Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

FOTW images

If the FOTW-Images are non commercial, shouldn't we simply put the Category:FOTW images in the Category:Against policy ? --ALE! ¿…? 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The FOTW is obviously not the author of the flags. It merely digitized them. It does not own any rights on the flags and its claims are entirely bogus. It's copyfraud. --Rtc 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree here. They have drawn "clean" versions, which requires "creative input" and certainly does evoke copyright. "Slavish copying" on the other hand (eg. scanning or photographing an old manuscript) does not create any new copyrights and that is copyfraud. Libraries do this all the time. Alphax (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Simply and plainly: Nope, you are only repeating the same FUD as done by copyfrauders usually (I am not saying that it is your intention or that you are a copyfrauder). To draw "clean" versions may require a lot of work; it does not require any significant "creative input". Even if details of a flag may vary minimally, the big idea of the flag stays the same; this is not covered by copyright protection (threshold of originality), since it is the very purpose of the result to represent the original flag, and to keep variations at the minimum possible. If you could do this, you could otherwise undermine the public domain status of the original flag. You can obtain copyright protection at most if you change the flag in such a way that it clearly does not represent the country anymore it did before. --Rtc 05:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Rtc, I get emails all of the times from FOTW image makers that their work is being used on Wikipedia and wanted their work gone from here. To put it basically, FOTW terms states the images are similarly to CC-BY-SA-NC-ND, which is a no-go on the Commons, due to the prevention of anyone from changing the images (ND) and the ability of the images to be used commercially (NC). Most of the flags that are involved in this debate are subnational flags, historical flags, flags of organizations, whose copyrights are still a but fuzzy. Yall know my stance and my biases, I would like to see our (FOTW) work gone from the Commons unless each giffer comes and upload the image on the Commons ourselves (which I and several others have done, I can provide a list). I will ask a few more to come here and donate images to us under a free license, so just work with me and a perfect solution will be created. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the FOTW images are not protected by copyright in the first place, stated terms and conditions are null and void. They are lacking a legal base. In consequence, any claims by FOTW people on these flags are null and void. In fact, these are simply brazen copyfraud claims. I can state basically anything, but mere declarations are not law. The flags are not "their work" of the FOTW image makers. It may be their "work" in the sense of labour of making a digital copy, but it is not their "work" in the creative sense of copyright and mere labour is not something copyright deems as worthy for restriction (for good reason). "subnational flags, historical flags, flags of organizations, whose copyrights are still a but fuzzy"? Then this is FOTWs problem, not ours. FOTW cannot make Commons responsible for their own possible fuzzy copyright violations. This is ridiculous. FOTW cannot "donate images to us under a free license" because they do not have a copyright in the first place, which would be the very precondition for donating a license. --Rtc 17:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this fotw-website has hardly any copyrights on flags. If you digitize a Rembrandt you can tag it CC-BY-SA-NC-ND, but anybody will ignore this for good reasons. Maybe there are few flags which are copyrighted but the copyright is with the creator of the flag's design and not with a website. So the website has either non-protected images or copyvios.--Wiggum 09:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
BUT, if you draw "your own version" of a Rembrandt - not just copying it exactly - then you do get copyright on your work. Alphax (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the level of individuality of the new work. Naturally a flag must be a very exact copy to recognize it as a state insiginia. I specify my above statement a little bit polemically: the flags are either unprotected, copyvios of third parties or useless for an encyclopedia. Pictures which meet the last two criteria should be deleted, for sure, but i don't see a general problem.--Wiggum 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As Wiggum correctly implied, if you draw a Rembrandt counterfeit, you do not get copyright on it. Only if it is not your intention to make a counterfeit, but to introduce significant original elements which clearly make the work different from Rembrands (and not merely by accidental variation of the brush) and original you get a new copyright. --Rtc 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I must inform Don Quijote and Sancho Panza that all these image were listed as speedy deletion by user:Siebrand on September 30, and that they should thus soon be deleted. Since this is a controversial issue, speedy deletion might not be suitable. I'll get Siebrand to comment on this here. / Fred Chess 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
FOTW states a non-commercial license. If the images originate there, they cannot be used here. In the above discussion some one referred to files being copied from elsewhere. My question would be from where? I.e. no other source, we should assume the source is FOTW, hence: gone. Nothing more to it in my opinion. On the other hand: if we decide each and every flag or coat of arms is PD, source does not matter and we might as well/should remove FOTW as a source. We'll just wait until Wikimedia is sued. Siebrand 17:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that Iago will now add some points to my list of sins but i'll reply anyway: FOTW has no copyrights on the flags. Do you really think Great Britain paid FOTW for the use of the Union Jack? --Wiggum 18:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. The problem is FOTWs representation of the Union Jack is their work, derived from something which is fine to use. There is nothing wrong with creating and image - its a copy of the FOTW image thats the prob.--Nilfanion 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So we use the copy of a copy. There is no own individuality with the copy. Copyright is usually (not in countries with sweat of the brow approach) dedicated to creative work and not to handicraft. We could be evil and copy the flags without any link to fotw. You will be able to recognize it as a flag of xyz country but you won't be able to recognize a fotw work. That's what i mean with "own individuality".--Wiggum 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's stop trying to get this right with words and nuances: get rid of the files and recreate them in the project itself. Only then they will be truely free - this type of discussion has a habit of repeating itself. We are all for 'free material', so why try to use freely what others (re)created finding loopholes? Siebrand 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mere labour is not copyrightable. You can photograph the flag in flat position, copy it digitally, re-type it into the hex edit bit for bit, trace it into vector format forth and back, all this will not give you any rights on the flag. The FOTW images are truly free. EOD. --Rtc 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite EOD, but the total number of images in this category is going to shrink: Vector-Images is going to let us use their raster graphics for Russian-related flags and the others are being redrawn as I speak. In total, the images will be less than 100 (were over 900 at this point last year at EN Wikipedia). Let's vector them all, so we all can breathe easy (and my mailing list can be quite about this issue). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The number of FOTW images will indeed shrink -- they were less than 30 over at EN Wikipedia at the latest count! I do agree that speedydeleting them is quite too drastic though, especially on Commons. It would leave parts of the 'Wikiverse' in a sorry state, due to our historical over-reliance on images from FOTW. My rule of thumb is to nominate them after I found or made a replacement image. Cheers. --Himasaram 07:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I can live with that. I am drawing replacements myself and emailing others to send their work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I am working with correctly categorizing all FOTW images on Commons under Category:FOTW images by adding {{FOTWpic}} to them. However, recently User:Bastique has been reverting several of my edits quoting "FOTW cannot claim copyright" ([1]) and sometimes even reverting other good edits in the process ([2]). I have asked him to take back his reverts, but he vehemently defends his position. Someone else will have to try and reason with him. --Himasaram 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I spoke with the user on IRC, I can understand where Bastique is coming from, since the user doesn't like for the images which we are debating over to be tagged with a speedy deletion. However, I began to replace some of the flags Bastique and you are reverting over with either my own graphics or from websites who gave us permission to use their drawings, such as vector-images.com. So just tag the images, but do not worry about deletion just yet. Replacements can be found (or made) and I can be reasoned with, so just relax people, it will end soon. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for mediating Zscout. The situation seems to have been defused. However, the underlying dispute remains: Bastique and numerous other users seems to have the opinion that flag images and images of other insignia are inherently in the Public Domain, regardless of the copyright of the file. The reason Bastique got so upset in the first place, was because I marked his Image:Us-ca-sf.png as a copyvio, since it is pieced together from various images he found through a Google Images search and on FOTW. He simply removed the copyvio tag from the image as well as my notification on his talk page and started indiscriminately reverting many of my edits to image description pages.
These images includes: Image:Guarico coa.png Image:Flag of New York City.png Image:Guarico flag.png Image:LlaneraSkull.gif Image:Blue flag 2005.gif Image:Nl~krzv.gif Image:Knzrv.gif
A neutral part has to judge whether the reverts were correct or not. --Himasaram 15:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that I spoke to Bastique about when it first happened, and I worked out a solution. Are there some flags that are public domain due to age or statute? Of coruse, but from what I been told, even if the item is PD, if a specific version is drawn and isn't just a direct copy, then it could be copyrighted. There is probably some flags that FOTW has drawn that are in the public domain or cannot be copyrighted, such as the Red Cross flags. But I still believe that if people from FOTW are writing to me asking for "their work" to be taken down, there is nothing much I can do. However, given that we have websites at our use that allow us to use their flags (vector-images) and people like me a redrawing the flags, this problem should be over soon. BTW, for that NYC flag, I have a vector version of that flag made. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo of commons : Made I a mistake ?

I just changed the logo of commons (see Image:Wiki-commons.png and its history), because that was a pic showing en:Jiang Zemin. No one explanation was on this change, not in the image neither in the talkpage. The image was from user Dori , who made only 100 edits.

Someone can explain ?

Moreover, If I did a mistake, really sorry, but I didn't seen informations about this change. --Yug (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: the pic have not the good siwe now, can someone fix it ? --Yug (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Once you revert, what you have to do is a hard refresh so the original image will come back. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Problem fixed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:LifeBot

This new bot is very busy doing things to articles and categories that I do not believe to be supported by policy or guidelines. Can someone please review and consider taking action before we find ourselves the unfortunate victim of a massive fait accompli? Snottygobble 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I might have missed it, but I don't recall reading about this bot's activities. Also huge purposeful bots like this should have a bot flag. I blocked it for one day to slow it down, and I'm sure Ayacop will be happy to take part in discussions about its activities. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Technical information about the bot and its source can be found on the bot page. The following discussions are relevant here:

The proposed policy with discussion at the Tree of Life project can be found here:

Unfortunately, some people only now agreed to discuss the issue within the Tree of Life project, so we haven't a really good picture of opinions of its participants. Fact is, however, that those people who are doing most of the work in the project agree with its former (even stricter than now) policy which I have recently amended with a compromise that was, in my and several people's opinion, a good one. However, that you have to be bothered with this is due to other people not even accepting this compromise, not accepting that 98 per cent of pictures of plants are collected in species galleries, and not in species categories. Of course, I'm applying for the Bot flag, herewith. -- Ayacop 08:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I take no position on the great galleries-versus-categories debate. Once consensus is reached, I will gladly follow it, safe in the knowledge that a lot of deep thought and robust discussion has been invested in the decision. But Ayacop's "compromise" proposal was barely discussed at all before being unilaterally edited into the Tree of Life project page as policy, and implemented by his bot. Just because Ayacop characterises his proposal as a compromise, doesn't make it a good idea, and doesn't remove the requirement for such high-impact decisions to be fully discussed and agreed upon prior to implementation. As I said on another page, even if the proposal is sheer genius, it is still wrong to present us with a fait accompli in this way. Snottygobble 08:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There were three alternatives and, contrary to your claims, they were fully discussed (see link above to COM:VP):
  • using DPLs. Disadvantages: not supported by devs (imagine we hit a bug), and the bug in categories with more than 200 images that prevents subcategories from being shown 'all first'.
  • changing Category:FAMILIA to Category:FAMILIA|@ or similar within images. The same bug mentioned will hit us.
  • changing Category:FAMILIA to Category:FAMILIA (Indexed) within images. Advantage: we now even have a category showing all images in FAMILIA.
This last solution was proposed to ToL here (2006-Sep-23):

You can block a bot immediately if you suspect it's not operating within policy. — Omegatron 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem here was to decide which policy applies. This bot adheres to the policy of the Tree of Life project (see above) which was not accepted by some people. Therefore the fuss. -- Ayacop 07:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Bots have no rights. If you even suspect a bot might be screwing things up, block it immediately, and discuss. It can start right where it left off, if agreement is reached that it is doing good work. — Omegatron 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And whose agreement is it you're talking about here? How do you protect against simple dislike of the bot owner? (I'm not suspecting that here, just interest). There must be some procedure. -- Ayacop 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That is not the policy of the Tree of Life project. It is the policy of Ayacop. It was edited into the Tree of Life project page as policy by Ayacop, but that does not make it so. There is absolutely no evidence of consensus or even substantial support for Ayacop's proposal. Snottygobble 08:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
So, I understand you correctly you want the earlier policy back? -- Ayacop 09:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a consensus of support for the "earlier policy", then yes. If there is no consensus for the "earlier policy", which appears to be the case, then I am comfortable operating in a policy vacuum for now. Snottygobble 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You cannot both hold the cake and eat it. Either you're for the earlier version (in which case you would adapt and move your photos into galleries) or you're against ToL policy at all (in which case my bot is not the issue but ToL policy itself). Also, define 'consensus'. It is known that loudness in discussion forums does not represent consensus well. Voting is better but not ideal. But why? As said, 98 per cent of plant photos are in galleries, and thus adhere to the earlier policy which I only amended with a compromise that no longer makes it necessary to delete categories or their tags, resp. I would say, rarely has there been a broader consensus, as the number shows what people like who do the real work in Plantae. -- Ayacop 14:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am for Commons and ToL policy. I just don't believe we have one yet. This is still the subject of intense debate. I will await the outcome, rather than be pushed into making a premature choice between the two options you're currently offering me.
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with you that images should be in galleries. The issue I'm struggling with is whether or not they should also be in categories. I can see pros and cons on both sides of that issue, and I find both options somewhat distasteful. Because I can't make up my mind about this, I have no strong view on it, and will therefore willingly follow policy... once we actually have one. But I do have strong views on two related issues:
  1. I feel strongly that your proposed "compromise" should not have been, and should not be, rolled out by your bot until it has been widely canvassed, discussed and supported;
  2. I feel strongly that we should be following policy vacuum etiquette (i.e. not actively removing images from categories, and not nominating categories for deletion) until this matter is settled.
Snottygobble 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You cannot force discussion, most members of ToL will just go on with their thing, so I ask you to explicitly give a date when you think this has been standing long enough for discussion in the Tree of Life project. Not giving a date would IMHO amount to an attempt to stall things indefinitely. Of course, if admins find that, from the discussion here (see also example text below), the bot violates Commons policy in general, then no way for it. I don't believe it, though, as there were no voices against the bot from admins in the bot flag discussion. -- Ayacop 14:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How can I explicitly give a date when the discussion will be over when I "cannot force discussion"? The discussion is ongoing while it is ongoing. The discussion will be over when it is over. So I am now to be accused of trying to "stall things indefinitely"? Okay, yes, I am stalling indefinitely; to be precise, I am stalling your attempts to roll out a solution that hasn't been widely discussed and supported, and I am doing it indefinitely in the sense that I cannot be definite about when and if your solution will be widely supported.
Meanwhile, I have no objection to the members of ToL "going on with their thing"; that's what people do in the absense of a coherent policy. It is not me that is trying to impose my way of doing things on other people. Snottygobble 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The only discussion taking place is you discussing my behaviour. Noone has stated any arguments on why my proposed solution is so bad, and what would be a better alternative, respecting all the facts. As you don't mind ToL members going on with their thing, I'll continue now manually where the bot stopped. -- Ayacop 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There's the whole story of your attitude to this discussion and collaboration in general, summarised nicely in a single sentence. Come hell or high water, you will impose your grand new plan upon everyone else. I'll say for the third time: even if your proposal is sheer genius, imposing it on others in this way is irretrievably wrong. Snottygobble 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
These are emotional arguments that don't add anything to a possible discussion (which certainly has no place under the subject User:LifeBot but at COM:TOL). It's so ridiculous: without problems could I revert to a way of doing things before my policy change. Just ask. You know what will happen: category tags will then be deleted, as well as species categories. And I'd start with Banksia. Boo! -- Ayacop 09:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's about as explicit a vindictive threat as I've ever seen on a Wikimedia project. Snottygobble 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he´s just fed up with this ongoing debate and no end in sight. Well, I can´t blame him. --BerndH 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
But we can maybe get another picture of the consensus. Let me propose: take the list of ToL particpants, look at everyone's contribution list, how s/he does things. What do we see? I'm back later with the result. -- Ayacop 14:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This has wider implications than the ToL participants. What they do has to be workable for everyone else. I would prefer not to operate in a policy vacuum on this, and while the opinion of the ToL contributors is definitely very important, it's also not the only opinion to consider. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You mean galleries/categories? But this was not the issue with LifeBot. The policy amendment that is the base for LifeBot does not encourage removing of category tags, nor of categories. What is done is moving within Category:FAMILIA, and I doubt you would want to take responsibility for such things from the ToL project. This is one of the three solutions resulting from the VP discussions (see summary above) - is there a broader audience than VP? -- Ayacop 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done a writeup with practical examples on all problems and solutions here. Please give feedback. Is the bot acting against Commons policy? -- Ayacop 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it this bot is no longer running against Commons policy, for when I first crossed the path of ToL this policy did not exist on ToL pages nor was it linked in any way. Additionally as I was discussing this "policy" I highlighted areas within Commons Help files that had opposing instructions I was thanked by User:Ayacop for bringing it to his attention who then went and altered the help pages so they conformed to his proposal/"policy". Further more I requested that this policy be written up clearly so as to be understood, then brought to Commons Village pump for a discussion/consensus and linked into help pages. This has yet to happen.
Additionally when reviewing metawiki help file on galleries I came across the disturbing concern that images copied from an article/gallery dont carry any metadata, making the establishment of copyright ownership nearly impossible and therefore allowing images to be taken off Commons with Creative commons licensing rendered useless, even to point that an unscrupilous individual/corporation could then publish the image as copyrighted to themselves. Take action against Commons and individual editors for breaching their rights. I also highlight that solutions to the original reasons for using articles/galleries instead of categories had been discussed and tool created that appeared to do what was being wanted. This tool is presented on metawiki and is loaded into wikinews and another wiki site.
I was extremely offended with the way I was being spoken to and admit that I lost my cool on one instance during the discussion. I have stepped back from adding images and participatig in any depth with commons while I see where this "policy" is going. Once it was clearly written and brought to Village pump for the wider commons community to discuss I'd again rejoin the discussion. Gnangarra 08:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What has this to do with User:LifeBot which, by the way, I agreed to stop indefinitely? Also, you are (again) misrepresenting what I did, and you cannot show where I imposed any policy on help pages. However, I suspect you mean what is discussed here. Your metadata problem does not exist. User:BerndH has proven this to you in the COM:TOL discussion page. However, I agree with your statement that differernces in ToL policy /wrt general policy must be made wider known by including it in help pages and FAQs. I have tried to reduce these differences, though. -- Ayacop 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my previous statement and disprove I'm not Also, you are (again) misrepresenting what I did, and you cannot show where I imposed any policy on help pages. please read this discussion which should have also been included in the list of discussions on this topic. Gnangarra 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Quote: ...images copied from an article/gallery dont carry any metadata... Did I miss something? I don´t understand what you mean... --BerndH 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If I may guess. If I right click on a thumb in a gallery, and save that generated thumb I don't think it will have the original camera metadata, or if it does, it will be buried behind imagemagick data. That's a guess. I don't know if ImageMagick preserves it. But if it doesn't then users should be encouraged to go to the original image, get the highest resolution, and save that. I think. Again, all guessing. Hope it helps someone else give the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict but spot on, read below for full explainations Gnangarra
Even though its already been stated that you proved this problem doesnt exist I'll explain. Metadata is information add by the camera when the photo is taken it includes time,date, focal length, light levels, flash useage, shutter speed etc. Additionally it also carries exif information to where copyright and author information is added, something Commons request instead of adding words into the image area. When an image is sourced from a gallery and saved elsewhere (ie your PC) this information is not transfered. Where as an image copied from a category view thumbnail the metadata and exif are exported with the image. The use of article/galleries thus dimishes the rights of the author/photographer.It's for this reason I continued to object to the policy While I agree that articles/galleries are useful Commons should in the first instance protecting the rights of it sources and that by populating images into galleries and deleting categories this doesnt happen. Now changed to putting them into hidden categories once added to a gallery just so that people can added to the thumb view information thats on the image page already along with all the copyrights and identifications of the author. The other stated reason was so the members of ToL could see when new images have been uploaded to Commons and added to a category that ToL owns. This facility is now provided by a tool called DPL, though this has concerns about compatiblility to potential updates like all tools any problems can and are quickly addressed. Gnangarra 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC) italic wording added after original statement by myself Gnangarra 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I know what metadata are. That was not what I wanted to know. Maybe I should specify my question: What exactly are you doing when you are saving an image? I tried several methods - neither includes any kind of copyright or license with the image itself. --BerndH 14:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless you mean IPTC Data. But they are also saved with the image when saving a thumb in a gallery.--BerndH 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a very strange report. At the software level, the gallery constructed behind the scenes by a category display and the explicit gallery on a page are identical, as are the thumbnails, so I don't see how one could ever get different results. Gnangarra, are you sure this behavior is repeatable, and not a one-time fluke? Sometimes bad things happen to servers, and then they're fixed. Stan Shebs 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasnt aware of this until reading Metawiki helpfiles on galleries and categories, both list this as a disadvantage of galleries. Gnangarra 12:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope you still have the links to these helpfiles? --BerndH 16:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates with section headers: to subst: or not to subst:?

Yesterday I added the same "anti-not-subst: magic" that {{Nsd}} and {{Nld}} have to {{Copyvionote}}. {{Idw}} could probably do with it as well, but before I get too carried away: is this needed/wanted, or should we just protect the templates to protect against accidental blanking? Fred Chess already complained on my talk page about this and I'm wondering what other people think. Alphax (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems to be messing up the examples, I'd favour protecting the templates and not enforcing substitution warnings.... but that's not necessarily a popular view. Some people love those things. I find them hard to get working right and I'm fairly facile with templates. (well sort of!) ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the stuff from {{Copyvionote}}, added a big noincluded comment, and protected it. I've added the comment to {{Idw}} too. Alphax (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoting usage of 'gallery' term

Yesterday, people on IRC told me you're promoting the use of 'galleries' instead of 'articles' in Commons. To which I fully agree. However, I noticed there is a main source of confusion: any category you'll look at says "Articles in category "foo" There are 19 articles in this category. " Wouldn't this be the first place to change? -- Ayacop 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would simply require an admin to edit MediaWiki:Category_header and MediaWiki:Categoryarticlecount. Is there any support for this? Snottygobble 11:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There's also MediaWiki:Allarticles, MediaWiki:Articletitles, MediaWiki:Mostcategories, MediaWiki:Mostrevisions, MediaWiki:Searchcontaining, MediaWiki:Searchnamed, MediaWiki:Titlematches, MediaWiki:Undeletehistorynoadmin, and probably a few more. However we really need consensus on what each should be changed to before we go ahead with this. Gallery, page, content page... I suspect that they will not all be the same. Alphax (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd want to see more convincing that article is such a bad name. I'm swayed but not all the way yet. Just one opinion of course. Is that the comprehensive list? ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Markaspatrolledtext, MediaWiki:Nonunicodebrowser, MediaWiki:Numauthors, MediaWiki:Numedits, MediaWiki:Newarticletext, MediaWiki:Trackbackbox, MediaWiki:Unusedcategoriestext. I think that's it. Not sure if they're all used though. Alphax (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to have main-namespace pages be "galleries" - I can't think of any non-gallery roles for such pages. Even a page of sound files could still be reasonably called a "gallery". Can main-namespace and commons: pages be named differently? If not, then "article" is better - would be very confusing to have pages like this one be called galleries. Stan Shebs 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This page seems to be a "project page". Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In the few places where it has been changed in the interface, the term "content page" is used. Alphax (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppport this - rename "article" to "gallery", but keep "page" for all non-ns0 pages.
James F. (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Progress:

Alphax (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think many people care what the tabs call these pages so long as people are free to make non galleries in NS:0.
  • If however there is more to it than naming and this would form the basis of excluding pages that are un gallery like, then it shall have to be submitted to the community for a consideration. Sure- many people know of only one way to build navigation pages to multimedia databases- and that is by sprinkling a bunch of thumbnails on a page. They are welcome to their viewpoint and having lots of good galleries is great. But there are also other ways to navigate multimedia and if folks can't use NS:0 for non galleries, I'd like to hear what Namespace they are permitted to use. If no other Namespace, I'd like to hear a good reason for shackling everyone else to such a limitted set of options for navigational pages. -Mak 22:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revealing my personal identity on serbian wiki

I was administrator on serbian wiki until two days ago. They banned me for good for something was smaller personal attack then personal attacks on me. And now two beaurocrats had revealed my personal identity. I asked community to punish such activity, but they had not even deleted my name. [[3]], [[4]]

Please take actions against perpertrators sr:Корисник:Славен Косановић [[5]] and sr:Корисник:Dungodung [[6]]. Help since community does not want to take any action. I am user sr:Корисник:Verlor [[7]] on serbian vikipedia. --212.200.201.82 23:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know what the policies on the Serbian wiki are, but if this is verified as having occurred as described above, en.wikipedia's policy takes a pretty strong stance against this. See that policy. That a bureaucrat would do such is quite upsetting. Somebody external to this situation needs to have a look. I only wish I spoke the language. --Durin-en 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG

This one is a hideous mess... If it was nominating a half-dozen images or so fair enough. However, its exploded into a vast one proposing the deletion of SEVERAL categories. It starts with a few Tolkien maps which could well be debatable but it has expanded to cover Category:Harry Potter for example. This should be started again in two places. The first is on Commons talk:Derivative works to determine what is allowable - COM:DEL is not the place to determine that. Secondly, individual images should be listed for deletion. If a category is listed it should never be mixed with another category. This is without comment on the content of this media from me, just a report on the hideous procedural breach.--Nilfanion 23:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I think the only way to solve this problem is to first settle the question of whether or not fanart is generally a violation of copyright, define at least some rough limits on what's allowed and what's not and at that point we can revisit the deletion question. In defence of those who started this, from what I remember of the first version (before the introduction of individual templates, so going back all the way is a real pain) the proposal was a lot tidier than the monster it became. I think the procedural breach sort of crept up on everyone, until Nilfanion finally called it by its real name. Cnyborg 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed; the deletion request was the correct way. Now after the pictures were two months in discussion, you go ahead to find six keep voters and then immediately close the request yourself? This is ridiculous. They clearly break both the derivative work policy (there is no question of whether it is allowable or not, fan art derived form a work is inherently a copyright violation and is as such strongly forbidden on commons) and the project scope policy ("Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose"). I request the manipulation of the voting and breach of procedural breach be undone. I checked all pictures and listed those which are okay. I can define which fan art is okay: Fan art is okay exactly if it does not derive from a protected work; i.e. if it is merely copying a genre or style. Also this stuff is heavily violating encyclopedic integrity by spoiling the wikipedia articles with unacceptable, blatantly amateurish, non-authorized trash (not the maps, but the artistic stuff), even if it may be well-intentioned. --Rtc 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with closing it for procedural reasons: it requires more discussion than a COM:DEL subpage. The correct place is Commons talk:Derivative works. Alphax (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there are more arguments to be discussed. If it should be extended to COM:DW, we should be clear about the target which has to provide a basis for a final decision. Maybe it would make sense if we discourage upload of Fan-Art until then.--Wiggum 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
My closing as a keep was independent of the pile-on at the end. One problem with how the request evolved is it turned a discussion on a few images to a discussion on hundreds of files. One consequence of that is it is not clear what people are voting for, as far as I can tell the final form of the request is "Images Rtc thinks are bad" which is not the same as consensus. What is fairly clear to me is that there is no agreement on if the current form of COM:DW states on fan-art. Therefore it should be discussed there. After all, suppose someone else wants to upload fan art in future, what is better: To point them at COM:DW and say its wrong, but if you disagree with it you can discuss it there or point them at some obscure prior request (this one) and not give a real explanation of where to discuss? I note the project scope has been mentioned above, that is pertinent to a wider policy on fan-art but did not feature at all in the deletion discussion, which was purely about copyright.--Nilfanion 11:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The fanart is quite on the border. Why should a drawing -released by its author- of a boy with a lightning-shaped scar holding a wand must be considered as a copyvio of Harry Potter? Platonides 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We should have a specific policy on Fanart. This falls under the category, "Probably not free but pigs will fly before anyone would ever sue us over it." I'm amused at the thought that we'd more likely keep a slash art picture of Harry Potter having sex with Ron Weasley because it's a parody and therefore completely free, than an ordinary fanart picture of Harry Potter. The point is, that the latter picture would get no complaints whatsoever from the owners of the trademark, whereas the former would. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 11:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Usually Fanart is tolerated as long as it's non-commercial. That's comprehensive since it strengthens the linkage of the fans to the product and could therefore be a valueable investment. Anyhow, it is not copyright-free and therefore out of commons policies.--Wiggum 12:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This page

Almost all of the above could have been listed on the Disputes page or the Attention page. If active admins would move stuff into subpages and other individuals try to be aware, these pages could remain significantly less cluttered. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming an image

I have a "Move" button on this page, but I don't have it for Image:Meyers b5 s0380b.jpg. Why is that? The images Image:Meyers b5 s0380a.jpg and Image:Meyers b5 s0380b.jpg have mixed up names. Each should have the name of the other. (See [8]). --HAH 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've swapped them. Valentinian (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Username policy

I am w:User:Fys and have the username Fys on several other Wikimedia projects. I wanted to create an account here but the username was refused as being too similar to User:Fuss - which I don't believe is true. Is there a way to over-ride and allow me to create User:Fys here? 80.177.212.6 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Create yourself under an ambiguous name and then go to Commons:Changing username to request a username change request. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, will do. 80.177.212.6 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do with images of people who have not given their consent -- or where we don't have any evidence that they have given their consent?

This is related to en:Childhood obesity. They are using a blurred picture of an overweight girl. Originally it was not blurred, but because of arguments at en:Talk:Childhood obesity it was decided to blur it. The unblurred image is still here on Commons as Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG. I nominated if for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG but it appears that not everyone agrees with me. It would be nice to get some input on whether we should allow these kind of images on Commons.

Fred Chess 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just thought about this myself. I couldn't find guidelines here on Commons but a photographer named Dan Heller has info on the so-called model releases (and plenty of other stuff), which touch on this subject. We need some guidelines. I'm guessing there are a lot of photos here that are unclear in this regard. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Model releases, that's a whole world of pain we haven't even touched yet... and once we do, man, expect the knives to be out. It won't be pretty, I can tell you know.
For this image - and images which are depicting something you wouldn't necessarily like to be associated with (I mean it's not called Blonde girl.jpg or Girl eating icecream.jpg or even American teenage girl.jpg or anything neutral -- no, straight up there with childhood obesity!), I don't see what harm it does for us to be cautious. Imagine stumbling across this image of yourself, which you had no idea about before. How mortifying, if nothing else (like defamatory... ascribing a societal and generational trend one particular girl's face is pretty crazy unfair). People are saying we shouldn't "censor" this photo. But how is her face even relevant? Aside from some chubby cheeks. :) Now, can we protect her identity, and still get the informational point across? Yes. So why not do that?? This isn't a leaked Pentagon document, folks. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Pentagon is leaking documents? O_o --Cat out 15:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This reminds me of the mess we dealt with user-created NSFW images on EN a few months ago. I would say that if there is a way we can contact the model themselves, we should. If not, then have to contact the photographer and treat it like another permission letter (which we could reference by using an ORTS letter). I do agree that this is one area of the Commons we have not looked at yet, but for great justice, we should. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to assume good faith but I think we have a good reason to ask for something more than just an assertion that consent was given. Especially with minors. In the US, non public figures have an implied right of privacy, photos can be taken, but not published without consent. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Tell me more about this "implied right of privacy". Does the model also have to agree to the license that the photographer puts on the image? What constitutes a "model"? Would I have to get permission from all the people in Image:MIT 2006 Standard Prechamp Final.jpg? What about the guy facing the camera, middle-left, dancing with the lady in the purple dress? Do I need his permission? Also, what's the definition of a "non-public figure"? This could get really complicated, really fast. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
IANAL but there is a good link to all this farther up... Summarizing, and with that note, as I understand it, the line is around whether you can make out identifying features (crowd shots don't seem to count), and whether the person is sufficiently famous already (the papparazi defense) that their privacy has already been waived. I don't the license placed is as relevant but I'm not sure. Erring on the side of caution is a good thing I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-neutral would be calling it Fat kid stuffing her ugly face.jpg or Fat girl eating icecream.jpg... the pixellated version hides the fact that her mouth is open, she missed her mouth, and she has a rather vacant expression. Alphax (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting.. I also consider this image (pre and post ugly mangling) to be fairly non-NPOV. In both cases by showing her eating and in a McDonalds it manages to be both emotionally and politically loaded. .. And of course it is unacceptable to show such an embarrassing image of a non-public person without their consent. It's not like it's amazingly unlikely that her or her family will see the image, .. once the article on childhood obesity increases in quality it's not unlikely that it will become the #1 google hit for the subject.
I think it would be useful to discuss what picture I'd rather us have... I'd rather have an image of a obviously overweight child on a column balance scale (of the sort often found in doctors offices), with a plain (white?) background, the child facing away from the camera, with the scale set at the 'normal weight' for the kid's age and the balance thrown off. The idea would be to give an air of clinilcality,.. to say "this is an issue of medical health" and avoid ridiculing the child. Sure, we don't have such a picture yet. But it isn't like it would be impossible to create one.
It was quite a shot that Rklawton managed here... It takes some serious balls to take embarrassing pictures of someone elses child, especially with a large SLR. But I can't applaud the disregard he's shown for possible harm to the subject. --Gmaxwell 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As per Lar's recommendation on the image's IfD page, we should consult a lawyer before making any bald statements about legality. I recommend finding an attorney who specializes in copyrights or privacy issues. On the image's IfD page, I provided the full citation for a book written by just such an attorney, and the short of it is that the image is perfectly legal as used. Lar has been so informed but chooses to repeat his argument here - and does so without benefit of reference supporting his opinion.

Moving forward, I agree with the comments above that this image opens up a can of worms. However, many or most images of identifiable people here in Commons could in theory be used in ways by others that a court would find unconscionable even with an "any use" model release. Therefore, this discussion here and now is well worth our time.

I also agree with the suggestion above describing a replacement image. The great thing about wikis is the continuous improvement we see every day. Be advised, an image taken in a public place can be used editorially (as in the present case). An image shot in a doctor's office – or even in a doctor's waiting room – has been considered by the courts to be private, and that's an entirely different matter.

Alternatively, I've been considering shooting an image of an obese child wearing a leotard, tights, and ballet shoes to use in the "Childhood obesity" article. This approach was recommended by another editor who thought we might try casting obese people in a more positive light. While it's true that obese people may participate in healthy activities, these activities aren't generally considered contributing factors, and the topic in this instance is childhood obesity, its causes, and its effects. Ballet, of course, isn't a cause, and I think such an image would mislead readers. The image under IfD consideration illustrates several ideas: an obese child, the effect of fast food advertising, and junk food. It seems quite appropriate for the article. Its use editorially is legal, but like many other images of people here in Commons (with or without "releases"), it could be used in such a way by others outside the editorial context that might cause the model to seek legal remedy. Rklawton 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to think you're just running a breaching here... but the key points here are twofold. 1) where policy is more restrictive than law, policy holds. Policy here is clear. 2) an attorney has been consulted. If that attorney chooses to speak, it will be with the force of the WMF, that will be that, and all your comments will be completely moot. Won't be his opinion, it will be what the WMF wants. End of story. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be so easy to take an image of a person from behind or from the side with hair covering his/her face, or something like that, which would protect the identity. I don't see for what benefit the face needs to be shown? ( As you know, I already wrote these concerns at the image talk page. )
This is how newspaper do it when they add pictures to illustrate obese people. Rklawton, don't you think there's a reason they do that?
Fred Chess 08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's an excellent question, and it may explain why some people think publishing a private citizen's photograph taken in a public place for editorial purposes simply isn't legal. Here's the background: newspapers, over the years, have run many unflattering or embarrassing photographs. An innocent private citizen escaping a hostage situation wearing only a dish-towel, etc. comes to mind, and in such cases, the press prevails in court. Embarrassment simply isn't grounds for winning such a suit. When the press chooses not to show someone's face, it's a matter of self-censorship. The press often avoids topics readers or advertisers may find offensive. After all, they are a business, and their aim is to make a profit. Wikipedia, on the other hand, concerns itself not with profit (or entertainment) but with education. And in the realm of education, censorship is simply antithetical. Rklawton 05:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A person coming out of a hostage situation is in a position where that is the only possible image that could be used to illustrate it; a replacement will not do. Not so for this child, who is sadly one of untold thousands of obese children. And the projects themselves are educational, yes. But when you place a photo under a license acceptable to Commons, you're saying that it may be used for any purpose, some of which may not be so wholesome and clinical as an informational article. I wouldn't find every picture of an obese child offensive, and would like to see a suitable one; I am not opposed to having a depiction of an obese child. What I am opposed to is exposing one particular person (who is a child, and thus not responsible for her own condition, but who will be the one to suffer whatever harm may occur) to potential damage, without asking consent. To repeat: I do not find the topic offensive. My concern is not with protecting the readers from offense, it is protecting the subject from harm. Mindspillage 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not publication of this image might harm this individual is a matter of your own point of view. Indeed, it may indicate a personal bias against obese people. One editor has argued in w:Talk:Childhood obesity article that the model in question is simply beautiful just the way she is. At any rate, promoting censorship for POV reasons isn't really a good idea. Your other point is interesting, but we've already discussed the "any use" issue - and the risks Commons might take in promoting it. And I think we've discussed the difference between copyright and model releases. As an image's creator, can give up all or part of my copyrights, but a publisher wishing to use any image would be foolish not to acquire a model release that's specific to the intended use (see the Krages reference cited in the image's IfD page). For a current example, observe all the lawsuits the movie "Borat" has spawned. Private citizens featured in this "mockumentary" apparently also signed "any use" releases, but I suspect some will prevail because of the unconscionable and commercial use to which the producers put this work. Rklawton 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Indeed, it may indicate a personal bias against obese people." Please. Perhaps it's simply that I'm young enough to remember being teased for being awkward and funny-looking; at her age I sure wouldn't want the most unflattering picture of me possible spotlighted in an article. I refuse to believe that a photo of a child with food on her face at McDonald's entitled "childhood obesity" is intended to depict her as beautiful, and it sure won't be interpreted that way. My opinions about obesity are not material. My knowledge of how other people treat obese children is.
What is the POV that you claim I'm pushing, anyhow? If this exact same image were up, and it were of someone who is an adult now (and thus not recognizable), or of someone who knew and agreed to its unlimited redistribution, I would not have a problem with it. It is not the image; it is the ethical principle. The people in "Borat" are again not related to my point; they did sign contracts and I have little sympathy for a rational adult who agrees to be filmed for "any use" and doesn't mean it. I do have sympathy for someone going about her everyday business who does not explicitly consent to attention, and I don't believe simply leaving your house implies it; it's very difficult to live a life without appearing in public where you're fair game for photographers whether you like it or not. Mindspillage 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are all interesting opinions, but can you support them with cited facts? Verifiable facts are the Wiki way around matters of opinion. For one thing, the law certainly doesn't agree with your opinion about what you call "fair game." Here are a few questions I asked myself before using this image: first, "is this legal" (yes), second, "will this model and others like her benefit from its publication?" (in my opinion, yes); third, "does this image help illustrate an otherwise unillustrated article" (again, yes). Some folks may disagree about this latter point, and that's OK. I fully support replacing the image with something better, and I've already demonstrated flexibility when the image was replaced with a pixilated version that I didn't think was as nice. It remains my hope that I or someone else finds an image even more suitable. That's the Wiki way. Rklawton 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How exactly do you see that this model and others like her will benefit from the publication of this image? —Angr 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
As the person hasn't given her consent, it's probably in some way that we understand her best better than she does. -Samulili 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We had a related discussion here about pictures of people in states of nudity or at least so scantily clad that they wouldn't want pictures to be released under a free license or displayed without their permission e.g. people in the Category:Bikini which ended with User:Arnomane stating that:
"In Wikimedia Commons we have up to now the general rule that photos of non-famous persons are only allowed if they gave their consent (uploader needs to be credible it is suprisingly easy detecting liars) or if the photo was taken during an event that made the person famous or if the person displayed is part of a crowd and/or not clearly visible.".
But we then have the problem how to obtain proof that the person in the photo gave permission. Arniep 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about abuse of adminship by Cool Cat

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat --Cat out 14:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable use of admin powers by Cool Cat

In 2005 Cool Cat uploaded three photos he/she claims are works by an employee of the federal government in Washington. Cool Cat never provided any sources to verify that claim and the three photos were deleted by User:Fred Chess in September.

On November 7, Cool Cat used the new sysop powers to undelete the three photos without including any new information. I have suggested Cool Cat to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. That was one week ago but no such request has been filed. I consider it very problematic for a sysop to undelete own photos that were peviously deleted in due process. Thuresson 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Image:Keban dam-GAP.jpg
  • Image:Karkamis dam-GAP.jpg
  • Image:Karakaya dam-GAP.jpg
    Images are linked to a USDA site. Direct link and general link is available in image description pages. Images were undeleted before by User:Raymond de (see: logs) but the speedy deletion notice (about sources) was not removed and was redeleted as a result. Forgetting to remove the "no source" tag after providing sources was my mistake and I am merely correcting it with my action. The sources are there and images should not have been deleted for a second time had I not forgotten to remove the notice. I do not see anything questionable with it. --Cat out 11:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The 'questionable action' is in resolving a dispute (of a kind) with you, as a user, that you would not be able to do were you not an admin. Using your admin capabilities on any personal issue is questionable in the extreme. I would have thought that went without saying, but apparently not. The actual specifics of the debate are completely irrelevant -- it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. The right thing to do is ask a neutral third admin to look at the case, or sa Thuresson said, go through Undeletion requests as any other user must do. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I did that. There was a previous discussion about it and images were undeleted as a result. I wasnt even an admin back then. --Cat out 12:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The point stands that you should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. There are enough admins that you could easily ask another one to look. Don't give your detractors ammunition. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur that this is a borderline incedent. I can find the temptation to redo another admin's action in the event of a mistake, i.e. the secondary deletion of these images, somewhat difficult to resist. However, it the fact is that if we are able to get another admin to do it for us the first time, it should be easy to do it the second time. I'd like to add that this event constitutes an error in judgement, and should not be called "abuse". Care should be taken with accusations. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Uploader has never provided any sources that can verify that the photos were taken by an employee of the federal government. These should be added as quickly as possible. Thuresson 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG

I have deleted both versions (piexlated and unpixelated) as per the deletion debate. Fred Chess has restored the pixelated version requiring further discussion. I am not certain what is there to discuss but here it is. --Cat out 11:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For quite some time, the English Wikipedia used a pixelated version of the image which wasn't uploaded on Commons. See [9]. I deleted that image though, and instead uploaded the pixelated version on Commons. If they want to use the image, then I don't see why it falls outside of Commons Project scope? / Fred Chess 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The pixelated version prevents the viewer from seeing her distinct features on her face that would define her as obese. Hence the image looses its point and hence falls outside of commons project scope. Of course the image can be used on articles about pixelation and censoring... the name of the image is perhaps still problematic even for those.
I really feel having no image is far better than having a pixelated/censored version.
--Cat out 12:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Obesity is not defined by facial features. The distinction between overweight and obesity is a very fine one, and borderline cases can't be identified by simply looking at someone anyway. The pixelated version is sufficient to show us the girl is overweight and possibly obese; the nonpixelated version tells us no more. —Angr 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:...malluco...

FYI, this user's contributions are either copyvios or useless cartoon gifs. I've been able to find sources for some of them, but others are so strangely named (i.e. Image:Hdhh.jpg) that they are unsearchable. All of his/her uploads are tagged with {{PD-self}}, and none I've seen so far have any descriptors. --Fang Aili 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't think several dozen alert messages left over a period of 3+ months is enough time? Just curious.. --Fang Aili 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your concerns, Fang Aili. I also noticed you located the true source of many of his uploads; I have deleted many of those images now. I raised the same question at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#user:...malluco..._again_.28Spanish_or_Portugese.29 and any further comments should be made there. / Fred Chess 17:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fang, I'm not defending him or question your judgement, just noting to you that he is quite young and thus might not be able to understand things as adults do. All the best, muriel@pt 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

??

I just discover this: Image:Ustezko tortura (ETA).jpg. I'm not sure if it has any use, you'll know better. muriel@pt 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please delete an image

I'm an administrator on wikipedia. An account has been created on Commons called 'Chayama'. There is a veteran and well-respected user on wikipedia called Chayama, and I think the Commons account has been created by a vandal in order to pretend to be the wikipedia Chayama. Anyway, this Commons user has uploaded an image - [Image:Illus_wp_2006-10-12_cc-by-sa.gif], and attempted to link it into the Anal sex article on wikipedia. The image is an obvious attack on the hosts of Mythbusters, a popular TV show.

I therefore request that a commons administrator delete the image and either warn or block the (Commons) Chayama account. - Richardcavell 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this is an imposter? The enwiki account added the image: [10]. I don't see any reason to conclude the operators of the accounts are different people. I agree the image is in poor taste, but without more evidence I don't see cause to speedy it. If indeed it's his work, I'd rather encourage him to contribute more useful illustrations... ;) --Gmaxwell 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The illustration is a caricature of two celebrities engaging in anal sex. That's not speediable? - Richardcavell 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No, see COM:DG#Speedy deletion for the speedy deletion guidelines. Gmaxwell has listed it on COM:DEL here, if you'd like to comment. --Rory096 06:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Brazilian flags and coats of arms

Hi, if someone find a image tagged with {{PD-BrazilGov}} but with no sources, please be patiente with this. See Template:Undeletion requests#Image:Bj brasao.jpg and Image:Bras Olindina.jpg (and if you understand Portuguese language, my talk page). IANAL and I'm trying to get help from anothers users from Portuguese Wikipedia. Lugusto • ҉ 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New system messages

Automatic edit summaries are now fully functional (or at least I'm now aware of them); read all about it at w:Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries. The relevant system messages are:

Please modify and translate as needed! The convention on enwiki (which I think is a good idea) is to use a left arrow, ← at the start of each of these, to distinguish them from a "section heading" right arrow which goes into normal edit summaries. Thanks, Alphax (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Autosumm-new has been added, but it doesn't appear to be live yet. The full documentation is at m:Help:Edit_summary#Automatic_summaries. Alphax (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I had assumed these messages just got written (kind of substed) into the summary. Are there really other messages shown in the history if you view the page with uselang=xx? --Matt314 08:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't appear to be translated, and yes, they appear to be being subst:ed. Alphax (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And after some testing by Raymond, it appears that the project language is always used. Huh. No need to translate them then... Alphax (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben Heine

Hello, I was contacted by the administrator called "DODO" They wrote me this :


"Hi. I see you are uploading lots of images made by Ben Heine, from various sources.

You are describing them as "own work". Are you Ben Heine? If yes, how can we check that? Many of those sources are copyrighted. If Ben Heine sold theirs works to them, then the copyright owners will have something to say about this. Please take a look at Commons:Licensing and take a moment to fix the description of all the images you have uploaded. Thanks in advance. Regards. --Dodo 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)"


My answer : Yes, I'm Ben Heine I'm a cartoonist, caricaturist and painter (See the page on Wiki). It's the first time I'm creating pages on Wikipedia. All the images are my creations, except my portrait by Marcin Bondarowicz, but he gave me his permission to use the portrait with the chosen copyright.(He can be reached atbondarowicz@wp.pl). Is it possible to change the description of the image without having to reload them. Dodo wanted to verify my identity. Please, can an administrator contact me at heinebenjamin@hotmail.com so I could prove that I'm Ben Heine.

Thanks in advance.

Ben Heine (www.benheine.com , www.benjaminheine.blogspot.com) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 87.244.138.73 (talk • contribs)

What is your normal Commons username? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Bryan

Hi Bryan, thank you for answering. My username is : --Guy1002 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Guy1002.


Change User name

Hello, I have asked this to several administrators, but they could not answer me... I would like to change my User name from -"Guy1002" --Guy1002 (--Ben heine 18:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC) to "Ben heine". can one of you help me? Warm thanks!

Left on your talk page: See Commons:Changing username Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 19:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage of galleries over categories

I have noticed this problem before with User:BLueFiSH of the deletion of extant categories in preference for galleries, especially images concerning Berlin and Germany. I had a similar discussion about this topic again with User:Borheinsieg, who at least is trying to seek a solution. The user pointed out multiple cases to me where sysops have been deleting categories, after all images from that category have been moved to a gallery [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. IMO this is in violation of existing Commons:Categories maintenance scheme. I believe that both systems galleries and categories co-exist, and categories should not be deleted unless they are utter non-sense or have a typo in their name, or have been replaced with other categories. I have not been able to find a guideline that would suggest otherwise. Before there is an unnecessary conflict over "categories" vs. "galleries" I would like to hear the opinions of other sysops. Do galleries have a preference over categories, are they allowed to be deleted? thank you. Gryffindor 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Galleries should be leaves (end nodes) in category navigation trees. Ideally, categories are used for navigation, and no images will appear in any of them. This makes category navigation cleaner and provides users with greater amounts of image detail. Rklawton 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the biggest and longest-lasting dispute on commons, and there is no consensus about the right way to go. Sometimes a specific area will have a consensus for a while, then it breaks down when there's someone new who doesn't want to go along. The interim compromise that has been enabling us to function at all is to allow both galleries and categories, not try to force one or the other. As you observe, some people have been trying anyway. Stan Shebs 06:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, users should not be removing items from categories to remove the categories wholesale. Like Stan Shebs says, we have no consensus about this, and galleries are to exist alongside categories. We're not losing anything with the redundancy. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your comments about category removal, unless, of course, the editor is placing the image in the equivalent gallery or galleries. What is lost by co-existance is simplicity in navigation. Rklawton 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_2&oldid=48326295"