright restrictions".  Copyright is entirely separate from trademark, a completely different concept (though they can overlap; many logos are both copyrighted and trademarked).  So... there are many logos which are ineligible for copyright, but perfectly eligible for trademark, so in real life they have all the (heavy) restrictions on use which trademarks place on it.  But they are still "free" in terms of a copyright license, which is why we would host them.  "Fair use", as used on Wikipedias etc., is a term related to copyright -- no need to claim it on PD-ineligible items.  The line between "eligible" and "not eligible" can be a rather difficult one, and it varies widely between countries.  I'm not sure that "a logo is always under copyright" is true in France, any more than it is in the U.S., but their dividing line is probably different.  There is a case in Australia where copyright was granted to a very simple design of an Aboriginal flag -- the line there appears to interpret "originality" in the sense that it is a design which hasn't been seen before, no matter how simple it is.  The U.S. though will not grant copyright on simple arrangements of simple (or common) shapes.  I doubt the Dell one is copyrightable; the Symantec one at first blush seemed like it would be, but you're right, that is mostly just a yin-yang in its form, which by itself would not be copyrightable (and the U.S. Copyright Office only looks at the actual linear form and arrangement, for the most part ignoring color and aesthetic effects).  That may well be considered a minor variation on a yin-yang and thus not copyrightable, but folks will often be conservative and mark it fair use anyways.  (And on the other side as noted by AnonMoos, the tags are sometimes abused.)  We will generally try to at least conform to each country's law, but for U.S. companies, we would just apply U.S. law.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


The templates themselves are certainly "legal"; it's some applications of them which are borderline.  AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)



I fully agree with AnonMoos. ;) Loreleil (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


I made a collection of cases that were decided by courts and by the Copyright Office: Threshold of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



Categorization of city views


A question recently arose about city views and panoramas that show major buildings and other landmarks. TarzanASG believes that a photograph should be classified according to all the major buildings and landmarks that it portrays, while High Contrast believes that categories should be used exclusively for the photograph's main subject (and since a panorama typically doesn't have a main subject, this means no categories); see this revision history for details. Both users cite COM:Cat. Who is right? — Tetromino (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



I come across this issue now and then, since I do quite a bit of work sorting out Category:Stockholm and its subcategories. I don't think there is a right and wrong answer. I try stick to two main principles. Firstly: avoid overcategorisation. Separate categories for "views" or "panoramas" help with that. Secondly: apply common sense. I usually ask myself whether an image that happens to include a building as part of a broader view would be found useful by a reader browsing that building's category, for instance after following a Commons link from the building's Wikipedia article. The answer usually depends on the building's prominence in the picture. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories are not always necessary, the search machines will find the picture if you name those buildings in the file description. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 Мне кажется, с моими категориями не должно было быть проблем. Не было сверхкатегоризации, потому что отмеченные здания явно бросались в глаза и не были очень мелкими на фото. Во-вторых, удаление категорий из изображений в итоге просто убило некоторые категории, что явно не соответствует интересам читателей. Для части объектов это были уникальные виды, для другой части вообще единственные фото в категории. -- TarzanASG +1  20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

И ещё в России нет свободы панорамы, т.е. даже имеющиеся сейчас крупные планы должны быть удалены. Поскольку дальние планы в таких условиях - на вес золота, мне думается, что все категории обоснованы одной только жёсткой ситуацией с авторскими правами. -- TarzanASG +1  20:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


My other arguments placed on Commons:Форум. -- TarzanASG +1  20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Translation of TarzanASG's comment: "I believe that my categories should have been OK. There was no overcategorization because the buildings in question were prominent on the photograph and weren't especially small. Second, removing the categories from the images killed off several categories, which is clearly not in the readers' interest. For some of the landmarks, these photos showed them from a unique perspective, and for others, these were the only photos in the category." End of translation. — Tetromino (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Translation of TarzanASG's comment: "Furthermore, in Russia there is no freedom of panorama, so even the close-up photos that we have now will have to be deleted. Because long shots under such conditions are worth their weight in gold, I think that the difficult intellectual property situation on its own suffices to justify having all those categories." End of translation. — Tetromino (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


If a building is a noteworthy feature of the image, it can be helpful to add it to the corresponding category as well. 
Obviously, if all views just show the same buildings from the same spot, one might as well make a specific category for these views and make that a subcategory of the buildings.    -- User:Docu at  20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! I think, that will be in future. But it is not reason for mass removal. -- TarzanASG +1  20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


In my opinion, panoramic cityscape views have not only artwork valuable, but also (and even more) historic and historiographic valuable. They answer the question of how the objects looked like the urban environment at this time?  It is important for the rapidly changing urban environment. I understand the rules so that all that is displayed directly on the image, can and should be reflected in its categorization (Do not reduce to an absurdity - just distinguishable objects). --Kaganer (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



Result?


What result? Can I revert edits of High Contrast? -- TarzanASG +1  04:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



Bulgaria PD-old license


Hello, does anyone knows the law of Bulgaria for PD and PD-old? matanya •  talk 13:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



70 pma; use {{PD-old}} if it applies.  They are a member of the European Union, so I would assume they have modified their copyright law to conform to the w:Copyright law of the European Union. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much. matanya •  talk 22:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Uploading paintings with relevant information template


I made quite a lot of categorization, info-adding on pictures lately, and I find it rather annoying that so many of them lack essential infos (see for instance File:Algernon Percy.jpeg as opposed to File:Garden_delights.jpg). I think something could be done about this. 

When one clicks on "upload file", none of the categories proposed in "where is the work from ?"  really fits for photos of PD paintings. Maybe we could add something like "it is a photograph of an old two dimensional artwork". And when someone clicks on it, he would be asked to fill the painting template rather than the usual information template that is really not made for artworks. This way, people would be asked to provide the relevant information and probably would do a better job--Zolo (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



There's Template:Painting, but it probably would not be realistic to include it as an option in the upload form (which is already plenty complex)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I know that there is a template painting and I do think that it would be realistic to include it in the upload form. I guess it is obvious to anyone having a nodding acquaintace with art that the current upload form is really not adapted to artworks. One isn't even sure whether "author" refers to the painter or the photographer of the painting. The very existence template:painting shows that the general template doesn't fit. But uploaders who are not aware of the existence of the more specific template have to go without it. The consequence is that a good half of the paintings on commons have paltry file descriptions, that are definitely not up to any quality standards.


Adding an option for reproductions of paintings/drawings wouldn't make things more complex, far from it. If the upload form isn't clear, it is rather because it is not comprehensive than because it is too long. In the current system, if you want to upload your photo of a public domain painting, you have to choose "it is entirely my own work", but it sounds strange because it is not you who made the painting. Then, if you know the existence of the template:painting, you have to look for it and copy-paste it. If you're an occasional user, chances are that you provide only the information that you are asked, even if they are grossly insufficient for a painting. Adding an option "it is a faithful reproduction of a 2 dimension public domain image" would not make things more difficult, and it may prompt people to provide information that are necessary but too often lack on commons file. Given the large number of artworks on commons (many tens of thousands I suppose), I think it is something that is really worth doing.--Zolo (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


You might want to bring this up on Commons:Usability issues and ideas. The usabilityuser experience team might already have something in the pipeline.   -- User:Docu at  03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


  Support I agree it would be a good idea if it can be done. --Jarekt (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Just dropping here the same comment I made on usability:Multimedia talk:Upload wizard#Paintings upload: « Yes, paintings are one of the options that we'll add later; it won't be among the default 3, but it should be available under "more options". ». guillom 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I hadn't seen it, it sounds good.--Zolo (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Ideas wanted for new script name


We now have Flickr, Picasa, and Panoramio images being reviewed. A script called Flickrreview script is a tool to quickly assess Flickr images. I am going to write a script that will be able to review any image from these album sites. Of course, "Flickrreview script" is not going to work, so we need a new name. Any ideas for coining a new name? ZooFari 03:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)



Why not "Automated licensing validation"? ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Note that I've already put quite a lot of effort into the Picasa Review Bot, so you might want to coordinate with me on that. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to be a bot, it's the script used to assist with image reviewing for files undetermined by the bot. ZooFari 14:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Image Review Script" or "Image Scanner Script"? Does it just apply to images or to all types of media (e.g., audio and videos, PDFs, DjVu files) as well? If the latter, perhaps "Media Review Script" or "Media Scanner Script". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"License review script" or "License reviewer"?, because it doesn't review size, quality, or anything else just licenses  --Justass (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


I went with License reviewer: User talk:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js. Thanks Jacklee and Justass for the suggestions. ZooFari 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


arabic files without categories / copyrights


Here are some files of user Dr. Asha89, arabic documents and photos, all look like copy violations 
[44] - more or less you need arabic advice to handle it (maybe the images are Ok, all are used, and the persons seem to have notability. Ideas for categories? Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)



I have no idea about the copyvio situation, but they are all in use on Arabic Wikipedia in an article about a Jordanian scholar (Islamic scholar, I think). See here. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


PS He's categoried just as *Jordanian people on 'ar'. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


An initial notice to reduce surprises


In the recent discussion about sexual images on commons it has become clear to me that a major point is that people tend to be shocked by the sheer volume of material— even when we have no more than is justified by the needs of Wikipedia.   The lack of context makes our raw collection somehow more surprising to people— people also often show up without any real understanding of our educational mission.  I believe we can address these problems without censoring commons beyond the limitations already imposed by our educational mission. 

Mike Godwin suggested on foundation-l that we might consider hiding all images which are not used on a Wikipedia unless users ask for them.  But I think that this might be damaging to the usability of commons.   I have an alternative suggestion.

Instead we should run a notice which is displayed the first time a viewer hits the site (remembered via cookies and user preferences).  After the initial display the message will be available through a footer link on every page.  The message I propose is this:






Before you begin,

English





Wikimedia Commons is the world's largest exclusively freely-licensed
collection of media. As the media repository supporting Wikipedia it
contains far more material than can reasonably be included within
Wikipedia's text. Commons also serves an independent mission of
education through media as a complement to Wikipedia's mission of
education through text-based articles.



Derived from the work of thousands of individual artists and
creators as well as libraries, museums, and other archival sources,
Commons aspires to cover the complete spectrum of human existence
and the natural world. Nothing less would be sufficient to help
the Wikipedia project fulfill its "Sum of Human Knowledge" mission.



The Commons community recognizes that some works have educational
or historical value specifically because they illustrate terrible
or shocking things, and that awareness of these subjects helps
the world create a better future. Because of this, a small portion
of Commons consists of material which may not be suitable for all
viewers. The presence of a work in Commons should not be considered
as an endorsement of its subject by the Commons community or the
Wikimedia Foundation; much of it was contributed by people who
also find these subjects to be terrible or sensitive and who wish
to educate others. In particular, Commons contains depictions of
genocide, torture, hate speech, animal mutilation, war footage,
and other images of crime and violence. Commons also contains
graphic medical images, nudity, blasphemy, political propaganda,
and explicit sexuality. Commons contains some material which may
be deemed illegal outside of the United States.



Because material on Commons is carefully categorized, most Commons
users never encounter media they do not wish to see. However, the
categories, like all of the media, is user-contributed and may not
be perfect.



Do not use Commons if you can not tolerate the risk of encountering
unwanted material. The subset of Commons included in the Wikipedias
and other Wikimedia projects is subject to additional editorial
selection and is placed in an appropriate context, and is less
likely to cause shock or offense.



OK, I understand  /  Take me to Wikipedia!










Please provide commentary and criticism. Is this something the community can support?  Is there something wrong with this message that might make it difficult to translate or hard for some users to understand?  Does it acceptably address our mission?   Thank you for your time. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



Short first comment: It is simply too long. I (/ the reader) realize that I'll take more than five seconds to read this popup which blocks me from where I wanted to go and search for the "stop bugging me - next" link at the bottom. Note: that the web surfer is used to pop ups as an annoying thing needed to "click away". ...just my short comment and first reaction without much thinking. Not an bad idea in general but in this form rather not of much use. It's like the disclaimer on any "above 18" website: yes, yes, I am old enough. --Saibo (Δ) 01:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Well, we can say: "you've been warned". I am not convinced - maybe tomorrow. ;) Good night! --Saibo (Δ) 01:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


OK, but apart from the wording? I think it's basically a good idea. MartinD (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


  • I think this is not unreasonable. Perhaps make it a tad friendlier by starting it with "welcome" and a less threatening colorframes :D Could be shortened perhaps a bit here and there, but certainly something to consider. TheDJ (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    K, I changed the heading to be a little friendlier. I stink at HTML stuff, but feel to make formatting suggestions. I think it should look serious and formal, but ... yes, not threatening. In terms of formatting I'd also expect to put a close [X] at the top, but since this example isn't really a popup I didn't bother so I just added one.  There is also no particular reason that it has to be a popup, it could just be a display-once site-notice style message. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Problem is that that exactly the type of popup that when I see usualy makes me thing 3rd rate website being silly (and/or website not updated since 2002).Geni (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    • This is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. No one accidentally finds hordes of explicit content on Commons. The issue is that (1) we have way more of this content than we need, (2) it eats up a lot of our bandwidth (as it is the most popular content on Commons), (3) some people use Commons as their personal porn hosting service, (4) we occasionally get bad PR about it. Anyone have suggestions for addressing those problems? Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


(1) Oh, do we? For instance I'd like to have more images of Nazi medical experiments, for instance.


(2) Reference needed; in any case, something will eventually eat up our bandwidth, and it will be a good thing. We aim to please.


(3) you mean we have a few young airheads posting salacious images of themselves. Not really a problem, most get filtered out quite quickly.


(4) Yes, and that text of Gmaxwell's is an excellent answer.


I don't know about the pop-up, but find the text and the general idea quite brilliant. Rama (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I don't really see a problem with categorization. I think excessive images per category is a problem. That could be from either categories being too broad or from there being too many images in a narrow category. Many of the categories have far too many duplicates without a strong rationalization for so many of the same type. If the duplicates were narrowed down to a reasonable amount (maybe 10 or so on a single subject or represents a sort of action, pornography or not, we do not need to clutter, say, Raphael's page with every single painting he ever had, but a few to represent various styles are justified, and if there are individual notable paintings then a few to represent various related aspects would be okay). My personal feeling is that clutter, and not "shock" or "subject" is the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm uncertain whether this notice would be helpful. To many people, they would be perceived as an attempt to avoid legal repercussions, since it emulates the adult content warnings which once had precisely this purpose. Additionally, I believe that most Commons viewers arrive from Wikipedia and other projects by clicking on links on image description pages; do we really want to show them a big warning, instead of showing them the only image page they were actually interested in viewing? Dcoetzee (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On IRC thedj suggested not displaying it for people who came in from another WMF site, I might suggest a slightly more complicated implementation where it only shows for the first time once you start browsing away from the initial page if you've come in from a WMF site.


As far as clicking in goes... I don't believe many people actually load _on commons_ images pages from other wmf sites, because the page is effectively transcluded, at least they didn't last time I looked at the access logs.  We do get a lot of people coming into galleries, and what Godwin had suggested would make the galleries mostly empty.   There isn't any bandwidth problem as Kaldari suggests, while some of the sex subjects are among the singularly most popular files they don't amount to a considerable amount of bandwidth at all. Third parties embedding images is a larger use of bandwidth but we've chosen not to block that, and bandwidth is very in expensive for Wikimedia (and increasing our usage drives down the cost per megabit/sec/month delivered in any case).  In any case, also responding to Kaldari I would expect this to address (4) because it make its more clear that we have the sexual content for a reason, and makes it clear that it's a conscious feature of the site, and not some deep dark secret thats worth spinning up the presses over. Cheers, --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


My initial thought is that it doesn't mention any projects other than Wikipedias, whereas users could arrive at Commons from a verity of other places. This is also why we need a larger range of images of all subjects than might initially be thought - the requirements for an image to illustrate an encyclopaedia article are different from those required of an image to illustrate a dictionary entry which are different to those required to illustrate a book, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



  • I think this is a horrible idea, sorry. We are an educational resource. We don't need a warning to scare people off. The idea of hiding images not in use somewhere is even worse, though: How are they to be found to be put into use? What about people not using Commons in connection with Wikipedia, but for our free media repository goal? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)




To do with the text itself: if using this text: we might want to emphasize that most of commons is actually really nice: You've now got "Commons has bad stuff". Might be handy to alter wording a bit to "Commons may contain traces of nuts <bad stuff>" Or something like  "While the great majority of commons is <Pretty Stuff> it also contains some <bad stuff>". 

In any case, emphasize the nice side. <ponders> 

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)




  • I think it's an interesting and good idea; excellent to focus on the part where there are many more disturbing images than just the sex on Commons (I went looking for famine-related disease pictures once, and couldn't sleep for a week). I wonder if there are any implications for the other projects by doing this. I'd make the following editorial changes:


  • take out the part about the Wikipedias being more acceptable -- that's not true if you go actively looking for controversial topics. So I'd skip the "and is less likely to cause shock or offense" and potentially the whole paragraph.
    • 

  • I'd also bounce people back to wikimedia.org, not wikipedia.
    • 

  • I'd also take out the "much of it was contributed by people who also find these subjects to be terrible or sensitive and who wish to educate others" line, at least for the initial notice, just to save space -- it's not totally necessary and being a bit shorter would be good. -- Phoebe (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


  • I'm pretty confident that the statement about the Wikipedias being more acceptable is true. Primarily due to the contextualization: If you encounter a gallery on commons which is just pages and pages of sex illustrations (or gored animals or...) you're going to be more shocked than if you go to an article on a related subject and see those images in use depicting the subject under discussion.  Perhaps this experience isn't universal?  It's also the case that Wikipedia's do often use the less gruesome of several images for an article illustration, leaving the commons gallery available for people who just haven't seen enough dying children yet.  ... though I'm not married to the idea of pushing the Wikipedias there, it just seemed like an obvious alternative to me. Otherwise your points sound fine. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)







  • I appreciate the intent, but I don't think this will solve any problems. Actually, I think we should define the problem more carefully before leaping to this sort of practice.


  • It's not clear to me that there is a very broad problem with all our content that requires an up-front notice to anyone who visit Commons. It could be argued that certain media categories or particular files do require a warning or a click-through acknowledgement.
    • 

  • I don't even understand the criticism that we should hide media not currently in use on Wikipedia. How do users even find media to add to Wikipedia or other Wikis? And it's the specific purpose of Commons to be a media repository. This is not a hard concept.
    • 

  • Usability 101: Users hate to read. I know this is hard for Wikimedians to imagine. ;) Also, Microsoft Windows has trained these users well to click through *any* interstitial they didn't ask for. It will be dismissed in an eyeblink on the assumption that it is the usual incomprehensible warning or click-through licensing agreement. Those who need to read it, won't, and won't even remember it was there. I've seen this many times in user testing
    • 

  • Making the interstitial blink red or have a huge stop sign on it is not the answer either. You're just driving users away from Commons in that case.


I would suggest instead, if you want to make the purpose of the site clearer, use a header tag line. This is not a mission statement, but a simple one-sentence tagline on every single page, that describes, in concrete terms, what visitors will find on the site. Jakob Nielsen's example is "the largest inventory of cars and trucks on the internet". In our case, we might say, at the top of every single page, "A vast library of educational images, movies, and sounds, that anyone can use or contribute to". Okay I ended that with a preposition, see if you can do better. -- NeilK (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


The principle of "Well, we warned you" is still of value for people who missed the interstitial.  At least some people are more upset that they were surprised then they are about the content itself, in those cases we can at least say "Sorry, but it does what it says on the tin".


You admit that "certain media categories or particular files do require a warning or a click-through acknowledgement" isn't an outrageous position, but determining exactly where to place such a warning is an enormous value judgement which is bound to be difficult to apply in an objective manner. Such markup is also subject to vandalism. Many people object stridently the the very notion that sexuality is something dirty or dangerous which is deserving of a warning.  About the only thing we can say neutrally is the objective fact that commons contains things that you might like, actually singling them out is a value judgement that may be too difficult for us to make.


Your alternative headline notice suggestion entirely misses the point, but I suppose you know this.


I'm entirely in tune with your argument that this probably isn't a big enough issue to worry about taking measure like the notice.  I suggest you attempt to convince Jimmy Wales, Matt Halprin, Stu West, and Fox News  that the presence of shocking images on commons is an insignificant issue.   Cheers! --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Re: "Well, we warned you" -- the headline for this section is "to reduce surprises", not "to provide legal cover". If you want legal cover for something, intersititials are an okay solution, since nobody reads them.


I totally agree that it would be controversial to require click-throughs for, say, a BDSM-themed gallery. Nevertheless, it is true such measures work as a reasonable compromise for sites like Flickr, and often the uploaders are the ones who are expected to label their own content. I think some form of labelling actually reduces the pressure on admins to take more drastic action like deleting. But that's just my evolving view as of today -- I could be wrong about this, and the community should consider such measures very carefully.


Maybe my position will be clearer if you understand that my entire job is to make Commons less scary and less burdened with complicated explanations. I am afraid that there is a tendency among Wikimedians to assume that new users have infinite attention span to learn about every last twist and turn of Wiki policies; it is my job to remind you guys that most users just want to get things done. Wikimedia Commons cannot expect to reach its full potential if we keep larding on more complexity for new users to navigate.

That said, I just took a walk around the block and thought about what you are trying to do. It seems to me that your goal is to sidestep the whole thorny issue of labelling entirely, with a blanket statement that could cover all of Commons. It's a good idea but I'm skeptical that we can craft such an interstitial statement that could cover everything, that doesn't hurt us (losing potential users) than it helps us (dubious benefit of warning people about content they won't find unless they go looking for it). It still seems to me that warnings should be more localized to the problematic content, as much as possible.


My purpose with the suggestion of the tagline was to help people understand that Commons is a very very large group project, and by implication they will encounter other points of view. But perhaps that doesn't get the job done either. NeilK (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Edit: I wrote some of the above in a ticked-off mood and I have just tried to reduce that. NeilK (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


@Gmaxwell/theDJ: "not displaying it for people who came in from another WMF site" -- I would be very annoyed by this behaviour since I set up my browser not to send where I came from (disabled the en:referrer sending). The same applies for cookies used to store if the user has already seen this "warning". The result is that I would see it on every single page view. So, after all - I don't think it is a good idea in this form. --Saibo (Δ) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



I can see that you do log into the site, as you're not just an IP. :) The additional measure I mentioned in the initial post would be enough for you: store the fact that you've see it with the user preferences, and if you arrive while logged in you won't get it. Thought I'm wondering how you're managed to post logged in at all if you're really completely disabled cookies. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Please don't take offence at my message, as none was intended. For greatest accuracy, Read it in a very dispassionate german accent if it helps (I'm not german, but a silly voice usually helps take the edge off a discussion). ;)  I end a significant fraction of my message that way, for whatever it's worth.


What I'm suggesting has nothing to do with legal cover, nor is any legal cover required— not for any single piece of content on commons. There is some cargo cult behaviour around legal disclaimers popular on websites, but most of it has no basis in law... and nothing would really apply here. I apologise for giving that impression, thought I'm not sure how.


Most people have a working concept of responsibility that includes the idea that people they interact with have certain responsibilities and that they have certain responsibilities. I'm not talking about anything legal at all— this is pure social norms. For example, a website has a responsibility to not surprise me with content I wasn't expecting, and I have the responsibility to pay attention to their warnings, not click on things that I know I'm not going to like, etc. Even a previously unread notice makes it clear that we were making an effort to stand up to our side of the social bargain.  That knowledge can transform an event from "I've been wronged" to "Oh. I should be more careful", and change the impression given to third parties from "Hey, those commons people really did screw you" to "Maybe you should have paid some attention!".    Perhaps it's not a strong enough of an effect to matter, but at least that was the goal.  It's better if people see the notice, share the knowledge with their social circle, etc.  But after the fact evidence of our good faith effort is something.


It is not our mission here to impose our own personal views of right and wrong on others, it's not a question of say— someone not wanting a notice on their favourite fetish. We may have factual knowledge about what alarms people, just as we may factually know that women, on average, perform worse than men on standardized math tests but we try to only state these facts as facts and try to avoid becoming part of the debate or pushing a particular set of assumptions.  Singling out content with an annoying notice without strongly implying a value judgement seems almost impossible to do at least in a way which would be understood across all cultures.


We know for a fact that mere nudity is alarming to many people, but the admonishment that mere nudity is somehow harmful and deserving of a special warning would simply not be tolerated here. Not only does the imposition violate the Wikimedia principle of neutrality, but there are many contributors here which consider the demonization of nudity to be an important social ill.  Flagging things more specifically than "all nudity" might have a chance in the community, but it wouldn't actually appease many who might complain that we failed to warn them. The same can be applied to other kinds of content on commons (religious material, gore, etc). I really do not believe "the set of things universally shocking enough that we could provide a notice" and "the most minimal set of things needing a notice in order to avoid shock and complaints" are all that similar.


The mislabling I'm concerned about is a failure to label (/malicious label removal) rather than over-labelling— The failure somehow seems far more justifiable when we do none at all. A common failing of safety devices is that they encourage the operator to take more risky behaviour.  I don't view images on commons when I'm at work, I might if I could expect the software to warn me of incoming NSFW, and then I'm going to be pretty cross when it fails to meet my expectations.


I absolutely agree that your suggestions are best for usability.  What I'd like to remind you is that while usability is important it is not our most significant goal. How usability weighs in against other factors is an important part of any consideration.  A cautionary tale: I once witnessed a yelling argument between a usability expert and our general council (then Brad Patrick, a pretty laid back guy) which was ultimately due to the expert's inability to accept that a complete and total removal of all mention of copyright and licensing from the sites was not something that would be considered... I don't think we ever made it to the second recommendation.  You would do well to avoid giving the impression that you are myopically focused on usability, even though usability is your job. We need balance.


As far as problem definitions go, I thought I described it adequately above the notice.  I want to reduce the incidence of anger and outrage when someone is shocked without substantially changing the composition of the repository. I'd prefer to actually reduce the shock by setting expectations, but providing improved understanding after the fact should also reduce anger and outrage. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I would support such a notice once possibly usability issues have been resolved. Regarding the points by Kaldari: I agree that most visitors of Commons do not run accidently in these categories, in particular if they are starting from the main page. However, links to the most offending categories (or those considered to be offending) are shared and distributed to demonstrate that Commons is a penis palace or just for curiosity. Such a list of links was apparently sent to FoxNews and selected donors of Wikimedia. In these cases, I think, such a introducing notice would help to better understand Commons and the first impression would be less fatal. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)




"Commons contains depictions of genocide, torture..." I think that it fails to explan why it is needed. If we aren't explicitely saying why we need crimes, don't list it. Take them as included in the above warning. Next, this is going to scare everybody out of commons. Do you really think this is appropiate to be told in the Main Page?

I would prefer having it as a template placed on the most problematic categories (either dismissable or not). There, being too long is a benefit, since the warning hides the category images. Ideally, it should get a parameter custimizing the end to the specific category: eg. we need many penis to document the different racial examples and medical conditions. If your image is not going to provide an added value over the already exiting ones, please don't add your penis.

So, (a) the bunch of text hides the shocking effect (b) loads of people coming to cry on a news article can read it and agree why we have them, instead of thinking "this is pornographic, why else would it be full of penises?"

Platonides (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Gmaxwell: "Thought I'm wondering how you're managed to post logged in at all if you're really completely disabled cookies. ;)" Well, that's magic. :D Of course I have allowed cookies for wikimedia.org to be able to log-in. My story was written assuming that I do not have an account here. Like it is the case for most websites. "offence at my message"? In case you refering to me, I am not offended. And by the way: Please stop making jokes about the "german accent". ;-) However, you're right: the typical German accent in English sounds "silly". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea, but think that showing it to everyone who shows up to Commons is excessive - the amount of potentially offensive content, in relation to the total content on the site, is pretty small.  I think the key is to show a warning before showing the potentially offensive content - no sense frightening people who are about to look at something completely innocuous.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



No, we should not even start considering adding notices on a case by case basis. I don't want to imagine the amount of time that would be wasted debated whether images are offensive to merit such a notice. What is and what isn't offensive is simply a matter of opinion which inevitably varies massively. I'm sure there are those that would feel images like this would be offensive. I don't want them all to turn up on Commons arguing that it is to try to get special treatment though. Adambro (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge


Hey all, as I did for my own fiasco, I'm keeping track of the media surrounding the sexual content purge at Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge, which I expect to explode in the next few days. I think this will be a valuable archive for people who wish to learn about the event in the future. Feel free to help add/reformat stuff.

Of particular note is FOXNews.com's new stab at Commons. Read it, since we might be expected to defend against the vague accusations it makes (can anyone find and link the images in question?) Dcoetzee (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



The "early 20th century color illustration of a young girl performing oral sex on an older man" they write about is File:Martin Van Maele - La Grande Danse macabre des vifs - 29.jpg. The "16-year-old boy's genitals" is (or was) probably File:Male organ.JPG. And they mention the whole Category:Pedophilia. Lupo 05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


There is a clear difference between FOX and many of the european newspapers. In many European newspapers is the main story that Jimbo tried to censor the Commons because he was afraid of FOX but was stopped by the volunteers. And a very relaxation approach to the accusations of pornography on Commons. Bad press for Jimbo, but not necessarily for Wikipedia and Commons in Europe.--Ankara (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for that list, I think it's really helpful! axpdeHello! 10:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)



How is the NPG thing going anyway, have they quietly dropped it.KTo288 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No new developments. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


derivative works' original copyrights


Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, but I have a question about clarifying user-made pictures.  My examples are File:War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army.svg and File:Flag of Sri Lanka.svg.



 
War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army.svg


  • The only copyright information at File:War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army.svg is that of Thommy9 (talk · contribs), releasing the file which he or she created under {{PD-self}}.  Obviously Thommy9 isn't the progenitor of the Imperial Japanese Army's flag, he or she simply created a derivative work thereof and released his file into the public domain.  The file has no explanation that the original source copyright would be long since expired given it was created in 1870 (en:Rising Sun Flag).


 
Flag of Sri Lanka.svg


  • The only copyright information at File:Flag of Sri Lanka.svg is that of Zscout370 (talk · contribs), releasing the file which he created under {{PD-user}}.  Obviously Zscout370 isn't the progenitor of the flag of Sri Lanka, he simply created a derivative work thereof and released his file into the public domain.  The file has no explanation of how this derivative work is outside of copyright, given the original was created in 1972 (en:Flag of Sri Lanka).


I cannot count how many "PD-self/user" licensed images we have which are derivative works.  Many have copyright explanations about how the original was libre-licensed, and therefore the DW is as well (File:Flag of Serbia.svg and File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan.svg are so indicated).  But what about the initial two examples?  How should I/we indicate that the original copyright of File:War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army.svg is no longer in force, thereby legitimizing Thommy9's derivative work?  What needs to be done about File:Flag of Sri Lanka.svg; is it's copyright still en force, or is there something which legitimizes the copyright status of the DW, but it simply isn't listed?

I nominated Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg), and also participated in the unfinished discussion to undelete it (Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg).  The file had no information about its original source, copyright date, or copyright status; it only listed the "PD-user/self" of the SVG creator without explaining the work's original copyright status.  As you can see at both links, this incurred a lot of discussion and argument, and I wanted to get input on the community at large regarding similar circumstances.

Thank you.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)



As I've noted several times before, there seems to be a de facto national flags exemption to copyright on Commons, but I'm not sure that it's ever been articulated as a formal policy... AnonMoos (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


This stuff can be very tricky.  In heraldry, the basic design of a coat of arms is not copyrightable, and each individual representation can have its own separate copyright.  So, "PD-self" and "own work" is very common.  I would think the same would go for flags, especially governmental flags, which are described and often depicted in law (considered public domain in the U.S. no matter the country), and would generally be considered an "idea" (not copyrightable) instead of "expression".  Anyone making an image based on a textual description is making an original work, and can license it as they see fit (that is definitely not derivative).  If the textual description doesn't leave any room for variation, then the "merger doctrine" (where the idea and expression merge) likely comes into play, where the resulting work is then also considered uncopyrightable (since there is only one or very limited ways to express the idea).  To be derivative, it would have to be a traced version of another (copyrightable) graphic depiction, or using the specific expression from another version in some way.  File:War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army.svg seems fine; the author would be the progenitor of the actual SVG file.  It is likely PD-ineligible anyway.  File:Flag of Sri Lanka.svg could have a copyright on the particular depiction of the lion; are you suggesting he took that from somewhere else?  If not, it is not a "derivative work" of the basic flag design -- that is a misconception.   While it is not a good idea to take flag images from other websites for this reason, self-creating images should be encouraged, I think.  Flags of non-governmental organizations can get murkier though.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


In the case that Carl describes above (a national flag described in a law) I tend to agree with Carl. Especially in the case of Japan, which has excluded the contents of its laws from copyright protection. -- BenTels (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Proposal to ban the use of File:No Israel.svg as a political statement on userpages.


I've argued in the past that we should keep File:No Israel.svg, as it can be used for educational purposes. However, I do not feel that it should be used on Commons to make political statements. I would like this image to be removed from all userpages where it is used as a political statement, along with any other anti-(country/race/religion/political affiliation) images. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



I totally agree. --DieBuche (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. abf «Cabale!» 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Yeah, freedom of opinion is overrated. --Slomox (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I very much support Mattbuck's suggestion. Users are free to hold whatever views they like but using their userpage to express them, particularly "anti" opinions,  isn't necessarily in the interests of the project. It serves no useful purpose whilst being divisive. Adambro (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I simply can't imagine what could be the benefits of such a prohibition. Why is a logo more "divisive" (to quote Adambro) than its textual equivalent ? We could write a rule to invite the six users who use this logo to replace it by a plain text sentence. Why should we do that ? No reason to add a rule when no benefit is awaited. Touriste (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm not supporting or opposing this particular proposal in this particular context, but the graphic rubs some people the wrong way because it could just as easily be interpreted as meaning "I support throwing the Jews into sea" as meaning "I disagree with selected policies of the Israeli government" -- and in fact, it seems to have been designed in order to allow for a certain leeway of ambiguity of interpretation.  I'm far from the only one who has wondered why images without any particular historical value expressing bigoted hatred of Judaism and Jews are almost never deleted from Commons (and have many vocal defenders and protectors here), while images expressing a similar bigoted hatred against racial or ethnic groups would be instantly vaporized. AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Oppose The file's only possible use is on user pages. If we can't muster support to delete it why would a context ban, which would essentially place it out of project scope and thus deleteable, be allowed? I note this file is used heavily on the Arabic Wikipedia in user pages. Are we going to censor them too? No? Then what's the point? -Nard the Bard 21:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Well I say political statement someone else says not i.e. it will be hard to enforce this. Are there examples of some hate speech? Then those users should be warned. feydey (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, then it does not fall under COMMONS:SCOPE nor is it educational - it is only used to propagate and display hatred towards other cultures. - Floydian (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



Have we asked the users who are using it to remove it?  I too agree that userpages shouldn't be used for these sorts of things, but I'd rather solve those issues with soft community standards than hard prohibitions.  You might dislike people from certain nations or which certain skin colors— you might be a major proponent of some hot political, social, or religious issue... but we've gathered on commons to promote a shared vision, we're all a great big team. We should tolerate our partner's quirks, and take care in what we say to avoid creating an atmosphere which hinders cooperation. Personally, I don't want to be in the business of deciding who went too far, and I don't want to manufacture another weapon for argumentative users to beat each other up with. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)



The last thing we need on Commons is a rehash of En's Userbox Wars. I agree with Gmaxwell's suggestion of talking to the users about your concerns, and if they refuse to remove them, just ignore them. At least if they publish hateful messages on their user page you'll know what their agenda is, which may help e.g. administrators closing deletion discussions to determine bias. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason for us to spam user talk pages and ask for something that isn't restricted to be removed. It is futile, especially if you are going to be ignored most of the time (e.g. inactive users). Either we set guidelines for everyone or allow it. ZooFari 03:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If we enter in such a game, we have to define a system that indicates when an image becomes "politically" not acceptable on user pages, how we can tag it as forbidden on user pages and how we can remove it. Once an image is forbidden, people will find quickly an alternative. So, a lot of troubles and frictions to gain what? --Foroa (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Great point. In cases where people display these images after being asked otherwise it is the users behaviour with respect to the community which is the real problem, the image is just a symptom. ZooFari, If the user is unresponsive because they are inactive, whhy not simply remove the image yourself. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is simple, the same way you enforce the No Personal Attacks policy. If an image is used as a form of hate, or to demonstrate dislike towards a person, culture, or group (regardless of whom) then it does not belong on user pages, period. Obviously the subjectivity of the offensiveness of a given image calls for the use of a community consensus process similar to files for deletion. - Floydian (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Would users then be allowed to replace it with File:Israel flag crossed.png or any other of the many more soft anti-Israel flags or just a simple text such as No Palestine ? --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


On many other Wikimedia projects user pages are only meant to identify the user and to contain information about the user and his activities on that project and racist, inflammatory or other pejorative/hateful messages aren't allowed. I don't see why a similar policy can't be created here. User pages aren't meant to be home pages or soapboxes. Anrie (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



This is an acceptable, broader position that might make the discussion above superfluous, although indications of religion and gender preferences, such as User:G.dallorto might be problematic then.  --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a problem. He's saying "i'm gay", not "i hate heterosexuals."--DieBuche (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a bad example, and I have not really the time to investigate further, but maybe this one is a better example: User:Maxval. --Foroa (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there. In general i think stuff like "I like (Country|Religion|Sex. orienation)" is perfectly fine, but stuff like "I dislike/hate (Country|Religion|Sex. orienation)" shouldn't be on commons--DieBuche (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


I totally agree with the proposal, that image is clearly discriminatory. Ferbr1 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Comment: Don't create baloney rules, but fix the problem if there's one. For example, the usage of such logos can be perfectly fine, see for example Slomox's userpage, where he states good reasons which things he doesn't like about French politics. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Oppose It's not the aim of Commons to tell the other projects what do they have to do or not, beyond topics related to copyrigh on media, licence tags and such stuff. Each project must decide on its own things such as userboxes. And if a topic is deemed to be worthy of a project-wide discussion, then it's Meta the one that would handle it Belgrano (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

    I don't want to tell other projects what to do, I am happy to keep the image, and what other projects do with it is their own decision. I just want it to be clear that on commons we do not want people using it as a political statement which is on a userpage. That's a lot of qualifiers. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


A general question: What's the educational value of this file? What's the reason to keep this file on commons? axpdeHello! 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)




Would it be too much effort to give a short abstract? axpdeHello! 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


I think this situation should be discussed at Meta, not here. Ferbr1 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Comment I agree with The Evil IP address (Diskussion) 16:20, 20 May 2010. Does Commons not have a guideline for user pages? On de-WP it says: Wikipedia is not a provider for homepages oder a webspace: user pages serve making an encyclopedia. So that one can request deletion of inappropriate user content. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Bundesarchiv pictures


It has turned out that pictures "donated" by the Bundesarchiv are not actually under CC-BY-SA, since the Bundesarchiv doesn't own the copyright and has no respective license either. They say they released them as CC-BY-SA because they are an archive owning the originals and because their purpose is to make them available to the public. This argument is obviously not valid, just because making pictures to the public is your purpose doesn't mean you can ignore copyright or grant licenses. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-2005-0119, Kurt Weill.jpg for an example, it includes a link to their statement. I think we should delete the Bundesarchiv pictures and restore only those where we can obtain clear proof that the license is actually valid or that can be kept of a different reason (such as PD-old). We cannot rely on the claims of Bundesarchiv, they are entirely bogus and have no legal basis. --rtc (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)



WAY premature as we still have an open DR which is discussing the issue. Tabercil (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


This sound a bit like Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010May#National_Library_of_Norway.2C_CC-by_on_Public_Domain_images_on_flickr. I there argued "I belive that as long as the library and flickr se a win-win situation in the misuse of cc-by licenses they will not change."  In that line it is interesting that Bundesarchiv, CC, Wikimedia creativecommons.org is in no way strange bedfellows. I belive this kind of cooperation can be at the expense of the Public Domain.Andrez1 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Help


Help! I've transfered two files slated for deletion at enwiki to CommonsFile:Lan kwai fong.jpg and File:Staunton Street street sign.jpg. However I also seem to have imported the deletion templates from en:wiki, and haven't been able to switch them off.--KTo288 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



  Done I also remove some of the other noise in the description.  -- User:Docu at  10:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Let's add a rename user right


Since some time now, the rename queue has been extremely long and I feel that this is something that not solely administrators need to deal with. As it was once with the MediaMoveBot, regular users should have the option again to rename files. It's really not that much of a problem which can be extremely abused, and it also didn't happen when we used the MediaMoveBot. 

Thus, my idea would be to add a user group to Commons which has the right to rename files. They can be added and removed by any administrator, just like with rollback or patrollers. With Commons:Requests for rights, we already have a pretty good page to request this right. The same idea has been proposed already and the only concern was that User:CommonsDelinker/commands can't be edited by non-admins. 

This problem now has a solution: The way to open it for "renamers" would be by using the AbuseFilter. We would first change the protection level to "[edit:autoconfirmed;move:sysop]" and then configure two Abuse Filters: One to prevent that a non-renamer adds any command, and one which prevents renamers from adding any command other than {{Universal replace}}. I tested it and it worked, so it shouldn't be problematic in this case. Of course, it would be tested again if this is to be implemented, so that no serious errors happen.

Considering the political rights of this user right, it's basically the same as with the admins at the moment. File renames should be renamed when it makes sense, which you can see at Commons:File renaming#What files should be renamed?. If there's misuse, then the right would be revoked. I've written a draft version at User:The Evil IP address/rename, feel free to alter it, it's far from being perfect.

Since now all problems are solved, I propose that we go to Bugzilla and request to add this user right. Please let me know if this works for you. If you have problems with this, please state them, so we can try to find a compromise. Also, feel free to ask any questions if you didn't get something. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)



Opinions



Comments/Questions



Me thinks it does already exists, called something like admins ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins are users who have demonstrated all-around trustworthiness and some degree of skill in multiple areas. The more specific usergroups are often for the many users who have demonstrated ability in a certain corner of the project. That's how I view it, anyway. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Because there are cases where users could surely get one or two of these rights, but not all. For example, "rollback" would be something that I wouldn't give to a user that tends to get into edit wars, but "autopatrolled" or "rename" might be ok. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


  • That's a bit like why you wouldn't want me as an admin, yet you "only" blocked me for a week when I reacted to the long cancer spam. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Might be easier/more efficient to create a "trusted user" group and take away specific control bits if they prove to abuse it. Because delete/undelete is not available, risk of serious damage is fairly limited anyway. --Foroa (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

    • 

  • A common argument against admin-candidates is that they don't have experience in the "deletion request" department. It thus does make sense to have specialised user rights. My support. Nillerdk (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Comment. Instead of using Abuse Filter a much simpler solution is to use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist with <noedit> parameter. The 'movers' will need 'tboverride' userright in this case, which may be useful for them regardless of its use to protect the bot's command page. Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)




bug 23448 submitted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Question (1) The rename right not includes overwriting e.g. moving a file over another file or an redirect as that requires the deletion right. Or? (2) Does it include redirect suppression? --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

    • I think it's like with the "move" right for non-admins, though I haven't tested it. You can only overwrite the target page of the move, if it's a redirect to the source page with only one revision. Suppressing a redirect shouldn't work, as this might give the people the option to indirectly delete a file; if deletion is necessary they can still tag it with {{Speedydelete}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


I know there are valid arguments against the Abusefilter solution, but could someone activate it nevertheless for now, until CommonsDelinker is reconfigured. Because right now I can move images, but not replace their usage (except manually, which is a very tedious work) --DieBuche (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Filemovers


We now have a filemovers group btw. TheDJ (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



How does one become a filemover? Mahanga (Talk) 19:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request it at Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover (add request)! axpdeHello! 19:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


May 6


Cleanup policy


See also Commons talk:Sexual content.


Will likely be of some interest--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



"Trolling"? Changing policies for adminship? It seems to me that the founder should try to relax. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Does Jimbo have the authority to declare policy on Commons? -Atmoz (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even files that had been kept after DR are getting summarily deleted now, see User talk:Fran Rogers#Deletion spree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Hear, hear. Commons needs to get back to its mission of cataloging images for educational use. There's been a major misunderstanding among some users that Commons is a carefully categorized database of erotica/fetish pictures (see, for example, this discussion), or that Flickr import is for uploading random artistic pictures of people. The existing project scope needs to be dutifully enforced. Fran Rogers (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



There are a humongous backlogs of deletion requests. On your censoring spree, are you even checking if a file has been kept after DR? Or if it is in  use? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "censorship" is poisoning the well. Editorial selection is not the same thing as censorship.
Anyway, the deletion request is clearly badly broken, as the above concerns voiced by Jimmy himself indicate. More drastic action is needed; the "educational use" requirement needs to be more zealously enforced. (And often times, a file is nominated for deletion for a reason other than being out of project scope (like licensing concerns), then kept; this doesn't exempt the image from being deleted for being out of scope. Such was the case with the image you mentioned on my talk page.) Fran Rogers (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us call a spade a spade. You are not editorially selecting images on the basis of quality, or of usefullness. You are targeting images that illustrate wikipedia articles about sexual practices. Which is censorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I thought that Commons was a collection of educational media, which includes human behavior, even fetishistic behavior. I'm sorry, I guess I was wrong; only ethnic nudity/fetish material needs apply. We have multiple pictures of just about every small town on Earth, but we can't even keep one photograph of one of the most typical human behaviors. That's censorship.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Clearly you do not care, see en:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Wikimedia projects are going to be censored according to US-american norms just like Apple and Google are already censoring contents which might upset americans. It would really suit a worldwide project like Wikimedia to say no to censoring, and instead push forward to implement a content filter, so each user can choose on his own. We must realise that what americans do or do not find upsetting can be very different for people originating from other cultures. Nillerdk (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a content filter is the way forward. However, while we don't have one, I support a certain amount of deletion. --JN466 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Whilst I would agree that there is probably a reasonable amount of files which are of questionable educational value, I am concerned by users apparently taking Jimbo's comments as a green light to speedily delete masses of files. It also deeply concerns me that one of those users has declared that the "deletion request [process] is clearly badly broken". Broken in what way? That it doesn't result in files the user wants deleting actually being deleted? A process isn't broken just because it produces in an outcome one doesn't agree with. Yes, some pruning of the masses of explicit images should be done but I don't think someone who shows such little regard for existing deletion requests should be involved. I would accept that in some cases where targeted files have been the subject of deletion requests it might have been for reasons other than concerns about the project scope but I would suggest that in such instances users participating in the discussion will probably consider whether there are any other problems beyond what has been highlighted. What I fear is happening here is not a reasonable removal of images with little educational value but rather an imposing of the views of those involved in selecting files to delete. "Censorship" is an inevitable concern when masses of files are being deleted without discussion. I think this should stop, or at the very least, those deleting masses of files on the basis of Jimbo's recent comments should document such deletions somewhere central so others can review them without having to try to work out which are relevant from searching through deletion logs. After all, if what is really going on is a pruning of useless files, those involved should be more than happy to help others recognise that and not fear something else is going on. Adambro (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



en:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker is very concerning. Adambro (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/CommonsDelinker where Tiptoety is flaunting policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Ok, we can't do anything against the decision of the boss, but why this file (at flickr, Google Pictures) was deleted? It was a CGI drawing, and a innocent one. And Jimbo says nothing about mass deletion of all non-pornography nude pictures: "We should keep educational images about sexuality - mere nudity is not pornography - but as with all our projects, editorial quality judgments must be made and will be made - appropriately and in good taste."  Trycatch (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Jimbo has said "Existing policy can be enforced firmly and swiftly". Since existing policy says that an image legitimately in use on another WMF project is considered in scope, I hope no more images that are in use will be deleted with the incorrect suggestion as the deletion reason that they are beyond the project scope. Adambro (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • I'm getting angry for enforcing policy without wide-and-sufficient consensus, not for deleting ponrographic images. I'm really concerned that Jimbo's interventions to individual project is being serious. I think Jimbo should try to relax. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • I propose to speedy delete all the images of Category:Christian crosses, as they are offensive for hundred millions people. --GaAs11671 09:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    No, we shouldn't stoop to that level. We don't vandalize art. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • Are we really going along with this? Jimbo makes one of his rare appearances here and says "we should delete porn regardless of policy, and anyone who dares think otherwise will have his adminship revoked", and five minutes later hundreds of images (some of which were in use so clearly in scope) are deleted at the sole discretion of one individual (with their own definition of what porn is). And let's not pretend this is about the project scope; he didn't say "let's get rid of all the images that are of little or no educational value" (we have thousands of private pictures or personal artwork, sunsets, cats, unknown locations, etc. that could also be removed), but no, this is only about "all pornographic images", assuming that none of these can be educational (and yet a lot of them were in use in article namespace on various projects).
    And what does it say about us admins, trying to do our job responsibly and following policies, trying to carefully implement policies through consensus, keeping in mind that hundreds of projects depend on us? Well, it quite simply suggest that we were not acting to serve this project, but rather our own perversions; or maybe that we are not mature enough to take decisions as a community, and we need some messiah to guide us back on the right path.
    I really feel insulted and saddened by this, and I sincerely hope this is not going to be the way decisions are made on Commons. We're all volunteers and give our time and energy to a project in which we believe, not to a project were we are reduced to blindly follow arbitrary decisions. –Tryphon☂ 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I think it'd be a good thing for us all to aim towards making sure commons is accessible in schools around the world - if that necessitates some pragmatic changes, then I think that's probably, on balance, for the best. Now if we can figure out a sensible tagging system (I think there's one on the way! hooray!) then I'll re-upload my extensive blow job pic collection with... um... nobs on ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • This "policy" which is nothing more than an off the cuff statement, has already degenerated into vandalism.  Two illustrative, non pornographic (but perhaps disturbing) images File:Doggirl in her routine shower.jpg and File:Doggril tries to escape.jpg have just been deleted.  I don't agree with deleting Christian imagery, but much is just as prurient, offensive and non-educational as any illustrating human sexuality.  All Jimbo has actually said is the existing policy (i.e. that already worked out by consensus) be quickly enforced.  This vandalism spree needs to be stopped and reversed now! --Simonxag (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


It goes from bad to worse. It seems Image:Prince_Albert_Piercings(expert19612005)..JPG  used on de:Dehnen von Piercings and de:Prinz-Albert-Piercing, has gone.  No discussion, just an interpretation of a remark from chairman Jim, and no evidence afterwards that anything was there, so it gets deleted from the Wiki project article and airbrushed out of history. --Simonxag (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Speedy deletions, with consensus, based on the opinions of some people as to what constitutes "educational" and "pornographic" is increadibly upsetting. Tryphon said it best above. Why not put these people in charge of Commons and be done with it? The question was asked, but I don't believe answered -- does Jimbo have the authority to establish policy? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    I reject any attempt to speedy delete images on grounds of being pornography. Deletion requests, fine, but speedy deletion IMO should generally not be used for out of scope images. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Has to be an imposter


I'm not convinced that the comment was actually made by Jimbo Wales.  It may be that someone hacked his account.  Consider the content of what it says and how uncharacteristic and irresponsible what it says is.  Not at all in alignment with how he would act.



  • "...but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support. This includes immediate deletion of all pornographic images"


Clearly he would not direct admins and editors to use an extremely subjective personal measurement such as "pornography" or "prurient" and tell them to go outside the established deletion process in doing so.  Also, he knows that his personal opinion should not override the board of directors and the established organizational structure.  He would have dealt with it through them.


  • "I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue)."


Again, can we believe that he would go around the established processes and hierarchy and actually threaten to delete admins who do not agree with deleting images of sexuality?  That would result an a mass exodus of people from the entire WMF.  The real Jimbo Wales knows that the project is about collaboration and consensus, and stopped being about him and his opinions a long time ago.  Whomever posted that on his page has to be an imposter.


  • "I think our existing policies here on commons are sufficient to deal with the problem - with the minor exception that many things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later."


Saying that things can be dealt with within policy, when the preceding comments, and the following comment say that they should be done outside of policy does not make sense.  He would not have said it like that.  The end result of mass deletions of images used in articles shows how following user space comments that appear to be the opinions of Jimbo Wales, rather than established process or through official channels are damaging to WMF.


If the real Jimbo Wales had wanted to take action, he would have used established processes through the foundation, rather than creating chaos by offering personal opinions posed as a directive on his user page. Certainly Admins and editors are aware that real policy about something so comprehensive would not have been delivered in the manner of a drunken text message at 1:53 am, and would have been discussed and delivered through official channels instead.  How many other directives and foundation policies have circumvented the Board and been delivered on his talk page??  Do you see my point?  What we need is a comment from the real Jimbo Wales reassuring us that this collaboration follows established channels and processes.


Atomaton (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)






And restore to the projects. See the list at http://toolserver.org/~delinker/  /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


"I'm not convinced that the comment was actually made by Jimbo Wales." - I am. I have every reason to believe it's him saying these things. I think suggesting this is from an imposter is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



I'd be happy if it turned out to be an impostor, but judging from previous inconsiderate command-like interventions by Jimbo, I don't think it is. --Slomox (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Besides the way how media influence Wikimedia, it's also a shame how this is done. Obviously, since there will never be a consensus for this, it needs Jimbo. Hopefully, there will be a good end out of this, but to be honest, seeing the complete lack of resistance, I doubt this will happen anytime soon. I'd recommend not wasting your time with this: Go out, breathe some air, look at the sky and the birds any maybe you'll have a good day. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


No, we must resist. Mr. Wales did already admit that he doesn't have the authority to enforce his opinion without the Board. So policy still applies and steps must be taken against the uncontrolled deletion of files in use. Nillerdk (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you misinterpreted what I said.  I said that if the Wikimedia Foundation wants to declare that it is ok for Commons to be a porn host, they can do that, and I'll not be able to continue.  That isn't going to happen, though, and in fact you should expect a strong statement from the Board and/or Sue in the next few days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree.  The ramifications of this could be huge.  His statement isn't policy, and any deletions should be reversed.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, my statement is policy.  Please don't wheel war about it, and please don't undelete things lightly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if I can agree with this new policy, there's something of an autocracy in the way it has been done. And I don't like this at all... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never even been involved in these debates over sexual content, but this bullzozer approach to the issue is shocking.  Images are being deleted unilaterally before the Board has issued any statement or the community has had the opportunity to discuss how best to implement it.  What a mess - it has been handled so badly.  Concerns about censorship about the Americanization of the project are pretty legitimate and the responses/lack of concern from Mr. Wales is disappointing to say the least. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn you Jimbo, I was assuming you'd say "I'm not an imposter" and I'd reply with "well you would say that" but you went and ruined it. I recognise that you are the founder of Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, and thus Commons by extension, but I do not recognise your right to unilaterally declare policy. Especially not in this manner. If this is a legal position, so be it, but this seems more an issue of prurience and IDONTLIKEIT than anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


(ec) All WMF projects are on private ground of the WMF. Jimbo Wales is not just the founder of this but still member of the board of trustees. The WMF does not provide just free webspace to everything that is hopefully legal but follows a mission and gathers support for it from donors. Given this, we shall aim to support this mission and to take recommendations coming from members of the board of trustees seriously. This does not mean that community consensus is abandoned. But it means that we shall strive to support this mission and in consequence Commons as one of the WMF sites is restricted to educational content. Getting rid of material that is out of COM:SCOPE is not censorship as anyone is free to open elsewhere a free repository of non-educational material. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Nobody disputes that.  It is the unilateral determinations of what is in scope and what is supportive of the mission that is troubling.  It is, as far as I can tell, an abandonment of the consensus principle.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand Jimbo Wales' recent comments as an appeal to be more strict in regard to COM:SCOPE as it was handled in the past. As far as I understand, there has been quite some press coverage of this issue since Larry Singer accused the WMF to host child porn (see here, for example). Even if this claim has been refuted by the WMF, this is now clearly a point which is debated in public news. Given this, it comes to no surprise that  the WMF board is apparently preparing a policy statement in this matter. I understand Jimbo Wales' recent comments into that direction that we shall take care that Commons does not host hard-core porn media. A possibly problematic example is File:Deep.jpg which was so far two times nominated for deletion but kept. As far I understand Jimbo Wales, we are expected to delete such cases from now on. Even if we can long discuss how this still can be possibly identified as education as it illustrates some sexual technique, it remains questionable how much support this is likely to find in the press and in consequence by our donors. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Usually, anything in use in the projects is automatically considered to satisfy SCOPE.  Part of the objection is that dozens of images in use in encyclopedia articles were already deleted.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm appreciate that Jimbo is offering Commons assistance in moving forward with better ways to manage this sensitive content. I encourage everyone to not wheelwar or editwar and to stay calm in the discussions. From my reading of his comments, he thinks that current policy supports the deletion of much of the sexually explicit content but is in favor of drafting a policiy that gives better guidance to uploaders and admins on this point. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)




Oh ffs - this is Commons not some other daft project.  "Edit warring" requires the actions of not one idiot but two.  Let the idiots stay away from Commons and let us get on with the project and its tasks which includes the deletion of the regular garbage that comes by - otherwise "per Lar". --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



Should we desysop triggerhappy admins?





 

Someone suggested that if I withdraw this "proposal" then peace might be restored on Commons. I doubt but if it works it is worth trying. As someone might notice this not really a proposal but a "Please think and check before you delete" but anyway this is hereby withdrawn. --MGA73 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Cleaning up is a good idea. But speedy deleting without checking if it is used or if we have better images is really bad. I feel tempted to suggest that we desyop admins that delete files that is in use without checking.

We have had bad images for so long so there is no reason to act in panic. It will not ruin Commons if it takes a week to clean up.

Take your time, check one category at a time. Find the best images and delete only the worst ones. And before you delete please check if deleting the image will make other categories lacking images. Often images are in more categories and an image that is "useless" in one category could be "brilliant" in an other category. So please check before you nuke. --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Support -  I think a lot of images on commons need to be deleted, but an overhasty delete will help nobody und will generate further frustration. Normaly elected admins are responsible for the compliance of the rules (as they are the only ones who acctually can delete) -Schlurcher (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Neutral - I support a reprimand, but not necessarily desysopping. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    • Please be aware that the cleanup project is a very special situation, and admins are requested and supported in efforts to be vigorous and get this done in a timely fashion.  Anything can be undeleted later, if it proves to be really critical.  There will be no desysoppings for those doing this work.  It's a wiki, anything can be fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


The delinking of the pictures is done automatically whereas each picture needs to be put back into the articles by hand. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


If you think admins are requested and supported in efforts to be vigorous and get this done in a timely fashion is that easy to do, why don't you do it yourself? I'm an admin, and I'm not and will not be prepared to censor. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  •   Comment As I said I suppert the cleanup but I also thinks that admins should check if image should really be deleted. Deleting and undeleting makes us look like fools if it is not a few exceptions.


God did not create the universe in one day so why is it important that we clean up today? Why not do it like this. Day one - make the rules and make a notice. Day two - delete the illegal images and link to the rules. Day three - start cleaning up in legal but unused/not educational images and link to the rules. Day four - finish the cleanup started in day three. Day five - check if any of the remaining "in use images" can be replaced with someone that is better. Day six - check for mistakes. Day seven - enjoy the result. --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Day 8, start work on other categories which have low resolution useless images. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Oppose Admins are volunteers like all other users, their time is limited like yours and mine. You generally should feel free yourself to replace used deletion candidates and any other used images by better images. Delinking deleted images can globally be done by bots. Empty categories are no argument at all to keep an image for that deletion has been decided. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  • No. I trust Commons administrators to use good judgment. And if an occasional error happens then it can be discussed with them directly. We want to empower them to do their work and not make them overly cautious. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support The sysops that delete files that are in use while invoking reasons of scope, are in violation of policy, and should be stopped; also "Commons is not censored" is still policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  Comment I think that voting on this is not going to resolve anything. Amada44 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



This was only considered as a support to MGA73 not as a voting on this. But it helps express the opinions so I added a comment to mine. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Support Not all the deleted images have even been restored yet.  I wonder if any are actually porn: they seem to be all documenting piercings and alternative sexuality, whatever annoys this particular admin: it really would be just as reasonable to delete Christian related images.  I'm worried that a policy is being developed here that sexuality images can be deleted willy nilly except perhaps if they're actually in use: editors need a range of material to make choices from and if an item is gone it's gone and nobody can see whether it was useful or not.  The damage done is far greater you might think: I've done some work on the English Wikipedia human sexuality pages and the biggest problem is editors' moral in the face of a tide of vandalism (and censorship).  Ironically, the Wikipedia sexuality pages are the main source for most internet users for neutral sourced factual coverage of any of this stuff.  This in a world where AIDS has just become the number one killer of women of child bearing age over and above any other cause: there isn't going to be a cure or a vaccine; knowledge is all we've got.  The government slogan goes Don't Die Of Ignorance and what do you think the consequences of this assinine campaign are going to be? --Simonxag (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Oppose - Proposal fails to address the severity of the issue, and the proposal is poisoned by the use of the charged term "trigger-happy" to describe the legitimate speedy deletion of questionable images which fall out of the scope of Commons.  Perhaps the people who are 'trigger-happy' in restoring these images should be desyoped. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    In fact, this entire proposal is loaded with terms.  "Panic" implies that people are acting in haste, which is far from the truth.  I think administrators are tired of pandering to the "anything in the name of not-censored" crowd, and are merely acting in response to Jimbo's activities.  This entire proposal is an unenforceable, populist, knee-jerk reaction to a possible board decision. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    Bring on the board decision and let people change the policy according to it, then we can talk about deleting. Not the other way round. Until those deletions are backed up by policy, they need to stop. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    Those deletions are backed up by policy, have been backed up by policy, and continue to be backed up by policy.  The fact that a group of Commons admins have chosen to ignore that bit of policy for their own convenience is irrelevant.  This proposal is meaningless, and unenforceable no matter the outcome.  Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    Deleting images which are in use as "out of scope" has NEVER been backed up by policy. Neither has deleting images because Jimbo says so. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    

    Oh, and FWIW, the "administrators" you are talking about are right now a group of about 3-5 people. Not really a significant number, considering the number of administrators on this project and the number of people participating in the discussion. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    You want more administrators on board?  I can guarantee you that a lot more tahn 3-5 people are in concurrence with this.  Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    Right now I see more people opposing the idea than I see supporting it. I am seriously considering having my admin bit removed voluntarily if this should change. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support - While I see the need for cleanup in general, I disapprove of how it's done. Jimbo said to get rid of pornographic images and suddenly a few people start deleting everything that is remotely sexual. I am still missing a policy or guideline on what to delete. Right now it's only a bunch of people deleting stuff at their sole discretion and they are backed up by Jimbo's threat to de-admin anyone who restores those images. I am truly shocked by the new "Shoot, then think" attitude being propagated here. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Comment I would first remind that group of admins that theirs is a minority position, that all the previous attempts in creating a sexual content policy and its predecessors has been shot down. I would remind them that their hand has been strengthened by Jimbo's intervention but to take it as carte blanche to go on a deletion spree has the effect of weakening Jimbo's moral authority (see threads below) and with it their own long term goals. Rather than taking Jimbo's comments as dictat to achieve short term gains I would advise them to use it as a bargaining chip in getting a version of the proposal they have been agitating for.KTo288 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



  •   Support Thousands of work hours are already wasted and multiples will follow. :( I am very disappointed of this censorship action here. Jimbo, you made a wrong decision. --Saibo (Δ) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Oppose: Administrators can be trusted to make decisions about what falls outside project scope. The suggestion that it would take "a week to clean up" with something beside speedy deletion is absolutely insane. It's difficult to find a lazier Wikimedia wiki than Commons with regard to deletion discussions. To say that they languish is putting wildly mildly. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support This enforcement of US-American standards threatens to make commons irrelevant. Why would wikipedia projects store their media here, if an article in Fox-News causes mass deletions? Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support Any new project scope policy could be enforced without this shameful haste, licenses to kill and opening of a witch-hunt season. Trycatch (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Oppose: We do not need to turn this into a civil war. Right now, tempers are running high on all sides, and a lot of people are doing and saying things they will probably regret later. Unless there is a sign that someone is either being abusive of other users or blatantly using this as an excuse to remove obviously acceptable content (e.g. "In Saudi Arabia you can't show a woman's face, so I'm deleting all pictures of women's faces"), de-sysop'ing should not enter the picture. Do remember that we can always restore images later. I think a lot of people right now are in honest doubt about the right thing to do, and should be assumed to be acting in good faith. The proposed policy at Commons:Sexual content needs a lot of clarification. Right now, it is, in many respects, unclear and self-contradictory. I presume that the Board will back Jimbo in the general direction he wants to take this, so it seems to me that the constructive thing to do now is to try to hammer out a coherent policy quickly, rather than form a circular firing squad. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Oppose: We do not need more drama but a clear policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Oppose AFBorchert (above my post) put it quite well. Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support as has been said several times above, any file that is in use on a Wikimedia Wiki (for purposes other than vandalism) is by definition in scope, any file that can be realistically used in a current or likely future Wikimedia or other educational project is also within scope. Where there is any disagreement over this we act like civilised human beings and discuss the matter. One ambiguously worded statement from one person, no matter how important they were in founding the project, does not (or at least should not) overrule policy that has been arrived at by consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Bloody ridiculous Per AFBorchert.  Worth bearing in mind that "edit warring" (bloody silly en wp tradition) is not the actions of one idiot but two idiots.  I've slept for 2 hours in the last 28 or so so bear this in mind.  Improved policy is required but deleting passing garbage is the job of Commons admins (who actually do some work here).  So it goes wrong occasionally - that is life. --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support Removing non-educational porn is good thing. But it should be stopped speedy-deleting files in use. Since there is a policy not to censor contents uploaded to Commons. Deletion policy does not define "Out of Scope: cleanup non-educational file" as a speedy deletion criterion. It might be regarded as policy violation. Administrators should respect the existing policy. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Oppose Jimbo started wikipedia, and if he started this operation, I am confident he has good reasons. Teun Spaans 21:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 

  •   Support Per ChrisiPK. --myself488 talk 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Is Commons evolving as a dictatorship or something like that ?


There's something very problematic happening currently on Commons. I can accept the fact that we may need to make a choice between nude and sex files we want to keep or delete. But I surely don't accept the way it's done sometimes ! There's a clear abuse of power from some admins and also (maybe) from Jim Wales himself ! Let me explain : people like Tiptoety are currently deleting nude or sex files unilateraly without asking any DR process. And when I asked him how and why he could do such subjective speedy deletions, he argued that Wales asked the admins to do that ! I see 4 big problems :



  1. Wales is the founder of Wikimedia, but as far as I know, he's not the autocratic boss who decides everything that happens, especially in terms of rules or deletions ! So his words are not orders to follow !
    2. 

  2. What he stated is not so strict and he actually "support" admins who'd delete files he himself would like to be deleted (not an order!).
    3. 

  3. Wales says "many things should just be speedy deleted and argued about later"... How can you argue about files that have been deleted and therefore can't be seen by those who may want to discuss about them !!!
    4. 

  4. If we now accept that admins may procede to speedy deletions on their own behalf whenever they want or think a picture is useless, DR processes have no meaning... and the concept of neutrality (one of the main rules of Wikimedia) is in real danger !


Even if there may be many solutions to find in order to deal with nudity and sexuality on Commons, that's not how we'll improve Commons. Current solutions appear to be worse than the problem to cure ! Pandora's box is opened ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Please review the latest version of Commons:Sexual content... note carefully the wording Jimbo used. I read that as that Jimbo is seeking board endorsement of this clarification of the scope of commons (note I say clarification, not change) and the ramifications to the deletion process here. It is unfortunate that it had to come to this but the resistance in some quarters forced his hand, I think. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But don't you think it's a real danger of losing neutrality on Commons ? I'm quite afraid to see that admins could do anything they want ! There would be no mean to stop abuses. And even with such "delicate" subjects (nudity and sex), I think we all have to be less strict (both supporters of those files like me and people who seem to want the deletion of 99% of them!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


OK, now that I've read more carefully, I can understand. But I still have some few questions :

  1. How was File:Mammary intercourse with dildo.jpg connected to one of the 5 cases of  "actual or simulated acts" ?
    2. 

  2. Isn't the word "lascivious" too subjective to be applied ? (I know the law states that but I really wonder if they really thought about it).
    3. 

  3. How ejaculation is understood by the law ? Strictly speaking it seems to fail in none of the 5 cases.
    4. 

  4. Isn't exagerate to say that any smiluated act is outlawed ? Such as this one ?
    5. 

  5. What about non-human masturbation ?!
    6. 

  6. How can we be sure that some admins would not "cheat" and delete even pictures that are not falling in the incriminated cases ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I don't think that what is being proposed would effect the neutrality of our content. Rather, the standard already in place are being enforced in a timeframe that makes sense. For example, it does not make much sense to have lengthy discussions about whether the person meets the age of consent or if the person gave consent instead of having the admin do an outright deletion of the material if the uploader does not provide good information. The policy HAS been to delete this type of material but we have been inconsistent in managing it and this has added to the confusion around the matter. For specific exceptions, we can discuss the matter and if an educational use exists on a wiki then the community can give the go ahead for it. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you see, your comment actually makes me think even more that there could be some problems/abuses. When you write it does not make much sense to have lengthy discussions about whether the person meets the age of consent or if the person gave consent instead of having the admin do an outright deletion of the material if the uploader does not provide good information, this comment applies to... nudity ! And the "new" rules deal with sexuality, not nudity (at least not all nudity) so this kind of debate will still occur about non-porn nude pictures ! And if you saied that, it means that some admins may potentially make a sex-nudity shortcut in their mind and procede to the speedy deletion of non-porn nude ! You see what I mean ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I trust our administration to use commonsense. There is a massive difference between an art materpiece and an amateur upskirt shot done by an unknown user of an unknown person. I trust our administrators to see the difference. And if an error happens then the admin can be contacted and it reversed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I'll try to trust them too (but I have had many proofs in the past that some can be very subjective about some subjects). Anyway, in case I've been misunderstood I prefer strict rules and an officiel photo censorship about sex (because it is) than the hypocrisy and incoherences we had for a (too) long time ! It's clearer now ! Not 100% clear because of some few borderline cases and the risk of abuse about nudes, but far clearer than it used to be ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  Comment I reposted the other questions on Commons talk:Sexual content --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



I seem to remember an interview Jimbo did with BBC in which he likened his position at wikipedia as something akin to that of a constitutional monarch, a figurehead divorced from the day to day running of things. So by that count Commons and the other wikimedia projects have always been an autocracy. However one of the strengths of a constitutional monarchy is that although the monarch retains powers these powers are by tradition never used (well okay I'm only familiar with the British one but the other ones seem to work the same way). Rather the strength of the monarch lies in his or her moral authority born of the respect of citizens and ministers to the monarchy. The use of such authority is enhanced by rather than diminished by being indirect, a quiet chat over tea and biscuits, a personal observation on a matter rather than instructions to act. If Jimbo can decide today to expunge smut from Commons, tomorrow he might decide to eliminate pictures of people with beards, or whatever he's irked by at that time. Commons can survive the elimination of all the so called sexual images, it will probably survive the lost of trust and respect that this episode has sparked, but it will no longer be the project I fell in love with.KTo288 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


@Lar, yes, sir, yes, I note you say "clarification, not change". And, indeed, "Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia". Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NOT helpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not helpful for your attempts to rewrite history, but helpful for people who arrived at the former commons after it had been enclosed. If you don't want your hypocrisy pointed out, don't post lies. Or oversight my comments, again. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


I view this whole episode almost laughing hysterically at how everybody is complaining about dictatorial authority being asserted here.  IMHO, some pushback is not only useful but prudent.  For those not aware of the situation, Jimbo Wales did something similar to this on English Wikibooks a couple of years ago when a major segment of Wikibooks content was removed.  It centered around two particularly sensitive areas of content, one of which is related to this current issue about "porn" and the other not really so much but should be just as alarming.

One "wikibook" that was deleted was the Jokebook.  I'll be the first to admit that some of the jokes that were added to that collection were off color, racist, and distasteful.  Some of the jokes, on the other hand, were quite funny and provided a sort of humorous outlet for relief among the Wikibooks contributors.  By simple fiat (not really policy) the book was deleted without even so much as a RfD/VfD discussion taking place by none other than Jimbo Wales.  He did later try to explain his decision, but it was after the fact.

The other major area of content was the video game guides.  Essentially, a fairly significant part of Wikibooks had become a whole bunch of video game walk-throughs.... sort of like is now found on the Wikia video game sites.  I would dare say it comprised about a third to half of the actual content on Wikibooks, and about half of the content edits (not necessarily discussion edits) by contributors to the project.  Again, a directive came through that essentially all of this content was to be removed, and some of the larger guides simply had their main navigation pages removed right away.  For myself, I think Wikibooks is a weaker project as a result of pushing away these contributors, and I hate to be "see I told you so" on this point.

For myself, I do think some of the sexually explicit images on Commons did need a second look through to see if they were acceptable to the community and if it really contributed to the larger mission of supporting the other Wikimedia sister projects.  Perhaps some stricter policies could have been enacted here, and at least the issue raised in a significant manner that includes noting some of the legal environments and consequences to hosting this content, or even perhaps discussing how some significant contributors to the WMF may or may not be put off by some of this content.  It is unfortunate that major policy changes didn't happen through consensus building but rather by top-down fiat.  For myself, if a policy change is useful and beneficial, going through normal channels is a much better way to resolve the issue rather than engaging in a god-king type of fiat decision.... particularly for something that may result in substantial content removal.  As far as I know, Jimmy Wales still carries quite a bit of weight around with comments he may make about a topic, and any sort of policy suggestion he may make will certainly be very seriously considered simply because of who he is.  Why it had to be done as if it is official policy already doesn't make sense and shouldn't be happening.  --Robert Horning (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



I think we should close Commons


I thought Commons, and Wikimedia, was made for everyone in the world. Reading some comments here, it seems it is not: according to who I'll not name, it seems to be made only for White American people, ignoring the 96% of the World who are not American, and I can't agree to that. If it is really the case (I wonder), it is clear I will use all means I can imagine to destroy the Who In't won't say the the name foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArséniureDeGallium (talk • contribs) 



I have to say I partly agree. But I also think it may be better for the projet... and we also have to keep in mind that Wikimedia is hosted in the US so I suppose it has to follow their laws... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And as a precaution, we should definetly close Commons. It's the only way to conform to these "policies". --GaAs11671 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're exagerating... There's not only sex on this site ! Comons is still useful for all other subjects ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


lol Mike R (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not joking. This is where the Commons is: beeing a slave of the man I won't name, or having its right to decide about its future. --GaAs11671 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if I hate the way it's done, we have to be objective : Wales's will has a legal background, so I guess it's easy to go against Wales's will but not the hypothetical legal problems WMF may have if we continue like before. It's really sad IMO but it may be reasonable after all. But again, I really am angry about the way it had been done. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Oh come off it. This isn't our project. It is property of the WMF. Killiondude (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]]  Commons is not "the property of the WMF". It is a collaborative project, designed (as the name suggests) as a resource for the whole world, and organized and licensed accordingly.  One can debate whether current contributors have 'more ownership' of the project than readers/future contributors, but all have a share.  The WMF supports it and its sister projects with free hosting, freedom from ads, and centralized funding of interface and feature requests; and is the designated protector of its trademark.  But Commons was designed to be ownable by its community, and to be forked and modified by any group that might want its own copy, for any reason whatever.  –SJ+ 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


To say that it is owned by WMF is legally correct, but completely misses the point that is being made (whether one agrees with the point or not).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arséniure, or as they said in the 16th century ende heur te gebieden ende gebruycken als slaven, moet ghehouden worden niet als Prince, maer als een tyran[..]maer verlaeten ende een ander in zijn stede tot beschermenisse van henlieden voor overhooft sonder misbruycken ghecosen werden. Kameraad Pjotr 18:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should not accept Jimbo coming in and declaring what our policy should be. IF this were grounded in legal opinion, as endorsed by Mike Godwin and the WMF, THEN I could accept it. But right now I do not accept that Jimbo has the right to declare what we should do. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] Jimbo's actions seem to have lost us at least one admin (The Evil IP address) Kameraad Pjotr 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I'am about to create a page: Commons:Scuttle Commons. --GaAs11671 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



I created it for you. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I overwrited your creation.  v--GaAs11671 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if you hadn't removed the image AND said "overwrited". But you did. You are going on the list. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And the emeritus Chairman had deleted it?!? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


The implicit argument being put forward here is laughable and racist in a very disgusting way.  The truth is, if Commons were for "White Americans" only, or, as long as we are being childish and insulting, let's say it is for "White American Men" - then it would be a free ground for all manner of pornography.  Remember that a few years back an executive of Ebay was imprisoned for 7 days because a single porn video appeared for sale on Ebay in India.  Remember that in the Arabic/Islamic world, virtually all the content under discussion these days is illegal.  Look at this before you move to a knee-jerk understanding of this issue as "American prudishness".  Unless you have a really global perspective, you will make errors that are deeply offensive - and deeply offensive to me personally for the primary reason that they are factually wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain more? From what I understand, your argument is that because some people in the world are not as liberal, free-speech wise, as America we should compromise our principles? To me that doesn't seem a good way to work, although I accept I am not an expert in anything other than Neveron, and knowledge in that field is completely and utterly useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


A few years ago, an Iraqi girl was raped and she and her family were murdered, because her family was not "White American". In Afghanistan every day unarmed citzens are murdered because they are not "White American". But you are obsessed by a prison term of 7 days and art. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Where arguments are lacking insults find their way into discussions. I remember last time when mass deletions of porn material without any educational use was discussed and people screamed "German Censorship!". Now it's "Americans". Tomorrow it's "Asians" oder "Africans". Farewell in your nutshell. @ Mattbuck: I know it's hard for some of us to distinguish between free-speech and arbitrariness. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the Common's discussions about sexually explicit content is my work with the strategic planning process for WMF. During the strategic plannings discussions, I became aware of the problems with the lack of diversity among WMF readers and editors. As I considered the topic, I came to the conclusion that WMF hosting an unlimited amount of sexually explicit content could be "one" of the barriers for WMF being more diverse. The manner that we display nudity and sexually explicit content makes it difficult to avoid. Currently, our policies and practices do not allow for special care when displaying the content (for deletion discussion, categorizing, or links to our sister projects, ...). So, people may unexpectedly see it. In my opinion, the current approach to managing the content is insensitive to many people in the world  of many nationalities and religions, and people that access WFM projects through settings where sexually explicit content is inappropriate or not allowed. So, I see a policy that better manages the content as potentially making WMF projects open to more users. And therefore disagree entirely with the underlying premise of this thread. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



That is an interesting point, thank you.  I would love to see a longer essay on the subject, with some of the qual and quant data.  –SJ+ 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Not hosting uneducational pornography is not an excuse to claim racial bias. This thread is inappropriate and should be closed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    • I accept the argument that sexually explicit images can be educational about sexual practices. I am not offended by such images. I consider "not censored" a good and valuable idea. But we should give users, in particular parents, libraries, schools and other organisations providing computer access to minors, an easy option to filter out this material, both in Commons and Wikipedia and other projects. I agree with FloNight that this will aid diversity. --JN466 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • 

    • I also believe it is inappropriate, and does the standing of this project no favours whatsoever, to have underaged admins involved in administering hardcore pornography. --JN466 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Not that again please. If you are going to forbid underage admins, or forbid underage admins to do certain things, then the project is really lost... Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the desire, but the potential necessity. It is entirely possible that the law in the US may require it and we have been misinterpreting that law. If such is the case it would be regrettable, as calendar age is not the only measure of maturity. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


We seem to be going from bad to worse.  We can be inclusive of societies by accepting their censorship norms.  It clearly starts with sexual material.  Where exactly does it stop?  --Simonxag (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Agree. Kameraad Pjotr 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


At the beginning I was enraged. Later I was angry. Then troubled. And finally curious. So I did a search on Google, and found this. I think it's no coincidence we're seeing changes being made, now of all times, and so swiftly. I guess policy has a way of changing fast when words like imprisonment and jail are heard in corporate head offices. W00pzor (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



Hi W00pzor, the story you are linking to seems to have triggered the recent development. See my summarizing comment above. But as far I understand this, it is less a question of legal requirements but more a question of how Wikimedia is seen in the public and in particular by its donors. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


On the other hand, the Martin van Maële images in Category:Pedophilia that apparently prompted Dr. Sanger's complaint have not been touched. --Emufarmers (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Goodbye to you, "Wikipedia is not censored". All hail the new era of Benevolent Grand Chairman Jimbo censoring content according to the tastes and dislikes of the general American audience. Also, this. --Melanom (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



These antiamerican polemics are completely missing the point. What world do you live in for heavens sake? You guys should really ask yourselves if all this drama, all this verbal poison, all the hate, all the Cassandra cries about the end of commons and the "free" world is really is really worthwhile. All this for a couple of crappy shots of dicks and cunts uploaded by a few pubescent morons. Way to keep some perspective here. --Dschwen (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

antiamerican polemics - Are you out of your mind? a couple of crappy shots of dicks and cunts uploaded by a few pubescent morons - Either you are just propagating blatantly false propaganda, or you have utterly no clue what you are even talking about. Hint: Take a look at all the files that have been deleted so far. Jimbo Talk page is a good place to start. --Melanom (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Vandalism


Please check this out. --UAltmann (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like somebody is trying to make a point, if clumsily.  Some people, on the other hand have been deliberately damaging important Wikimedia projects. --Simonxag (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



  • User:Kameraad Pjotr has abused his ops in protecting the page after restoring his preferred version with outright vandalism and attacks in it. His user page makes it clear he is doing this as a Conflict of Interest and a direct violation of Point. He believes the WMF is censoring Commons and is abusing his admin ops in furthering his accusations. I have requested both his immediate desysopping and a block for blatant disruption here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    Please refer to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship and work through the process if you feel this way. As far as I know Jimbo Wales does not have the power to desysopp an admin. Things are a bit heated at the moment and calls for desysopping by any side doesn't help.KTo288 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    Jimbo, as founder, retains the power to desysop outright abusive admins, especially those violating CoI and Soap in order to disrupt policy pages to make attacks against the Foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

    You could just as well say that any bureaucrat has the power to desysop outright abusive admins; but they generally take the more politic approach of discussing perceived abuse (since the perception is often stronger than any actual abuse).  In this case, I don't see Kameraad Pjotr attacking the Foundation, and his minor disruption of one page was soon reverted. –SJ+ 06:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Kameraad Pjotr has already (sort of) resigned, which is rather unfortunate.

Users on both (or more) sides should stop unnecessarily escalating the current conflict. We have enough to do to find a feasible way how to deal with these controversial images. There is no need to create additional conflicts between (or against single) users. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)



I agree, it is most unfortunate.  –SJ+ 06:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What an unfortunate mess.  From the start, this issue has been handled with all the grace of the proverbial bull in the china shop.  While I don't think that actions such as those of Kameraad Pjotr are helpful, their frustration is understandable.   --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the reaction to all this. As the main proponent of the removal of pornographic images on Commons I feel somewhat responsible. Everybody, please stay calm. Things will get worked out. Commons has many amazing educational images and the sexual images are only a very small percentage of the 6.5 million image files. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to have missed the point as to what has gotten people upset. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And I must say Stillwaterising, that you have been calling for war. So I am a bit amazed how amazed you are at the reactions. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to stay calm. Amada44 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


"The main proponent"? SWR, you are nothing of the sort. People have been concerned about this problem for years. You are someone that has appeared here recently, raised a big ruckus and acted disruptively, making resolution of this issue more difficult rather than less. You need to change your ways or you will be removed from the discussion. Not because of your views, but because of how you express them. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that one month ago, Stillwaterising hadn't even made 30 edits, (s)he/it has been rather effective in getting things done. I dislike the results, but a "need to change (s)he/its ways" isn't obvious. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Good taste


I am just beginning to read the 2010-05-06 Jimbo Wales message and the reactions. At first sight, what sounds problematic in Jimbo's message is that it lacks a workable definition of what "good taste" is, when he says appropriately and in good taste. Is an old Greek vase decorated with pornographic paintings within good taste ? I think everybody should be able to have his own likes and dislikes, without this having to interfere with how a large project like Wikimedia Commons is run. I think it is impossible to find consensus on something like "taste". Teofilo (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



Seems to be the Justice Potter Stewart standard... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


May 7


ePub files on commons?


L.S.,

I posed a question on Commons talk:Project_scope#Allowing_ePub_files_on_commons about making it possible to upload ePub files to Commons. But people haven't exactly been lining up to respond. ;-)

Did I put the question in the wrong place? -- BenTels (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



Alternative would be Commons talk:File types... AnonMoos (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


May 21


Wrong Licensing info for File:PureBasic VD.png, image is actually non-free, and it could be replaced with a fully-free image


This file: File:PureBasic VD.png is listed as having a Free License, but it is a screenshot of a program running in Windows XP, thus with Microsoft's copyright window decorations. Since the program is cross-platform, the screenshot could be replaced with one taken under a Free Software desktop environment. 82.46.253.56 09:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Edit - sorry, not sure how to link to rather than embed an image file 82.46.253.56 09:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, the window design consists of a grey rectangle and a few words. Not enough to attract copyright. -Nard the Bard 10:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that image seems to have a lot of MS-Windows interface elements (not just in the overall title bar). 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


How can I delete my own images?


I've looked at the help and faq for advice on deletion, but all I can find is stuff about a "Deletion Request" process.  But isn't there an easy way I can delete my own images?  Edit won't let me do it.  I uploaded a picture by mistake with a person in it, and now I want to get rid of it before I start getting those irritating messages saying "Yooouu'rrre nooot supooosed to dooooo thaaaat!"  Any advice?  Jcorelis (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Hi Jcorelis. You cannot delete your own images - by uploading them here you release them irrevocably under a free licence so that anyone can use them for any purpose. What images would you like deleted? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


As a general rule, a contract made by mistake is voidable -- so an admin should delete the image if you request it.  Put the tag

{{speedy delete|uploaded by mistake}} 


on it and see what happens. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I put the tag on. The image is Bloisstair.jpg -- the person is sort of small and blurry, so I just didn't notice (even though I took the picture!). If I understand, you aren't supposed to include people without a release, and at any rate I wouldn't want the picture in Commons because a person standing there makes it look "touristy."  A specific explanation that you should use this method if you realize that you uploaded an image you didn't mean to should probably be put in the Help/FAQ, or if it's there, made more prominent and searchable.  Jcorelis (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Well, first, while the legal basis for my comment is good, it's not necessarily Commons policy, so it may not belong in the FAQ. Second, having seen the image, I'd encourage you to remove the tag. The stairs are interesting, we don't have another photo of them, and, at worst, the person just gives a sense of scale. As you say, he or she is unrecognizable. As for a release, as a general rule no release is required  even for identifiable people if the image was taken in a public place. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but whatever the legalities I'd rather not have the picture there without the person's permission, which I don't have.   I won't follow up any more, but if an administrator is willing to delete it, that's what I'd prefer.  Jcorelis (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure it's right to conclude that a person is entitled to back out of a contract simply because of a unilateral mistake. In Hotchkiss v. National City Bank of New York 200 F 287 at 293 (SD NY, 1911), Learned Hand J. said: "A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual, intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached by the mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party, when he used the words, intended something else than the usual meaning that the law imposes upon them, he would still be held, unless there were some mutual mistake or something else of the sort." The UK position is set out in Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607: "If, whatever a man's real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party's terms." It is only when the other party realizes that the first party has made a unilateral mistake and seeks to take advantage of the mistake that the court may permit the first party to withdraw from the contract: Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jcorelis I've deleted the picture for you as we have similar images in Category:Spiral staircase of the Château de Blois, James makes a good point about scale though. In this case the image is easily replaceble but in similar cases where its not rather then ask for its deletion making a request at Commons:Media for cleanup (if only to pixelate a face) may be a better option. KTo288 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Ok thanks, I'll remember that.  But the real solution would be for me to look more carefully at what I upload!  Jcorelis (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


A final comment:  though my mistake in uploading that image was entirely due to my own carelessness, I probably wouldn't have made it if the preview function actually showed the whole page, including the image, instead of just the text information.  I thought when I started using the preview function that this was odd, and it would be a valuable feature to have, as a check that a) you're really uploading the image you think you are (easy to get wrong when you are uploading a bunch in series, especially if they have similar names), and b) that you really want to upload that particular image (if I'd had a chance to examine it in the preview function, I probably would have realized I didn't.)  Having a check like this seems particularly valuable if uploading is supposed to be in most cases irreversible once it's done.  Can I recommend here that this enhancement be made?  Thanks.  Jcorelis (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



It's kind of hard for us to show the image before it's uploaded, you know.  I suppose we could play tricks with file urls, but that wouldn't work reliably on all browsers.  Some browsers do show a thumbnail in the file selection dialog, and custom upload clients like Commonist also generally provide thumbnails.  But it would be kind of hard for us to do that using plain old HTML forms, unless of course we added a separate confirmation step after the upload but before actually saving the file (which I'd expect most users would find annoying, although of course we could make it optional).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Multimedia team has thoughts about something that could serve this purpose (their staging area thing). Jean-Fred (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that on Wikipedia if your edit includes an image from Commons the preview shows the image.  I understand that this may be easier since the image is already on Commons, which has a relationship with Wikipedia.  But still, it implies that users there find the feature useful, and that contributors used to Wikipedia who come here may have the expectation that the image will be previewed here too.  Jcorelis (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


I like the idea of a toggle on-off confirmation step which would preview the whole page including the full sized image, just as it will appear if you confirm.  Ideally, this could be set once in your preferences.  I don't think many people would object to that.  Alternatively, maybe there could be an option button "Preview with image."  A thumbnail, while not as useful, would still be better than nothing. Jcorelis (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



How to capture search results


Hi, I am trying to capture a list of files returned by our search engine. Does any body knows how to do it or know about other tools that can do it. I am helping Pl wikipedia with a cleanup of Category:Warsaw. One concern is that a LOT of images related to Warsaw are not in that category. One way to find those would be to find files found by searching for "Warsaw" or "Warszawa" which are not in Category:Warsaw and look through those for candidates. The search for "Warszawa" returns 23,185 files but I am trying to return those results as a list instead of icons. AutoWikiBrowser is able to help but it is limited to only 1000 images. Any ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



You could use the list=search API query and parse the results.  Note that it can also be used as a generator e.g. for the prop=categories query.  Obviously, you won't be able to retrieve 23,000 results in one query, so you'd have to use continuation queries to get them all.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


My bot can compile a list of these. It can also subtract existing categories or CatScan2 results. You can request it at User talk:Category-bot. Please be fairly specific with the search terms you want it to use.   -- User:Docu at  23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Since when...


...do we delete files per uploader's request ? This has been accepted here but not here. I still don't understand that kind of incoherence. The same rules should apply to everyone ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



It depends on the circumstances. If someone feels they are at legal risk, we'll delete, or if we have better replacements, etc. But images which are in use, useful, portray something we don't have otherwise, etc, will not be. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


See also COM:PEOPLE#Removal at the request of the subject, photographer or uploader.  (Anyway, regarding the first DR you linked to, it should be noted that issues with User:GerdsAktphotographie's uploads had already been raised before he decided to request deletion of his remaining images.  The request should not be seen as the sole reason for deletion there.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


It is in the long term best interest of Commons to keep the best relations with user's who upload images by working with them and removing images if they state a good reason for the request. They need to understand that while on site that the image might have been copied already with a free license to reuse it. But if we can help them out by deleting an image than we should whenever possible. Each situation needs to be handled individually. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Anyway, I think I would've closed this request differently.  Just counting the opinions, I see two participants in the discussion besides the nominator and the closer: one who voted "keep" but withdrew it later, and another who didn't vote but just left a somewhat ambivalent-looking comment.  That does not really constitute a clear consensus for anything, but the balance before closure seems to have been leaning more towards deletion than against it.  If this were Wikipedia, I'd have called it as "relist for further discussion", but we don't seem to do much of that here.  Maybe we should.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


In the one that wasn't deleted, I would have been much more comfortable if the better picture had been uploaded first. It's a lot easier to delete a picture if we have a clearly better alternative in hand. Promises aren't worth much, especially as people don't always agree on whether a picture is better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


May 22


Upload accessibility


A few days ago I was going to use Wikimedia commons for the first time to upload a photo, and had to in the end use Wikipedia upload. 
I just could not use the upload form, and I am a system programmer, just think what the general everyday user think.
I seriously think you should relook at the forms accessibility level, if you want anyone other than yourselves to upload photos.
That is all *rant over* :) - Abedecian ~ Talk to me and you get cake! 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



Yeah, we know it sucks in many ways  . The Multimedia team is working on a brand new upload wizard at the moment. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We could just go back to the basic upload form as the default. I think it's a lot easier. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Copyright problem


File:Norton-Richard c1964a copy.jpg is an image of the uploader aged about 4, by the look of it. It was therefore taken by someone else, which brings into question the uploader's competence to release the image as CC-BY... right? Thanks! TreasuryTag (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



The uploader might not be the original author, but it is possible that the uploader is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work. That would have to be determined, and it would be helpful if it could be confirmed, via COM:OTRS. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Winblad-Friedborg 01.jpg and File:Louis Julius Freudenberg.jpg and File:Olof Emanuel Näslund (1).gif have identical issues. Note that on en-wiki, the uploader is a serial copyright offender, eg. uploading 1920s photographs and "the creater (the uploader) releases this into the public domain", that sort of thing. What should be done about this? TreasuryTag (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Now that is a Horse of a Different Color... :P -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Also File:Lattin-JarvisAndrew 01.jpg, File:Winblad Lattin Cuba hires 01a.jpg and File:Lattin-JarvisAndrew 04.jpg. Furthermore, they're all being used only for the user's personal family history project within their en-wiki userspace. What's to be done? TreasuryTag (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



You could use {{No permission since}}. -- Cirt (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


And File:Burke-MaryMargaret 03.jpg and File:Norton ThomasPatrick I 02.jpg and File:Burke-MaryMargaret 01.jpg and File:Burke-MaryMargaret 02.jpg TreasuryTag (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



OK, all tagged. Thanks. TreasuryTag (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dumb   Question Why don't we just hang {{Delete}} on the whole lot.  There's no evidence of significant notability and we're tough on most hosting of family images. As TreasuryTag says, "Furthermore, they're all being used only for the user's personal family history project within their en-wiki userspace."  . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  11:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, they'll mostly be gone within a week anyway, but feel free... TreasuryTag (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


I fixed the licens for File:Olof Emanuel Näslund (1).gif. /Ö 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


I wonder why nobody asks or notifies the uploader when tagging images. At least administrators should remember doing that.   -- User:Docu at  19:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He was notified at en-wiki. But thanks for assuming otherwise. TreasuryTag (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Historiated initials images


I came here today looking for images of w:Historiated initials but was surprised to not find exactly what I was looking for. I was thinking surely there would be a category that contained a gallery of sorts that would probably include every letter of the Latin alphabet in this kind of stylized form. And although a search for "historiated" turned up plenty of good results, I was kinda hoping this would be better organized, like maybe a Category:Historiated initials A to Z category or something. Anyways, I'm sure the Commons categorization system does things the way it does for good reasons. -- OlEnglish (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



Upon further search I just found Category:Illuminated manuscript initials which is pretty much what I was talking about so.. nevermind! :) OlEnglish (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


There is also category:Illuminated Letters. Of course, not every illuminated letter is historiated. There are, no doubt, plenty of files that could be added to the existing categories, and creating a new Category:Historiated Letters would be a good addition. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


deleting new versionf of a file, without deleting the original


I accidentally uploaded a cropped version of a file with the same name as the original, and it replaced it in Wikipedia articles, so I reverted it. Now I want to delete the two newest ones - the cropped one I uploaded and the revert, so there'll only be the original: here 
Anyone knows how to do that? Thanks. --אריה ה. (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



Scroll down to the "File history" section, and click on the "Revert" link that is next to the version of the image you wish to revert to. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He's already reverted it Jack. אריה ה, you could do this but there's really no point. We don't generally delete past revisions unless there's some really good reason to do so - attack images would be a reason, but mistakes are not. No harm has been done, there's no need for any action. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Redirect Idhra -> Hydra?


Does Commons have a capability to redirect a category?  I can't seem to find information about this -- if I do a search in Help for Redirect, it seems to just get me all the pages where the title has been redirected!  What I have in mind is suggesting the creation of the alternate category Idhra for the Greek island listed here as Hydra.  Hydra has been the more common spelling in the past, but it is being increasingly replaced by Idhra, which is much closer to the Greek pronunciation (roughly "EE-thra", not "HIGH-dra").  The Rough Guide, for instance, one of the most popular travel guides, uses Idhra, so it's certainly common enough to be included as an alternate name.  If someone who knows how is willing to do this, could they please do it?  Or alternatively if anyone can do it, please point me to some easy instructions somewhere.  Thanks.  Jcorelis (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



Template:Category redirect. Man vyi (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I will look at it.  Jcorelis (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to just do this for you, but Category:Hydra is not about the island, so I didn't do it. It may need some more thought? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  11:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying.  I see though if I search on Hydra I get a disambiguation page which gives me the option of Hydra (Island).  If I understand how this works, I could upload a picture with the tag Hydra (Island) and also put on it the new category tag Idhra (Island), and then use Template:Category redirect on that category to redirect it to Hydra (Island.)  I'll try and see if that works (though if anyone wants to do this first go ahead.)  Jcorelis (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Well, I tried it but I'm not sure I got it right.  Now, if you search for Idhra you get a page with a link saying, This category is located at Category:Hydra (island), and if you click on it, you get all the pictures in the Hydra (island) category.  Is that how it's supposed to work?  Why aren't you just taken to the Hydra (island) category automatically?  Jcorelis (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



The theory is that the user needs the redirect information so he or she will not add images to the redirected category -- that is, in this case, it will actively discourage editors from adding Category:Idhra to images.  A simple redirect might not do that. To be sure it takes an extra click, but IMHO, it's worth it.  I note that User:Foroa has created the page Idhra with a simple redirect to the gallery Hydra (island), which will help some users.

Thanks, I guess it's OK then.  Jcorelis (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Using Commons as webspace


What do people think about User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Anton Julius Winblad? The user has tens of such pages in their userspace, all with improperly licensed images. The identical copies on en-wiki are currently in a deletion discussion, with (so far) overwhelming consensus to delete? TreasuryTag (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



Delete the texts following the gallery; this is not what user pages are for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone care to help? I'm still trawling through his hundreds of inappropriate image uploads! TreasuryTag (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


But communicate with the user before messing with his user pages. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



I have done, on en-wp. He's not interested. I'll probably nominate them for deletion. TreasuryTag (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the request for help -- you seem to have covered it pretty well at Commons:Deletion requests/Family history -- if I'm just being dumb, please tell us specifically what you'd like, aside from voting on the dr, moral support, and watching your back for retaliation. And, BTW, well done -- what a nuisance! . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

dto. Must have been quite some work to collect all those pages! axpdeHello! 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks, guys: I discovered that AWB could work on Commons which made the task significantly easier! TreasuryTag (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


4 times upload of a new version by Flick upload robot


I have seen a few times that a lower resolution was uploaded as new version or that a good photo was replaced by a new version of a completely different worse photo. When I found it worthwhile I uploaded the old version as a new file with the info about author/copyright from the latest version.

This file has 3 older versions of which two are different. This was done by the Flick upload robot within two hours. The link to the source point to the version of 2009 jan 23 17:04. What to do in situations like this and when I consider an older version as relevant to upload again under a different name? Wouter (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



Thats 1 1/4 year ago, so no recent problem. The flickr upload bot had a hiccup at some time replacing the hq version again and again. But that was not the problem here, someone overwrote his own file with ordering the flickr bot to do so. Check the version history and ask the uploader or upload the other files from the source under different filenames yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


files from Korea (?) - rights and scope etc.


Is there anybody who can read and categorize the images of User:Tadanokuzudeiize, see the gallery at [45] Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)



List of commons partnerships


The page Commons:Partnerships is out of date. I think it would be a good idea to update it. Here is a list from what I could find, but there must be quite a few ones lacking. The page itself mentions some I can't find much about. 



-





Beginnning date
(first uploads)

Institution

Project page

Summary description

Uploaded file




2005-5

Directmedia

Commons:10,000 paintings from Directmedia

Upload of photos of paintings

10,255




2005

Picswiss

Commons:Picswiss project

Upload of photos of Switzerland

5,310




2007

Pearson Scott Foresman

Commons:Pearson Scott Foresman

Scan and upload of educational illustrations

5,842


2008

école nationale de vétérinaire de Toulouse

Commons:ENVT/fr

Scan and upload of public domain books in French

150




2008-12

Bundesarchiv

Commons:Bundesarchiv

Upload of various photos

85,192




2009-3

Tropenmuseum

Commons:Tropenmuseum

Upload of photos taken in former Dutch colonies

51,407




2009-3

Deutsche Fotothek

Commons:Deutsche Fotothek

Upload of various photos

62,373




2009-6

Various museums in the Netherlands

Commons:Wiki Loves Art Netherlands

Several museum in the Netherlands welcomed amateurs to take photos of their collection

4,327




2009-8

Region Arkivet

Commons:Regionarkivet

Scan and upload of public domain photos by famous photographers

75




2009-11

California Academy of Sciences

Commons:AntWeb

Uploads of images about ants

33,003




2010-1

Mary Rose Trust

Press release:Mary Rose Trust donation

Uploads of photographs relating to the salvaged sixteenth-century warship Mary Rose

67




2010-4

Robert Lavinsky

Commons:Robert Lavinsky

Upload of photos of minerals

52,054




2010-4

Brooklyn Museum

commons:Brooklyn Museum

Upload of photos of artworks

0



—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolo (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)



Yes, the page is very outdated. Please update it, if something is missing, people can add it. Multichill (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I can add this table, but the page talks about partnersips I don't know about, so I can't update them.--Zolo (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Basura


Moved to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Unusual_Animal_Behavior_re_Inter_Species_Sexual_Orientation.JPG

Dummy timestamp: 07:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)



Translatewiki


Hi. Could someone tell me when it has been decided that we would outsource the texts of our license tags to a project outside the WMF? I know translatewiki should be considered trustworthy and so on, but I remember a time when we could (and did) discuss which phrasing we wanted for the summary of CC-BY licenses. I'm a bit worried that legally binding text at the core of Commons scope is now outside our control and watchlists. --Eusebius (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)



  Agree. I share these concerns. Teofilo (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at Commons talk:Template i18n. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here I see an admin of translatewiki (whom I trust, that's not the issue) deciding that "The next step is to move some of the translations to www.translatewiki.net" (starting by license tags), and only four other users participating in the discussion. And the only non-technical remark (about the possibility of vandalism) is exactly opposite to our concerns here (hypothesis that the translations are safer outside Commons). I'm not reassured. --Eusebius (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? I'm a mere user of translatewiki. It is a logical next step from translations build on top of the software ({{Autotranslate}}) to an extension of the software. I posted several messages about this here at the Village Pump, but never got an awful lot of response here (did get a lot new translations!). The base messages can only be changed in the source. Users have to be approved before they can translate anything. This should prevent most vandalism. A lot of users active at translatewiki are also active here, so there's quite some overlap. They're just using another tool designed for translating now. As for errors, it's easier to hunt down errors in this list than doing it here at Commons with all the subtemplates. Multichill (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you were an admin, I don't know what gave me that idea. --Eusebius (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


There was some discussion here in January.   -- User:Docu at  10:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Again, only technical... --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the standard approach for all localization of MediaWiki. BTW the legally binding text is not directly determined by Commons or WMF, but by Creative Commons.   -- User:Docu at  11:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless the translated text does not point to a Creative Commons license (which is unlikely, but which we cannot control anymore). --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

...just like the MediaWiki system messages.


By the way, feel free to register to TranslateWiki – after all, it is also a wiki ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But maybe I don't want to link my whole WMF activity to the logs of a website which does not have a privacy policy and which does not publish legal mentions reasonably compatible with my national laws, as far as I can see (who is the editor legally responsible?). This is just a hypothetic case, some users can be pretty touchy about that kind of things, and they must accept that they're not able anymore to influence the layout of a license template, or to request that a mention be added saying that some unported CC licenses may be cancelled by their national copyright law, because the wording is now considered part of the software and maintained outside the project. --Eusebius (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Privacy? Translatewiki doesn't even have Checkusers, so you don't need to worry about this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They have servers, developers and logs. The concept of privacy wasn't created by the MediaWiki checkuser role. Furthermore, it is not unlikely that some of the translatewiki developers are WMF checkusers/stewards/devs and have the technical ability to correlate private data. --12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Comment: Actually, it's much less unlikely to get vandalism or bad edits, because the messages are only updated every now and then there remains more time to revert/fix an edit before it gets live. If there are problems, you can temporarly overwrite the messages here at Commons and then request a change at Support. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


It is also much less likely to be influenced by WMF contributors. The structural evolution of the autotranslated templates in the last years has propulsed them farther and farther from the lambda contributor (whom I am). Even before beta/translatewiki, I was made unable to contribute to template translation, because it would have needed me to closely follow the technical changes decided by a few experienced users. These changes were certainly needed, efficient, useful and so on, but it is a fact that they made me unable to contribute if I chose to stay at my average level of MW expertise. Now it's just gone outside my reach, I am requested to sign up and contribute on another project in order to make things change here. I'm just very ill-at-ease about this (I'm not really worried about the privacy risk on translatewiki, although it certainly prevents me from signing up), I've expressed that from time to time and I have always been disappointed with the techno-centred response I have got. But to be clear, it is not my goal or intention to actually question other people's work or to bother them. I'm just sincerely worried and ill-at-ease with the whole outsourcing process. --Eusebius (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are not the only one with these concerns (see this blog post by Coyau, for example). As one of the happy few who find their way into the template maze, I am probably not one to talk. But in fact, I do not really get why it is a problem to rely on techno-guys : every wiki user has to rely on sysops to purge copyvios because they are 'péons', on graphists to make pretty maps because Inkscape is too complicated for them, on copyeditors because they do not have a great writing, on photographers to take pictures because they have neither cameras nor talent... As for me, I have to live as a Commonist who cannot take a single picture – pretty lame, huh? :-).


So, what could we do to empower you with the ability to make Commons templates ? Set up a requests page ? Writing better help pages ? Jean-Fred (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand me (I'm not sure I fully understand myself though): I'm glad we can rely on the "techno-guys", but the current structure (built by them) has empowered them with the decision of what can stay on Commons and what is outsourced to their project. This decision seems to be made mostly on the basis of technical arguments and Commons users have nothing to say about that (partly because it is usually too late). As an admin, empowered with the ability to perform some specific tasks, I (ideally) follow the policies and guidelines set up by the community (although this kind of phrasing and the notion of consensus is always a bit tainted on Commons, I'm afraid). I just feel that we have lost something here. Maybe it's not very important, maybe "those who can, do" is particularly important in a little community like Commons, but still. --Eusebius (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


  • By the way, translating is a task I sometimes enjoy doing. But I won't perform any translating task on a project I don't know is run by whom, and guided by principles I don't have knowledge of. I agree with the main principles guiding the Wikimedia projects, so the Wikimedia projects is the place I enjoy contributing to. I wish we could recall all these translations back to Wikimedia-run servers and wikis. Teofilo (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


The Translatewiki admins would be very happy if Wikimedia would make Translatewiki an official Wikimedia project. They have requested this several times. But so far the Wikimedia developers were always like "sorry, no time for that at the moment". Doesn't help much with the actual concerns, but at least - if we want to blame somebody - we shouldn't blame Translatewiki. --Slomox (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think of blaming this project or the people working there. I would certainly like such a project to be proposed as a WMF project. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


  • (EC) Ok, two more cents: I have contributed a mere handful of translations in my wiki career, and I am happy and thankful that other people are putting a lot of work into this field. If they think it makes their work easier, fine with me. Outsourcing... hm, that word has such a negative connotation in these days. I can see how you would feed a bit iffy about that service not being run by Wikimedia. But maybe we should relax and just let go of some of the control. I'm sure these guys (most of them are Wikimedia users anyways, i assume) share our mission and goals. So I am not sure it is worth to trade the benefits of translatewiki.net for being completely autarkic and immune to any possible outside influence. If outsourcing makes translations available to a multitude of other projects without additional work, that this is a good thing(tm). --Dschwen (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


@Teofilo : yeah, sure, TranslateWiki has completely nothing to do with Wikimedia... Jean-Fred (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jean-Fred : in a colony, the colonized is often compelled to say nice words in adress to the colonizer. Teofilo (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


This problem also reminds me PikiwikiIsrael, another case of moving some key, core functions to servers run by I don't know who under principles unknown to me. If things go on like this, Wikimedia will be only a puppet with nice principles on the paper (being a non profit body with representatives of the users in its board of trustees), but being dependent on decisions made by other organizations. Teofilo (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see several other problems:



  • I am not able to see other language version (to control, correct, compare) of a template without switching my default language in the settings – is there any ability to do it?




  • In contrast to standard use of Commons templates, the application of {{int:xxxx}} doesn't list the page used on translatewiki to the section Templates used on this page, so it is more complicated to get to the page (I have to copy the address manually). In fact, where the link beginning int goes? Maybe it is some intermemory and not Translatewiki, if changes appears in Commons only after several days.
    • 

  • Editing translatewiki, I need to see a context where the text is used. Nevertheless, there are no links to such pages (in contrary to Commons and its What links here). How can I enquire it? It is absolutly necessary for creating of quality translations.
    • 

  • It is strange to be forced to register on other project to can control Commons templates by My watchlist.

In my opinion the moving is much more problematic than advantageous. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



In order to make access to other languages versions easier, I have added language links in the documentation page of the template diff). You can see the result at the bottom of Template:Cc-by-sa-layout. For example, you can click on the welsh (cymraeg) link and find out that we are still lacking a welsh translation. But it would be good to have something similar to {{#ifexist: in order to show these translation lacking links as red links, or anything showing that the translation is missing, without needing to check every link one by one. Teofilo (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very good example because that's a helper template happening to show the cc-by-sa-3.0 license as an example. I removed the example to avoid any confusion. I update the (much to complicated) documentation template to link to a page like Translatewiki:Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Wm-license-cc-by-sa-2.0-fr-text/ to show what translations have already been done. Of course you can also have a look at the language statistics or the message statistics to get an idea of what has to be done. Multichill (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Translatewiki:Special:Translations/MediaWiki:Wm-license-cc-by-sa-2.0-fr-text might be even more useful. – Nikerabbit (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


More generally, we have a legal problem with the Creative Commons licenses, because we are currently mixing up country versions of the licenses and language translation versions. For example users who access pictures from the French speaking Wikipedia never see the Belgian terms of the license, as we misinterpret "fr" as being a language, while for Creative Commons licenses, "fr" is a country. 

Perhaps we should require the uploader (or copyright owner) to select a country version, and only that country version should be provided to the readers and users (we may additionnally provide non-legally binding translations into other languages if we want to). Or we should allow the uploader (or copyright owner) to declare that the creative commons UK terms apply for use of the picture within the UK, the Spanish terms of the Creative Commons license apply for use in Spain, and so on... ??? I don't know, and I have not really made my mind on that issue. Teofilo (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



Well, the users from fr.wiki don't see the French license, they see a translation into French of the human summary in question, the legal text is unaltered (and still in the original language). cc-by-2.0-uk is a different license from cc-by-2.0-be, so if you upload under any cc license (including the unported ones), that's the license you granted not the other variants. Allowing multiple country variants would need multi-licensing by the uploader. I suppose we could make a new version of {{Cc-by-sa-all}}, which includes all the country specific licenses and presents users with the most relevant ones to them.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



What you are telling is not how Creative Commons templates used to work on Wikimedia Commons. See also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0.2Ffr. When that template is undeleted you will be able to see how templates used to work on Wikimedia Commons. The terms agreed by the users are not as clear as you say. Basically, Wikimedia uploaders agree with a template. We need to look at the history tab of the template in order to know to which link on the creativecommons.org servers was provided at the time when the uploader made his upload. Teofilo (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, that deleted template does link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.fr ... Jean-Fred (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


The old versions of the templates linked to the translated deeds, when they were in use. The deeds are not the legal code, which does not translate. Possibly this did not happen in some cases (its a serious problem if it did), but certainly not the case with 2.0/fr. Things with respect to that template were as simple as I said :)


This does illustrate a potential concern with translate wiki actually: It would be easy to get the two mixed up and if they did we would be (incorrectly) changing licenses...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The undeletion proved that most of what I said above was wrong. Sorry for that. But I think I should continue to insist to have clear, easily accessible history tabs in order to easily find out which terms were agreed (or which link to the creativecommons.org website) was provided at the time when the uploader made the upload. For that reason, I think Licensing information should not be located in the Mediawiki namespace, as this namespace is not properly historicized in clear history tabs. Actually to reconstitute Mediawiki messages' history, you need probably to download all the successive versions of the Mediawiki software, which is not what I would call "usable" (as "usability" is a big motto of Wikimedia...). Teofilo (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


For clarity's sake again, I think License templates should not be built upon too many transclusion layers. If a great number of templates need to receive similar updates, these updates might be better done by a bot with a "substing" task, than by using transclusions. Uploaders should have the feeling that we keep clear records of what they wrote or agreed with, without hiding uncomfortable truths behind layers of templates transcluding into each other, and that they don't need to be a computer nerd to understand how we store their licensing agreement.

Remember that one of the great advantages of Wikimedia Commons over Flickr is that we use history tabs, while Flickr creates a lot of confusion by allowing users to change licenses without keeping a record of the original agreed terms, so that Wikimedians had to create Flickr checking and uploading bots in order to compensate for this Flickr weakness. Teofilo (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



We're not changing licensing terms here. Multichill (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


copied from above


  • In contrast to standard use of Commons templates, the application of {{int:xxxx}} doesn't list the page used on translatewiki to the section Templates used on this page, so it is more complicated to get to the page (I have to copy the address manually). In fact, where the link beginning int goes? Maybe it is some intermemory and not Translatewiki, if changes appears in Commons only after several days.
    • 

  • Editing translatewiki, I need to see a context where the text is used. Nevertheless, there are no links to such pages (in contrary to Commons and its What links here). How can I enquire it? It is absolutly necessary for creating of quality translations.
    • 

  • It is strange to be forced to register on other project to can control Commons templates by My watchlist.

In my opinion the moving is much more problematic than advantageous. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)



  • Good point for the link. About the delay, please see mw:Extension:LocalisationUpdate
    • 

  • No, in fact you don't need context that much. As a TranslateWiki user, I agree that this is indeed a problem when messages are not properly documented. But in the case of Commons, the only things translated over there are CC and GFDL license templates, which are self-sufficient, and {{Information}} (merely words).
    • 

  • I don't understand your Watchlist thing ; obviously TW stuff is watched on TW. Some folks do say the same for Wikimedia Commons : "just why do I need to go and log to another site to watch my Wikipedia images ?"  (although SUL is a big advance in that).


Which moving are you talking about ? I don't think anyone is planning to move all translations to TW next week.


Jean-Fred (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not next week, but still... --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just a proposal, it doesn't mean that this will happen actually. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Despite of your arguments, I feel the context is really needed – maybe not so much in English but certainly for languages using declensions, where every verb can be used only with specific cases of other sentence constituents – you need to see all parts of a sentence or paragraph to translate it properly (ex. the TW element You are free [46] determines conjugations and declensions of the element to share [47] in Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 – not every to share can be translated in the same way to be meaningful in other languages). For the same reason I would like to can consult also other language versions of a concrete entire template (not only several words out of context) – it was easy to switch the template language before the moving to TW, however now I probably have to change my default interface language in the settings every time (ex. my page Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-cz is now in Czech and I cannot see the English version without changing the settings). Is there any chance the translations will be replaced to Commons again?
    • 

  • Maybe a lateral language switch panel would be useful in Commons to can change the interface language easily. Even more for not registered users that now cannot change it at all and see the entire interface only in English – actually, the system oddly enough neglect the browser language settings, so being logged out I see Commons fully in English, although my Firefox has Czech as the default content language. Where could somebody propose such an improvement?


--Petrus Adamus (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


    • Answering your last point, the LanguageSelector would need to be installed. In order to do this, you would need to get a Commons consensus to install it, file a bug report at Bugzilla and then hope that they do it (which is not guaranteed as this extension breaks the important caching). --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Going back to the vandalism part, edits like this one often take ages to get noticed here on Commons. Multichill (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



I updated the help message for all of the Creative Commons templates to link to the template where it will be used. Help messages can be edited at translatewiki. Multichill (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So one of the problems is solved, at least for the CC templates. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Video formats - What about Google's WebM


Google has introduced a video format that uses the VP8 video codec and Ogg Vorbis audio codec under a royalty-free and open-source license. It has support from Mozilla, Opera, and many other software and hardware companies. YouTube, the largest video hosting website in the world, is already encoding new videos into this format. The format is significantly better with compression and quality than the Theora format Commons currently uses. What does Wikimedia think? Are there considerations or plans to provide support for WebM? I suppose it's too early for anything, but hopefully we can start a discussion. MahangaTalk 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)



TL;DR: This is essentially Theora NT. Want.


Contributors may need to wait for their tools to support it fully, before we can start applying it, of course.


That, and it'd be interesting to hear Gmaxwells view as well. I don't see a catch to this personally, but it's good to have a few people doublechecking to be sure.


--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I very much welcome the effort of Google, this problem is far from settled. WebM really isn't that different from the patented H264. So whereas Theora has the risk of submarine patents, I personally consider VP8 (which is what WebM uses for the video) a patent timebomb. Basically what Google has done here, is taunt MPEG-LA alla "You wanna come after us ? Try it, our pockets are deep." To clarify as to why that is beneficial. By the time such a case is settled, the patents will have expired, and the format will be dominant. Google is betting that the penalty on such a lawcase would outweigh their spending on patented technology over those years. TheDJ (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html RobertL (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Well, I like the idea of more choice in media formats. Slightly related, are there any plans for Wikimedia to accept the Matroska container format in the future? That might give uploaders an extra choice of using the open source w:en:Lagarith lossless video codec. I already sometimes use Lagarith at the editing stage before final (lossy) conversion to Theora (for Commons) or H264 (for YouTube). -84user (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Very related, WebM is a rebranded Matroska. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Wikimedia Commons must support new open format and faster make available uploading files in this format. -- TarzanASG +1  04:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the press release was published yesterday. a little patience --DieBuche (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


More offtopic, has anyone found a way to encode a VP8 WebM video that YouTube will actually render in a HTML5 WebM player? Using free software on Windows? I have so far used the WebM DirectShow filters from http://code.google.com/p/webm/downloads/list to transcode to a VP8 stream, but YouTube still displays it inside a Flash player. Also whenever I feed vorbis to the WebM muxer it crashes with assertion errors. My application to join the the webm-discuss list is still pending so I cannot ask there. See my YouTube channel in case anyone wants to follow by struggles! -84user (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's only HD video that's being shown in WebM format. You could just upload a 720p H.264 encoded file to YT and it should convert to WebM (and then you can download that). Not sure if this link is useful. MahangaTalk 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Aside from webM not being very mature, before adding another format we really need to get the transcoding software in-place. Some work has been done in this area like the transcode extension to oggHandler. This way we could avoid 720P video embed at 200 pixle web resolutions, and we could establish the  infrastructure in place to transcode into ogg & webm from uploaded formats. Mdale (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


May 20


Aren't most of the icons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_network_icons in breach of copyright as they include many logos e.g. Skype, Facebook, Windows, YouTube - they may not be identical to the originals but most people would recognise the associated brand (which is what the intention of them is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.198.230 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



This issue has already been raised at "Commons:Village pump#Copyrighted Logos" and at "Commons talk:Licensing#Open logo icons?". Please discuss the matter at one of those locations. Also, do sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


I need ideas and advice


Hi everyone. I wanted to create a category about "concentration" like on File:Dufournet-start-vault.JPG or File:Scout Girl in Concentration.jpg. But how do you think I should name it ? And where to categorize such a category ? Thanks for your suggestions. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



I like the idea, perhaps you could start as a subcategory of Category:Body language? --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

and Category:Thinking.KTo288 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to include File:Chemistry class (Harry Ishigaki).jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you, lad! Great idea. I'll help you to fill it--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Category:Concentration created. You can help me to fill it or categorize it now ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Footage of the extinct Thylacine, public domain?


This page[48] has a lot of footage of the thylacine, which would be very cool to have on Commons if it is in the public domain. I don't know much about Australian copyright law when it comes to video, but it is fairly free when it comes to photos at least. Anyone know if these videos are in the PD? Some are way back from 1911, latest Australian one is from 1933. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Looking at this, it seems to me that the Australian footage could be PD: http://www.copyright.org.au/information/cit019/wp0031 FunkMonk (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Copyright law in australia only protects films for 70 years from first publication. I believe these films were released shortly after they were produced. According to a PDF [http://www.copyright.org.au/information/cit019/wp0002 here - well, let me try to reproduce the chart.


Films
(sound recordings accompanying films made before 1 May 1969 are separately protected, as are underlying works such as screenplays and music for all films) [This does not apply to these silent films] 






Factors affecting duration

Out of copyright IF

Otherwise, duration is




made before 1 May 1969 and regarded as “dramatic work”4

creator/s of film as dramatic work died before 1 January 1955

life of either creator of dramatic work or “author” of images (whichever is longer) + 70 years




made before 1 May 1969 and not regarded as “dramatic work”'

made before 1 January 1955

life of “author”2 of images within the footage + 70 years




made on or after 1 May 1969

(none in public domain)

year first published+70 years



All known Australian footage of live thylacines, shot in Hobart Zoo, Tasmania, in 1911, 1928, and 1933. Two other films are known, shot in London Zoo
 

Hence, these are completely free to use. the Uruguay Roundtable agreements are satisfied as these went out of copyright before 1996 (long story short: The law changed in 2005, but wasn't retroactive, and these would've been Date of Creation + 50 years works). So... we're fine.  Use {{PD-because}}, I suppose, and be sure to scatter them around Commons:Media of the day. Nominating them for en:WP:Featured picture candidates (commons doesn't accept video FPs, en-wiki does) would also be wise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I put up a compilation of the clips here. Haven't made a Commons template before, but will try. I used the Australian PD image template, since the individual frames count as pictures per Australian law it appears. Heh, and I'm not too familiar with the featured image process, if anyone wants to help out, I'd be happy. FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that films in Australia are considered pictures for the purposes of copyright? I haven't seen anything to indicate that would be the case. It seems that films are defined separately and should be listed as such in the license statement. I would suggest using {{PD-because}}, as suggested by Adam. Kaldari (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Australian copyright law from 1912 to 1968 was identical to the British copyright law of 1911, which made no specific mention of cinematographic works.  Apparently, according to the Australian Copyright Council page cited by FunkMonk above, the law was interpreted so that a film would be considered a collection of photographs, possibly accompanied by a sound recording and embodying a dramatic work, each of which (as well as any subsidiary works incorporated in them) could be separately copyrighted.  In this particular case, the film in question consists of silent documentary footage showing no copyrighted works, so the only copyright it would appear eligible for is that on the photos it consists of (which has expired by now, since Australia, unlike the UK, doesn't appear to have enacted any laws that would have retroactively restored such copyrights).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my impression. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Explaining to photographer about allowing commercial uses?


I often make requests for Flickr users to relicense their images to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. However, they always seem to also add the non-commercial restriction, and so I need to explain to them that Commons doesn't allow that. But I can never come up with a good explanation. Sometimes, they don't respond back or relicense it again. What's a good (and simple!) 1-3 sentence way of telling the user why we need commercial rights to an image on Commons? Mahanga (Talk) 16:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Specify which two licences on flickr are acceptable, and say that any others do not meet our criteria. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


While people think of Commons as the image repository for all the Wiki projects, it is actually much more.  Various commercial users come to Commons when they want certain kinds of image, so we require that all images be available for commercial use.  Although I'm relatively new to Commons -- ten months since my first significant uploads -- I've had images taken for use by The Boston Globe, a  real estate agent's calendar, and a refrigerator magnet. Only the magnet was arguably non-commercial. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Maybe you could try pointing them to Commons:Licensing/Justifications.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


I get the same issue when I deal with people on Flickr in that they often add the Non-Commercial tag. What I do is send them back this for a reply:

Thank you very much for consenting to the use of your photo! There's one small problem - when you changed the license, you added the Non-Commercial tag to it. Yes, Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, but they don't allow the Non-Commercial tag as it's felt that would put too many constraints on what others can do with the contents of Wikipedia - our goal is to have a resource that's available for all people and all uses. The same principle goes for the No Derivatives tag as well. Would you be so kind as to drop the tag?


Yeah, it's boilerplate, but it usually does the job. Tabercil (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tabercil. That's precisely what I wanted. By the way, I had a Flickr user ask me how to change the license on Flickr. Since he wasn't the first to not know, I created a short little tutorial at my blog. It's even useful for those who wish to upload the images themselves. Comments are appreciated. Mahanga (Talk) 02:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Here's the boilerplate I use when asking Flickr users for permission to use their images on the Commons:

Hi, we'd love to be able to use this image on Wikipedia. Would you consider licensing it to us under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-2.0) or Attribution ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA-2.0) licence? If so, just retag the image with one of those licences and let me know you've done so by contacting me on my <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:USERNAME">Wikimedia Commons talk page</a> or by <a href="mailto:EMAIL@EMAIL.COM">e-mail</a>. I'll do the rest. Thanks!


To change the licence of an image, you need to click the "Change" link next to your current photograph licence (which is usually set to "All rights reserved") near the bottom of your photograph page. On the Privacy and Permissions settings page, click the "Add a licence to your photo" link on the right side of the page, near the bottom. On the next page, select either "Attribution Creative Commons" or "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons".


— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


NB: If someone with images on Flickr is hesitant about changing to a license that allows free commercial use, I think they should be left alone. They should not be talked into changing to a level of permission of re-use they are not comfortable with. At the very minimum, since there is no way to take back a commons permission, it should be made very clear what they are giving away, and that it is forever. (In fact, although I might eventually allow free non-commercial use of some of my own art work, but would never agree to allow free commercial use.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



There's a fine line to walk. I don't think we should be sneaky and tell people "oh just uncheck this box, or else we can't use it!" But if they read a page like Commons:Licensing/Justifications and come to the conclusion that commercial use is something they're okay with, that's quite another matter. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Mobile cranes versus  Crane trucks


What's the difference between "Crane trucks" and "Mobile cranes"? Both categories do not have descriptions or it is insufficiently described for what the category stands for. I hope someone can help. Frank 10:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Supercat and subcat. Mobile are mobile. Crane trucks are one of several sub-cats of mobile, and are also built on truck chassis (I would suggest that we take a broad interpretation of "truck" here). As I can't see evidence for contradiction, duplication or conflict, can you please point me at the issue raising a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)



Another way of putting. Like a mobile crane, most computers nowadays are mobile: it is quite easy to move them and deploy them on another site after some deployment work (that can take days). Crane trucks, just like a laptop, are even easier: they drive to a site and get operational in a couple of minutes. --Foroa (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Computers aren't mobile, they're portable. You can carry them from place to place (as you could a tower crane), but they can't drive themselves from place to place as a mobile crane can. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Computer people call them mobile. See en:Mobile computing. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of us "Computer people" take our mobile computers more seriously. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


{{PD-Afghanistan}}


Several dozen fair use images were deleted from the wikipedia that were all uploaded by one long term contributor, and all deleted by one long term administrator.  I noticed these deletions after the fact.  In several instances the objections were easily answered, and those images not only qualified for the wikipedia's fair use, but probably qualified for PD status.

I think these two images probably qualify as PD, several times over.  w:File:Alleged Khadr 3.png and w:File:Alleged Khadr Waving.png

Over the last two years I have requested the WMF to get lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights to weigh in on the copyright status of images taken in Afghanistan.  
Some good faith contributors acknowledge that images from Afghanistan are not protected by any copyright agreements -- but only until the image is published in a country that is a signatory to international copyright agreements.  They then argue all the intellectual rights to the image belong to the individual or organization that first published the image outside of Afghanistan, without regard to whether they had any connection with the original photographer.

I am going to repeat that request here.

I'd like the opinions of contributors here as to whether they think there is a problem moving these images, and images like them, to the commons.

Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)



British Museum back stage pass


I've signed up for the British Museum back stage pass event, and hopefully will be writing an article on the event for Wikinews, are there any questions people want to ask about Wikipedia-British Museum co-operation.--KTo288 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)



May 26


HotCat updated


The HotCat gadget has been updated. The new version is a complete rewrite and has been beta-tested by several people in the past few weeks. The most visible change is the ability to change more than one category.

Previous announcements can be found at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#HotCat on steroids and at User talk:Lupo/c.js.

If you don't see any changes, try refreshing your browser's cache.

Please leave any bug reports or improvement suggestions at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js.

Lupo 07:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)



File:Shushi landscape.jpg


Can an Admin make a decision to pass, fail or file a formal DR on this picture? It is cliamed to be 'own work' but this is the Common's uploader's only photo here...and I cannot trust the uploader in such circumstances to pass it. I have no panoramio account, only flickr. The only other option is if....someone wants to contact the copyright owner (Grishik) directly. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)



At www.panoramio.com it is licensed with All Rights Reserved. --GeorgHH • talk   21:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the licensing at panoramio and the different name and that the date written here on Commons is the date of upload at panoramio but not the date of photo creation according to the EXIF (although the EXIF is maybe wrong, but I dont think so according to EXIF of other photos on panoramio) I will tag the image as missing permission. I dont think the uploader is the photographer, so permission required. --Martin H. (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)



May 25


Category:Banknotes of Pakistan


Currently all the images in the category are licensed as Public Domain or CC. It can be assumed that the persons who uploaded these images did not create the banknotes neither own the copyright. Also the copyright in Pakistan is 50 years pma. Can anyone change the licensing (copyright of banknotes?) or should they be deleted as copyvios? feydey (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



If you have information on the copyright status of Currency in Pakistan, please add a Pakistan section to the article on the subject at Commons:Currency. I would not simply assume that the copyright on currency is the same as other works -- in many countries it is different, often more restrictive, to avoid counterfeiting. And, yes, of course, if we know what the law is, we should certainly delete infractions.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Template:Money-BR


I started creating this template as I found out brazilian money is not copyrightable. 

Seção II

Section II
Dos Sinais Não Registráveis Como Marca
 
About uncopyrightable brands

XIV - reprodução ou imitação de título, apólice, moeda e cédula da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal, dos Territórios, dos Municípios, ou de país;

XIV - reproductions or imitations of titles, bonds, currency and bank notes of Federal, State, Federal District, the Territories, the Municipalities or country;

Presidência da República Casa Civil Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídico

There were a lot discussion about this as no one couldn't find anything about it til now. Several images were delted, and there are many other being uploaded.  This template could solve this question. I created the template but it isn't working. Could sombedoy help me?Mizunoryu  (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



fixed. Please make sure though the template is correct--DieBuche (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Methinks "Dos Sinais Não Registráveis Como Marca" means "About brands that cannot be registered as trademarks". That section that you quote is not about copyright, and thus the whole template is wrong. In fact, the whole law you quote is not about copyright but about other intellectual property rights: patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and geographical denominations. A complete red herring. Lupo 15:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Read again!

XIV - reprodução ou imitação de título, apólice, moeda e cédula da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal, dos Territórios, dos Municípios, ou de país;

But yeah, my mistake. It's about register, they fall under the same circunstances as generic logos by [United States Copyright office. I'm gonna change that.Mizunoryu  (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



That's completely besides the point! Yes, banknotes and coins cannot be registered as trademarks, but that doesn't say anything about copyright. Lupo 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


I found this discussion it falls in the same lines as brazilian money. Mizunoryu  (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



Commons eligibility of PDF file


This PDF http://ia331435.us.archive.org/3/items/houstonwhereseve00farb/houstonwhereseve00farb.pdf is of a publication from 1913. Obviously it is in the public domain. I took individual images and uploaded some so they could have translations. But what about the whole PDF? Should the whole file be uploaded on the Commons, or does it belong on Wikisource? It is a book with text and illustrations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)



Wikisource uploads its images to Commons when possible (en.WS permits pre-1923 material no matter when the death of the author). So upload it to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case I shall post it to both sites. The PDF itself (File:Houston17RailroadsMeetTheSea.pdf) goes to Commons, and the bare text to Wikisource. Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the thumbnails for that PDF file appear to be badly broken; I've filed the issue as bugzilla:23652.  Until this is fixed, you might want to consider uploading files like this in the DjVu format instead.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a DJvu format, and so I will upload the original DJVU. In addition I am using JP2s and forming PNGs from the JP2s. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


I put the DJvu here: File:Houstonwhereseve00farb.djvu WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


There is a black and white PDF - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Houstonwhereseve00farb_bw.pdf - The blank pages seem to display nothing, but the pages that have content display normally. Should this be an issue for Bugzilla too? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


As for PNG2s, should I upload the large ZIP file that contains the PNG2s, or should I upload the PNG2s unzipped individually, or should I upload both groupings? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I've added a link to the B&W version to bugzilla too.  As for the images, I'd say converting the JP2 images to PNG (or JPEG, where that seems more appropriate) and uploading them individually is the right way to go — MediaWiki doesn't allow ZIP uploads anyway, and the JP2 format isn't properly supported either (no thumbnails).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded one of the raw scans as a PNG - File:HoustonWhereRaw00.png - No thumbnail can be made because the PNG file is too large. Is this okay? Or should I try another file format? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


May 24


Translation of upload form "fromflickr"


Hallo,

I created MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hefromflickr, which is a translation of the fromflickr upload form into Hebrew. If i try to actually use it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=hefromflickr , i see a plain upload form.

It works in Catalan, for example - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=cafromflickr .

What is wrong?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



For some reason i tries to fetch http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-Sum-it-up.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&281a instead of


http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-Sum-it-up.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript which results in a 196 Status code. Same for nine other elements (including vector.js). Can't see any problems in the code, but you could try removing all content & gradually adding it back, to see if some specific expression confuses the server--DieBuche (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



Amir, wait 24h until the server-side MediaWiki-message cache has been refreshed. Only if it then still doesn't work, there is a problem. Lupo 12:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


All right, now it shows up, so everything is fine. Lupo 09:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


FOP in South Africa - legal expert input needed


The paragraph about FOP in South Africa in our FOP guideline states that there is no FOP provision in the law of South Africa and resultingly FOP cannot be claimed for copyrighted works in South Africa, even if permanently situated in public space. However, the cited original wording of the law, though sounding somewhat ambiguously, seems to imply just the opposite. In the full law text (source linked on FOP page), the header of the relevant/cited paragraph is "General exceptions from protection of artistic works". Could an english native-speaker with some legal expertise please check (and eventually correct) this? --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



I agree, see also deletion discussions like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Orlando Power Station Towers.jpg. But I have looked at the text in Afrikaans ("nie geskend deur die reproduksie of insluiting daarvan in 'n rolprent of 'n televisie-uitsending"), and COM:FOP#South Africa seems to be correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure I follow you. There are indeed exceptions from protection, but they seem to be limited to reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service. Did you see anything that suggests reproduction by means of photography are allowed too? –Tryphon☂ 09:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)



Sorry to say, paragraph 15 does not give us any help.  It is a very specific exemption for movies and similar works -- without it, in a no-FOP country, you could not make a movie with outside shots in a city.  We all know that movie-making is profitable for cities, so it is encouraged. It says nothing about photographs and, in the definitions, it is clear that a movie is not a photograph and vice versa. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  14:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Because of the upcoming World Cup we have a whole bunch of files of South African stadiums, many with DRs open against them e.g.





I think we need to work out one way or another if we can keep these.--KTo288 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)



I'd like to be wrong and be reverted on this, but these have been closed as delete, and similar images are being speedied leaving behind those images in which de minimis can be claimed and those images. e.g. stands and partially constructed stadia, in which distinguishing architectural features can not be seen.--KTo288 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please leave at least seven days for discussion of DR's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


more than fifty image of aquariums


User Pmerino (see gallery [49] has uploaded more than fifty images of his aquarium, nearly all uncategorized. Can anyone with interest in this content add categories please ? Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



When categorizing files like File:Disco_turquesa01.JPG could be deleted if there are enough other pictures of this species, I guess. --Saibo (Δ) 21:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Fishes are captured very poorly but some technical aspects of aquariums and some aquarium plants are usable on some of those photos. --ŠJů (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Someone might perhaps want to file a mass deletion request for the unused low-quality ones per COM:SCOPE (and ask those familiar with the subject to strike out any they consider potentially useful).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Is "commons" singular or plural?


I just saw someone write "Wikimedia Commons exclude...".  The Welcome page says "Wikimedia Commons is...".  wikt:commons doesn't say, but it cites a 1913 source that says commons is (are?) a n.pl.  I asked there,[50] but consensus here can pwn their puny dictionary. B)  What do you say? Wnt (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



For me, Commons is... - I refer the right honourable gentleman/lady to en:American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. Man vyi (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusingly, I'm sure, for non-English speakers, commons is a plural noun that is treated as singular. It means (according to the OED), among other things, "[t]he common people, the commonalty; the lower order, as distinguished from those of noble or knightly or gentle rank" and "[p]rovisions provided for a community or company in common", which is probably the sense in which the word is used in the term Wikimedia Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


In the sense relevant for the name of this site, "Commons" refers to lands where all the peasants of a village could go to graze their animals or gather firewood, etc.  In various usages of the word "commons", it can sometimes be grammatically singular or plural (depending on context), but as the name of this site, it would be singular in both British and American English (like "Physics" etc.).  From ca. the 17th through the 19th centuries, "enclosure" of common lands was a perennial legal and political issue in Britain.  The Boston Commons has become a park.  Garrett Hardin wrote a famous piece on "The Tragedy of the Commons", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


May 28


CommonsHelper2 Version "Pre-Beta"


Hi,

today I release the "Pre-Beta" version of the CommonsHelper2. More information: https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/CHTWO-23

This version is at moment under http://toolserver.org/~commonshelper2/dev/index.php. The main page update I if there are no big problems.

Best regards,
--Jan Luca (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)



Good news. feydey (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Do office actions apply to Commons?  Should w:WP:Office actions be transwikied?


In searches I see some reference to WMF "Office actions" on Commons, which reference a Wikipedia document w:WP:Office actions.  As I understand it, Wikipedia policies don't count as Commons policies, which means that there's no policy here that governs or explains these actions, or tells users how to request one.  This is relevant to Commons:sexual content in the hopefully very unlikely case that a user actually encounters child pornography.  So I'll ask:




  • Should someone instead create a short page that says only something like "Office actions apply to Commons" and encourages readers to read and discuss the policy at Wikipedia?


  • Should the resulting page be proposed as a Commons policy?


Wnt (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)



We don't have to dupe everything on meta. Multichill (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


  •   Comment I agree on that. But adding links to it in relevant pages could be good. However since Jimbo was desysopped for recent actions then it is perhaps unclear if such thing as Office actions still excists. --MGA73 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


According to the Meta policy (thanks for pointing me this way), office actions can be initiated by "any representative or delegate of the Wikimedia Foundation".  It also says that it is "an official Wikimedia policy" affecting "all sites under its jurisdiction".  I withdraw the suggestion that the Wikipedia version should be transwikied or linked to, since linking only to Meta keeps the projects separate.


I do think a link to the policy under Commons:Office actions is necessary, and I'll start one now, because some of us have been flailing around at Commons:Sexual content trying to reinvent some wording to say that Wikimedia doesn't keep clearly illegal material, because apparently none of us were sure it was a policy. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just slap a {{softredirect|meta:Office actions}} there?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't like that quite as much as the way I did it, but if you prefer to change it to that I can't say there's anything wrong with it.  But please make sure Category:Commons policies remains functional so people find it. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Fair use and namespaces


Is there any tool for local wikis that will find usage of FU images outside main namespace? -- Bojan  Talk  05:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)



You could request a report from the Toolserver query service if there's no tool currently. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a query which I can run for you. What wiki and what's your fair use tracker template/category? Multichill (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. For sr.wiki. I'm not sure I understand well later part of your question. All non free images are categorized in subcategories of this category. -- Bojan  Talk  09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)



At the enwp it's en:Template:Non-free media and en:Category:All non-free media. So I just have to check the images using these. If you don't have something a single category or templates like this at srwp, it's much harder to do queries. Multichill (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


No, we don't have something like that right now. I'll create category for all non-free medias in next few days. -- Bojan  Talk  11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Map highlighter


I had an idea yesterday, and I wanted to ask whether it's been suggested before.

There's a large number of SVG maps on Commons.  Suppose there was a standard way of marking in the XML which areas represented regions, and which areas belonged to the same region.  (So, for example, it would show that the two parts of Michigan were the same state.)  Then suppose there was a template which linked from a map with these annotations to a program on the toolserver, which let you select colours for each region, and then re-upload the modified SVG.  Then when someone came along wanting to make a map of "US states where keeping camels is illegal" or "counties of Wales by proportion of Welsh speakers" they could do it without leaving their browser.

I could write this, but I thought I'd ask whether it's already been done or suggested, and whether you think it would be useful. Marnanel (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



It's been discussed before, and someone apparently wrote a proof-of-concept implementation for (as it happens) U.S. states.  I don't think anyone's actually written a proper tool for it, though.  BTW, the "standard way of marking in the XML which areas represented regions" would be the class attribute; using it properly, you don't even need to alter the SVG markup, but can just insert suitable CSS styles at the top.  I believe a number of our blank SVG maps (like File:BlankMap-World6.svg) are already set up that way, there's just no fancy GUI for styling them yet.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Thinking about this further... I think a practical workflow could be something like this:

  1. Choose a base map from a predefined list.

    • Should display thumbnails to help in choosing.
      • 

    • Need to provide a way to add new base maps, and for less technically skilled users to request new base maps to be added.
    2. 

  2. List all defined regions on the map, allow users to set colors for them.

    • Either provide a fancy color picker, or just let users enter SVG color names / codes into text boxes.  Keep in mind that users will want to use the same color for several regions.
      • 

    • For browsers that support native SVG and JavaScript, provide a live preview of how the map will look.
      • 

    • Also allow recoloring (and showing/hiding) of "pseudo-regions" like oceans, lakes, rivers, region borders, etc.
      • 

    • For maps with many regions, consider grouping them meaningfully (e.g. countries by continent), probably based on some metadata in the base map.
      • 

    • Optionally allow cropping the map too (just adjust the bounding box).
      • 

    • Optionally support more complex textures in addition to solid colors (tricky but possible).
    3. 

  3. Allow one-click uploading to Commons, automatically prefilling the {{Information}} template appropriately.

    • Let the user supply a general description and a legend of the colors used.  Consider multilingual support too.
      • 

    • Also provide the option of just downloading the map to the user's own computer.
    4. 

  4. Later, users may reimport previously saved maps from Commons or from their own computer for further editing.

    • Need to store enough metadata in the maps (including descriptions etc.) to allow this.
      • 

    • Should detect if the map has been modified manually or in some other software and notify the user.  If possible, try to load the map anyway.
      • 

    • Should also gracefully handle the possibility of the base map having been modified in the meanwhile.


All that seems technically possible, what's left is just a simple matter of programming...  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Just because this is about maps. I was thinking that it would be nice if it was possible for WP:Projects to insert sections of Openstreetmap where one could zoom in and out without leaving the article. With some overlay (or something similar) it would also be possible to mark all the states where keeping camels is illegal. Just a thought. And probably thought before.... Amada44 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)



Copyright issue


We have a whole collect of medical images on Wikimedia Commons which appear to be under copyright [51].  It seems all photos from medline/illustration are copyrighted.  Here is a start of a list:




I assume there are a bunch more such as [64]

--Jmh649 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)



You are correct. These images are copyright A.D.A.M. and should be speedy deleted as copyvios. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melanoma SSM.jpg. I'd be glad to make the deletions myself, and will proceed in an hour or so, (unless anyone objects). -Andrew c (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Yes the problem with the NIH is some stuff is copyrighted and some is public domain.  One image we were using was from a .gov page but that site had got it from istockphotos. Jmh649 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Just hunt down all the possible copyvio's and put them in one big deletion request for review (in case of any mistakes). Multichill (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And how does one do that?Jmh649 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


See Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. If you have any questions; please ask. Multichill (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have it half done.  Unsure how to fill out the rest.  Here is the page Commons:Deletion requests/Placenta ja.jpg Jmh649 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


One more:[65].--Garrondo (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)



May 29


Porn redux


I know this was posted in January, but it references me and it was just brought to my attention[66]. It's a little disconcerting to realize just how dedicated the people trying to eliminate nudity from Commons are, to the point they're even tracking the views of individual editors. If those people are upset with my views though they should blame the supreme court, not me. -Nard the Bard 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)



Diving into the past is fun. Multichill (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


May 30


Petting and caressing


Hi everyone. I'm reposting here a discussion I had with John Vandenberg on his profile talk page, in order to have more opinions/knowledges on the discussed subjects. At the beginning of all that, I added "petting" to the "sexual petting" category and he reverted me, for a reason I eventually understood. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to have made this mistake. I've always thought "petting" meant "caressing", therefore I thought logical that "sexual petting" would be a subcat of "petting" (English is not my mother tongue). Now that I (finally) understood that, I'm wondering about a category that could have both "petting" and "sexual petting" as subcats. How do you think it should be called ? Caressing ? Stroking ? Fondling ? Files like this one could also be categorized in this cat to be created. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)



I can appreciate this mistake; I think that the category "petting" (animal) could be better named to avoid this confusion.


I've not spent much time considering this.. but .. I don't think there is a suitable category which is a direct parent of both petting and sexual petting; instead they will both be subcats in one or more different subtrees.  Both sets of images are both motivated by "social interaction between mammals" ("social" is not the best word for this) and actualised by "physical contact between mammals".  Trying to bring them closer involves a lot of subjective statements relating to sexuality, including bestiality, so care must be taken.


John Vandenberg (chat) 01:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Sexual petting, animal metting and stroking as in this file all deal with caresses. Of course they are different types of caresses but it's pertinent to link them in a subcat of category:Touching. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

category:Touching is a very high level classification that is roughly equivalent to what I meant by a "physical contact between mammals" category; "touching" is relatively free of connotations.  I'm far from an expert in the terminology in this area, but I am pretty sure that not all petting is caressing, and not all sexual petting is caressing, so they are not suitable subcats of caressing. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Category:Self-published work


I have seen that for some photos the Category:Self-published work has been added. For example File:Sint-Joris-Weert tram A.jpg. It falls under "hidden categories" but apparently it is not so hidden. What is the use of that category with 2.426.723 entries? Wouter (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



When some vandal was removed "hiddencat", it taken next 8 days until this category started to appear as un-hidden. The "hiddencat" was restored on 26 May, then the change can appear approximately on 3 June if the quickness will be similar. It seems that technological queues are flooded and this change have a low priority. --ŠJů (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Yikes !! This is serious business, we need to watch out more for this type of vandalism, it is very annoying. Perhaps an abusefilter ? TheDJ (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe protecting all widely used categories, just as we do for templates ? Jean-Fred (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Houston, we have a problem:


mysql> select * from category WHERE cat_title='Self-published_work' limit 1;
+--------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| cat_id | cat_title           | cat_pages | cat_subcats | cat_files | cat_hidden |
+--------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+------------+
|     31 | Self-published_work |   2429973 |          26 |   2429892 |          0 | 
+--------+---------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+------------+



(cat_hidden should be 1). Multichill (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


I wounder, why it took so long to return to hidden. I recognized that it is unhidden, saw, that the vandalism was already reverted (and protected the category to prevent future vandalism). I think it might be a good idea to create an filter to prevent removal of __hiddencat__. Maybe forbidding such an edit might be a bad idea in some cases. If it is possible to to forbid editing with filter if category has >10K items that should be save. --Martin H. (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bug


Reverting seems to be impossible because of a timeout. The question is from what number of images this timeout will occur, it's probably much easier to just add protection to the top categories. Multichill (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


That category vissible is a real nuisance. If it will not go we should temporarily remove it from {{Self}} - if this again will not kill the servers ;) --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


One of the server admins applied a workaround and it seems to work. Multichill (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Open Source Characters


these characters can be uploaded to the Commons?Hyju (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)



Licensewise they could be fine, but as far as i see out of scope--DieBuche (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be concerned over claims that "Kongzilla" is open-source and free of licensing problems. Isn't that just jumping out of the frying pan into two fires? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a famous lawsuit which concluded that Donkey Kong did not infringe on King Kong, but "Kongzilla" might be asking for trouble...   -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


If you read the Kongzilla page, it's not really open source--"the only stipulation on use being that the character's appearance be substantially unchanged". Not only that, the characters may be open source, but their images may or may not be and that wiki doesn't have clear licensing on their images. And, as DieBuche says, it's out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Though the comics from the Golden Age are in scope, provided we are comfortable that they're really PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


I believe that fonts are currently out of scope, but if Web Open Font Format becomes widespread, it would make sense to host some on Commons (people using Firefox can get some idea here). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about fonts, but there's currently the "Open Font Library" site for that.  AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Category for test images (used somewhere in a project)


Is there a category for (wikimedia) test images (used somewhere in a project)? Category:Tests is something different. For example this image: File:Jezuitu_baznycia_2006-06-11-2vs3.png (used to discuss differences in image manipulation) - I do not want to have it in the (current) categories by object. But using no categories is not an option - the file will be categorized due to our process of catting uncatted files. Could somebody please give me a hint? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)



What's wrong with Category:Test images (besides the fact that it should probably be renamed to Category:Test files)?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


I have added File:Jezuitu_baznycia_2006-06-11-2vs3.png to Category:Comparisons, at least until Category:Comparisons of photographs exists. Category:Comparisons of art could be relevant if it was artistic. I have also added a {{Cat see also|Category:Calibration|Category:Test patterns}} to Category:Test images. -84user (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


@Ilmari: Well, there's nothing wrong with Category:Test images, I just didn't know it - therefore I asked. ;) I searched for such a cat for a long time - thanks! I propose we keep the name and create a super cat Category:Test files containing also  Category:Test videos and   Category:Test audios, or similar.


@84user: I've simply added Category:Comparisons of photographs now. Thank you both! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Uploading a distribution map


Hello, I was wondering how I would upload a distribution map if I took a blank map from commons and colored in a range based on a googlebook.  What would I do as far as copyright (and thins like that) goes?  Any advice would be helpful.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)



When you say "based on", what exactly are you intending? If you are essentially going to reproduce a graphic that has been published in a book, then that might amount to creating a derivative version of a copyrighted artistic work. Perhaps you can give more details about what you would like to do. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the distribution of the wood turtle  here.  I went into Microsoft Paint, opened up a blank map found on commons, and filled in where the turtle is found.  Can this legally be put through commons?  I've asked here and here for a map to be made, but nobody has come along yet.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Definetly ok, if you use a map from here, add name that maps author. You should probably as well link to the data source--DieBuche (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you so much.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


DescriptionBot


I wouldn't mind some input to my proposed bot here. Btw I'm getting the old toolbar evn though my skin is vector. Anyone else? --DieBuche (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)



May 23









Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/05&oldid=676578798"