Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

English: This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention.

Deutsch: Dies ist eine Seite auf der Benutzer und Administratoren, oder Administratoren untereinander kommunizieren können. Du kannst hier Vandalismus, schwierige Benutzer oder andere Sachen, die den Eingriff eines Administrators benötigen, anzeigen.

Ελληνικά: Αυτή είναι μια σελίδα στην οποία οι χρήστες μπορούν να επικοινωνήσουν με διαχειριστές, ή οι διαχειριστές με κάποιον άλλο. Μπορείτε να αναφέρετε βανδαλισμούς, χρήστες που προκαλούν προβλήματα, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο χρειάζεται την παρέμβαση ενός διαχειριστή.

Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o indicar cualquier otro asunto que requiera la intervención de un administrador.

Français : Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones.

日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。

Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora.

Italiano: Questa è la pagina dove gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o gli amministratori fra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore.

Română: Această pagină este destinată comunicării dintre utilizatori şi administratori sau între administratori. Aici poţi semnala cazuri de vandalism, utilizatori cu comportament problematic, precum şi alte situaţii care necesită intervenţia unui administrator.

Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatr casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador.

Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota.

Nederlands: Op deze plaats kunnen gebruikers communiceren met de beheerders, of de beheerders met elkaar. U kunt hier vandalen, of probleemgebruikers melden, of andere dingen die de aandacht van een beheerder nodig hebben.

Српски / srpski: Ово је место где корисници могу да комуницирају са администраторима, или администратори са другима. Овде можете пријавити вандализам, проблематичне кориснике, или било шта друго што тражи интервенцију администратора.

中文（简体）：这里是用户与管理员或管理员彼此间的联络地方。您可以在此回报破坏、有问题的用户，或其他需要管理员介入处理的事情。

中文（繁體）：這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員彼此間的聯絡地方。您可以在此回報破壞、有問題的用戶，或其他需要管理員介入處理的事情。

Protection of my user page

Dear all, I would like to get my user page and my talk page protected from editing. User:Marbot and User talk:Marbot. Thank you in advance --Marbot 08:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err - why? There has been no vandalism or anything? Equally protecting the talk page would be highly unusual given that IPs frequently have reasons to edit them. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot assure to take notice of messages on my talk page here. Therefore I have strongly advised to use my talk page on dewiki. If protected it would be more obvious that I do not discuss matters here at commons. Best regards --Marbot 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone will do that. It would be very inconsiderate to force hard working Commons users to go to various other wikis to place messages. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Herby. Please enable e-mail notifications in your preferences instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set you talk page code to #REDIRECT [[w:de:User talk:Marbot]] if you must, but yeah, the email setting is preferred. No protection. giggy _(:O) 10:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, I think giggy's suggestion is a good compromise. :-) Thanks anyway. --Marbot 11:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS check

User:Pypaertv is uploading a number of screenshots from what appears to be a computer game featuring the characters from the TV series Lost under an {{Attribution}} license, citing Pypaertv as the author required to be attributed and referring to otrs:20051200210003144 for the permission. Could someone with OTRS access verify that Pypaertv is an authorised representative of the copyright holder to the Lost TV series and this computer game? (Also, where's the best place to ask for OTRS verifications in case of suspected copyvios?) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The email is about de:Lock On; nothing about LOST. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More particularly, it is copied from {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bry. I've deleted the images. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New User / Used username - User:Kore

I would like to create a commons account with the same name as in the german wikipedia de:User:kore, to continue contributing images, now in commons. This is not allowed because of the existing user User:Koré (no contributions of any kind), with the note to contact an administrator for this. --85.182.37.0 11:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an email address (I'm g1ggyman@gmail.com) giggy _(:O) 11:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. giggy _(:O) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User rename logging - Bugzilla request filed

Please take a look at bugzilla:13912, which maybe of interest to bureaucrats here. The change requested is a small one, but probably of interest anyway. Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 11:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Ignorewarning

One should delete MediaWiki:Ignorewarning or at least make it a lot shorter. See Bugzilla:13928 for the reasoning. Huji 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that is silly (and now deleted). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was yucky...! giggy _(:O) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you might have already noticed, there is a chance that a more proper place for such warnings would be added inside MediaWiki. Huji 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New account - User .:Alex:.

I wish to create a new account, called ".:Alex:.", as I have an account with the same name on Wikipedia. It won't let me create it because it says it's is too similar to User:-Alex-, who does not have a user page and has no contributions from what I can see ~~(email is given in hidden comment below, seen when editing page/section, to avoid EVERYBODY from seeing it)~~ Email removed now that account is created. 86.31.249.35 08:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done EugeneZelenko 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaytrax

User:Kaytrax•Special:Contributions/Kaytrax is new to Commons according to his contribs. He blanked the file information from Image:Zeta Jones.jpg and substituted it with an improper spamlink to an image he uploaded. This has been reverted.

I'm concerned that the image he uploaded yesterday - Image:Catherine Zeta-Jones47.jpg - which he's licensed as {{Free screenshot}} may be a copyvio and spurious license, as it certainly appears to be a professionally posed studio shot. Please advise about what to do with this. I suspect we need to keep a close eye on this user too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing is not my thing but this - "© by Kaytrax" - does not fill me with hope! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that starting with the user's talk page might be the right place. I don't see anything there other than a Siebot welcome. Was there a reason you brought this here first that I'm not aware of? The user may not even be aware that there is an issue. We have templatised messages that you can use if you're not sure of the user's language. Adding a personal note is helpful and friendly. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've brought both of the image issues to the user's attention. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because I wasn't sure how to approach the matter. Thanks for the pointer. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has not responded to Talk page query. I've tagged the image as copyvio accordingly. JGHowes ^talk - 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion backlog

This is just a friendly prod. The deletion backlog at Commons:Deletion_requests/Older_Discussions has open deletion requests going back 7 months, and it would be nice if some people would donate some time to working on it. Dragons flight 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, at least, am trying to. Most of those discussions are at this point no consensus, and we ordinarily don't close requests with no consensus. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 22:40, 04 May 2008 (GMT)

No consensus = default to keep, right? giggy _(:O) 03:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The hard part is, when it comes to license issues, they're not really decided on consensus anyway (well, maybe consensus over what the law/license/policy in question really says). The reason the default is keep is because it's better to err on that side than to delete someone work that may have consensus to be kept. Plus 2nd time deletion requests are preferable to undeletion requests. Yet, the thing with copyright issues is it's better to err on the side of caution—better safe than sorry, that kind of thing. I'm tempted (again) to close some these really old DRs as "Kept. No consensus." merely because there's little hope they will be resolved. People can always renominate things, anyway. However, it would be nice to hear others' opinions on this matter first. Rocket000 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10 is nearly done. 2 remain; 1 I had already voted in, the other I had no idea what to do with. giggy _(:O) 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed one. I have no idea what to do with the other one (Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_Arthur_Rackham) either! I'd lean toward keep based on the US publication but I am no expert. Maybe ask Mike Godwin for his opinion? ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Godwin sounds like a good idea for the other; go for it. giggy _(:O) 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it now is closed. I'm fine with that outcome. (Keep unless someone complains, to avoid the work of moving to en:wp and then moving back in 21 months) Thanks MichaelMaggs !!! ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, shouldn't the old closed ones be auto-archiving? That's not happening. --MichaelMaggs 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only requests with a standard header (== [[Image:Xyz.jpg]] ==) and related forms will be archived. Requests that concern for example multiple files should be archived manually. If there are some particular periods which are persistently not archived, be sure to message me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fz22

I've been noticed about upload war on Image:Polska 992 - 1025.png with this user, forcing his POV on map, which has been consulted with some historians on pl.wiki and represent current state of knowledge (as I was informed). I have skimmed through this user's contrib and I've noticed that he made significant changes to some maps, COA's (compare Image:Austria-Hungary-flag-1869-1918-naval-1786-1869-war.gif‎ and its SVG version). I'm not a historian so I won't argue who's right, but it's a bit fishy, so maybe someone with better knowledge will check it, or notify some experts. --Leafnode 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted user to discussion. Was going to protect the image but you have already, nice work. Will reserve further judgement until Fz22 comments. giggy _(:O) 10:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Kazim

In the late 1800s there was a book published which contained an image which the author identified with the en:Báb. All the newer sources including Balyuzi, H.M. (1973) The Báb: The Herald of the Day of Days, Oxford, UK: George Ronald, pp. p. 16 ISBN 0853980489 which reproduces this image and states "Hájí Siyyid Kázim-i-Rashtí - This photograph was mistakenly identified as one of the Báb by Nicolas in his book "Seyyed Ali Mohammed dit le Báb"." state that the original book was wrong, and it is actually a picture of en:Sayyid Kazim. In Iran where Baha'is are persecuted, the image is used incorrectly, and now there are some Persian Wikipedia editors who are trying to change the name of the image to serve their purposes. The images in question on Commons are Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg and Image:Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab.jpg. I was wondering if the image name can be protected. Regards -- Jeff3000 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg now redirects to Image:Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab.jpg. Either name can be used. Rocket000 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the correct person the image represents is Sayyid Kazim, and not the Bab. Notice they are quite different people. The Persian Wikipedia editors are using the name of the image to push their POV on the Persian Wikipedia, while the reliable sources state the person is Sayyid Kazim, and not Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one book was publish 200 hunderd years ago so how can a person in 1973 tells that image was wrong and writer named wrongly.So as i told you in your talk page find another online reliabe source . And dear common admind please see the main source here. it was scanned from a the originall book and proves that he is bab.and some people intentionally are trying by cutting of some part of image prove their idea.regards--Mardetanha 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book in the 1800s never met the Bab, and could not have made a conclusion. The newer source, which is a more reliable source by all Wikipedia measures, specifically states that the old source was wrong. The author in question has access to actual images of the en:Báb as they are housed in the at the en:Bahá'í World Centre, and one is on display in the International Archives building, where the Bahá'ís view it as part of an organized pilgrimage. As you know online sources are not usually relaible. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but again i say accepting people who was alive in bob's time are wise than accepting people in 1973.--Mardetanha 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the all given link there is no image of bab that we can compare . --Mardetanha 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book in the 1800s never met the Bab, and thus he is no place to state who the picture is of. He could have just made the image up. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any proofs that he never met the bab?--Mardetanha 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He travelled to Iran after the Bab was executed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any proof that he travelled to iran after the bab was excuted?--Mardetanha 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof he didn't have a twin? I think this discussion should be continued on the appropriate talk page. Rocket000 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I guess there's a history here... This isn't Wikipedia, but even so, Wikipedia is based on verifiability and not truth. Both names have sources, hence both names are verified. Either one is fine if you want to play by en.wp's rules. We make no claims of factuality (actually the contrary). The image itself calls him by the name it is now that seems appropriate enough as far as the image name goes. What you tell people on Wikipedia is a different story. Good luck. Rocket000 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not necessarily the image, but also admin actions here. The image was under Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg for a month or so, and then User:Siebrand‎ changes the image with no regard for the facts. There are multiple sources that state the image in Nicolas' book is incorrectly identified. One of them is Balyuzi, H.M. (1973) The Báb: The Herald of the Day of Days, Oxford, UK: George Ronald, pp. p. 16 ISBN 0853980489 and another one is Effendi, Shoghi (1973) Directives from the Guardian, Hawaii Bahá'í Publishing Trust, pp. p. 7 Older sources in multiple cases are wrong, and are not as reliable as newer sources. Take the case of the en:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which "some of its out-of-date content makes its use as a source for modern scholarship problematic" and in many cases can't be used in in Wikipedia. So, while Commons does not have a verifiability policy, the accuracy of the images is important. Most of the verifiable information points to Siyyid Kazim being the better name, so why is the name under Ali Muhammad? I would state that it's because one Commons administrator unilaterly changed, away from the status quo due to one editor from the Persian Wikipedia who is using it to further his POV on that Wikipedia, which makes it thus important to have the correct name here in Commons. BTW, for Mardetanha, Nicolas was born after the the death of the Bab. He was born in 1864, see Sabir Afaqi, Jan; Teofil, Jasion (2004) Tahirih in history: Perspectives On Qurratu'l-'Ayn From East And West, Kalimat Press, pp. p. 280 ISBN 1890688355, while the Bab was killed in 1844. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. it was originally Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg, maybe it should have been left that way. Rocket000 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i told some people intentionally cut some part of image and then uploaded it cuase they know the image it self shows to him it belong.and i think at least for this image it is enught.and more again tell us to chek a book which we don't have access and up this point only one reliabe source must be accepted.Regards--Mardetanha 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would it be possible to name it something both parties can agree to? Remember it's just an image name—there are things much more worthy of our time. Rocket000 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name it anything but "Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab" or parts thereof. It doesn't have to be Sayyid Kazim. I don't want the Persian Wikipedia editors to argue that because the name of the image in Commons is that, that there is passive approval that the image in question is Seyed Ali Mohammad (the Bab). One option is ImageinNicolas.jpg, the author of the book the image originally comes from. Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem jeff but please uplad full image with ImageinNicolas.jpg name !i mean exactly as source. and please inform me--Mardetanha 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no obligation about this image just one my people in fawiki remind about this image.commons is not my work scope!regards--Mardetanha 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As admin User:Siebrand has protected all the pages, another admin would have to change the name of the image to the one agreed above. I would also like to note that User:Siebrand has been completely unresponsive and unilaterally has taken a side with no regards to the facts or the discussion, especially noting that there is a dispute. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my veiwpoint file name ImageinNicolas.jpg may be delusive. because of this, I uploaded basic image (without editing any thing) that is facsimile of source book in clear name: Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif. best regards --Rohan 10:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: note that, first of all, I edited (by Adobe Photoshop CS) and upload image in name Image:Bab.jpg and Image:Báb.jpg and other user uploaded it in bad name Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg. now this image, unjustified, redirect to my image. I upload image of Kazim Rashti from my own image archive soon. NOTE: I not found Jeff claims in that book (in Google library [2]) --Rohan 11:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We chose that name because it didn't mention "Bab" or "Rashti" or whatever. No one challenges that it's from that book, but they argue over who he was. Why would you upload it again with a name you know will cause dispute? Rocket000 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded that because of Nicolas claims that image belongs to "Ali Mohammad Bab". So that neutral name is "Báb Image in Nicolas" --Rohan 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to assume good faith, but even after choosing a neutral name, the Persian editors are trying to skew the discussion. They choose to believe one source from the late 1800s, and fail to even acknowledge a newer source. The newer one is more reliable, and yet even after an agreement to choose a neutral name, they upload images in bad faith. And note the book in [3] was meant to show Mardetanha that Nicolas was born after the Bab died, not the factual information about the image, which is in the hardcover Balyuzi book which I have cited above. Regards -- Jeff3000 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about your tone: "the Persian editors are trying to skew the discussion". You claim some quote about that image and reference where not exist and accuse this --Rohan 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claims some qoute in top of this topc and refered to this book, and that qoute not exist there. so that there are no evidence to show that image not belog "Bab" --Rohan 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my statement. I said that I was using the the book on Google books as a source for Nicolas' birth. The Balyuzi book which is not on Google books states the image is of Sayyid Kazim. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I read your claims in this editing at top of this topic. Be honest and patient --Rohan 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add another point to this discussion. The Persian editors in Question have uploaded another image which has a non-neutral name, Image:Báb's repentance.jpg. The Iranian government claims that this letter was written by the Bab and he repents his claims. Newer sources, such as,

Amanat, Abbas (1989) Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement in Iran, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. p. 390−393 ^[1]
MacEoin, Denis (May 1997). "The Trial of the Bab: Shi'ite Orthodoxy Confronts its Mirror Image". Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies 1. Retrieved on 2008-05-07. ^[2]

state that the government created these letters. The sources state while various government sources indicate that the Báb recanted his claim, there is little non-governmental evidence of their validity. Some theorise that the assertions were made to embarrass the Báb and undermine his credibility with the public.^[1] There exists an unsigned and undated document that was supposedly written shortly after the Báb's trial in Tabriz where the Báb recants his claims to a divine station. But the language of this document is very different from the Báb's usual style; it could have been prepared by the authorities, but the Báb refused to sign it.^[2]^[1] I am asking that this image be renamed to a neutral name such as Image:ApparentRepentanceLetter.jpg. Regards, -- Jeff3000 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral name is: "Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg" and your comments on that page is sufficient --Rohan 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a neutral name, because all the sources state that it is not the Bab's handwriting, and was made up by the Iranian authorities. Read the sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can notice this in image page. but that image is Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book. view of some one could not change image name, book name and it's author --Rohan 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget: here is not WIKIPEDIA --Rohan 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you specifically don't want to abide by what is the verifiable? Doesn't seem very honest to me. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V --Rohan 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:V. Go get the book, hardcover version. It's not online. Not every verifable book is online. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deference from online book and hardcover book? This is very wonderful claim! You make all online books unreliable! --Rohan 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hardcover and the softcover have different ISBNs. They are different books; the softcover has no images at all; the hardcover is filled with images. It still meets veriability; go pick the book up. -- Jeff3000 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are your claims. Please scan that page and proof your worderful assertion --Rohan 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You well know that I can't scan the pages in question and post them on Commons as they are not out of copyright, and would be against Commons' policies. Get the book, it's there. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(repeat) No obligation to upload that here. Just proof (and show to me and others) your claims is exactly right. If this manner continuance, I can claim more wonderful assertions! --Rohan 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Rohan, for quite a while online books were considered less reliable sources than paper books, even in wikipedia and wikimedia discussions. It's not that far of a stretch, even though that's clearly not what Jeff's saying. Additionally, since these images have been used in disputes across the wikimedia set of properties, choosing a neutral name doesn't mean taking the literal name from a source in dispute, because that dispute won't be clear in the article to which the images are linked. Choosing a name that doesn't convey a point of view is preferable, clearly. So "AllegedRecantationOfTheBab.jpg" might be a decent name, since it's alleged but disputed. It is not taken as fact except in the one source, and several other sources contend it. Since there's no viable way to provide "NotRecentation.jpg" since you can't prove a negative, it's not an honest naming style. Similarly with the Siyyid Khazim/Bab picture. One source believes it to be the Bab, several other sources, including source by authors that have seen another picture of the Bab, dispute the identity. An image name creates an impression of information, and so it is important to be clear. So SiyyidKhazim_LabelledBabInNicholas.jpg is icky, but follows the sources themselves. --ChristianEdwardGruber 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for Rohan's case here is the same photo from Balyuzi's book stating exactly as I had said before, that the image is misrepresented in Nicolas's book as being the Bab, and is Siyyid Kazim, instead. Now I don't care to have the image named Siyyid Kazim, but there are sources that claim that image is not of the Bab, a more neutral name is required. Regards -- Jeff3000 01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for attention. I scan new unformated image of Bab from (خاطرات صبحي و تاريخ بابيگري و بهائي گري)

Muhtadi, Fadlullah; Seyyed Hadi Khosroshahi (spring 2007) Memories of SUBHI, and the history of Babism and Bahaism, Tehran: IRDC, pp. p.249 ISBN: 978-964-196-1. ISBN 978-964-196-1

and uploaded here. I edit and upload that image, in addition to Seye kazim rashti's image soon --Rohan 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new images: Image:Seyyed AliMohammad Báb.jpg and Image:Seyyed Kazim Rashti.jpg‎. regards --Rohan 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys. What would be some good names that both sides can agree to—names that won't cause anymore dispute? I'm not interested in who's right. I don't want to see more {{Cite book}}s, WP acronyms, or accusations of POV-pushing. The only source you need on Commons is the image's source. The description page is not there to inform readers about the subject, only the image itself. It's Wikipedia's job to tell readers about the subject, so this dispute shouldn't even be happening here. Now, no one likes non-nonsensical or cryptic names, but in cases like this sometimes it's better not to be as descriptive as you can. Our time can be better spent improving our projects instead of arguing. The images won't become any less useful with names like Image:Nicolas_pg1 or Image:Seyyed. (How can "ImageinNicolas.jpg" be delusive? You agree it's a image, right? And it's in that book?) Again, it's not about being right. Let's work together. Rocket000 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some neutral names for Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif‎/Image:Báb's repentance.jpg can be Image:ImageinNicolas2.gif/Image:ImagefromBrowne.gif respectively. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rocket000 - we need a resolution to this which accommodates all views as far as we can. Commons is a repository for media to be used elsewhere. We need that media to be well licensed & findable - please help us in our aims, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no opinions whatsoever on the subject itself (never even heard about the guy before), I think Jeff's suggestions sound good. I can't see how those would cause anymore trouble. If I'm wrong, please tell me why those wouldn't work. Rocket000 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree with Rocket000: "The only source you need on Commons is the image's source". This can to help us for naming imagas. so that Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif‎ is neutral name (this inform us, nicolas claimed this is Bab's image. Commons is'n where we dispute about is this right or not.), and for Image:Báb's repentance.jpg, Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg is neutral name. But namse such as Image:ImagefromBrowne.gif is delusive. What image from E.G.Browne? and Image:ImageinNicolas2.gif like that. By attention to Rocket000 notes, other information about image from Nicolas, must not interfere naming images --Rohan 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those images from those books are just plain wrong, as documented by newer and more reliable sources, so the names are delusive, and not helpful. Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif‎ does not relay that the image in question in stated to be wrong by all other sources, and Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg does not relay that it the document was not the Bab's repentance, but was manufactured by the Iranian authorities. Neutral names are the ones I recommended, and which Rocket0000 said were perfectly acceptable, and correct. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral names are the ones I recommended" :-) Are you an admin? or a neutral user? "to be wrong by all other sources" Which sources? one source! (that desputed). I note this again: "The only source you need on Commons is the image's source" and "Our time can be better spent improving our projects instead of arguing" • Rohan^T19:12, 10 May 2008

Problem uploading image

Hello,

We have been trying to upload the image Seth Berkley Head (Med Res).jpg in an effort to add to the Seth Berkley Wikipedia entry, however we have been denied permission due to copyright questions. Our organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, has full ownership of this photograph and the copyright belongs to us as well. We would appreciate your assistance in helping us upload this photo.

Many thanks, --IAVI 15:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the flickr account owner is not the copyright holder? Or are you the flickr account owner? In the latter case, change the license on flickr to the same one you gave here. In the former case, send an Email to OTRS, stating that you are the copyright holder. Apart from copyright, there is a problem with the colors of the photograph, most likely this comes from the image being in the CMYK color space. Change it to RGB to have the image displayed properly here. --rimshot^talk 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about coats of arm

If we look at Image:St Lucia coa.gif it is tagged with an odd license, I don't understand really what it means, is this a free image ? If one looks at the official government page they say It may not be used or reproduced in any form without the approval of the Government. If the commons releases it as PD (ie anyone can use reuse it) is that not violating the copyright held by the government of St Lucia ? I see the commons upholds laws on freedom of panorama for example, and the licensing policy says we should abide by the laws of the country of origin. I don't understand how this image can be free. Jackaranga 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is there is no reason given as to why it would not be copyrighted, it was created in 1967 apparently. Jackaranga 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate CoAs (closely followed by flags) - no licensing expert but I think you are right personally --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What tends to confuse people is that the distinction between blazoning (the textual description of the coat of arms, here beginning "Azure two sticks of cut bamboo") and each individual graphical representation thereof. The former is usually not copyrightable, while the latter usually is (exceptions exist both ways).

Here, the Vector-Images.com representation is not identical to the government-provided, presumably copyrighted, representation, but far too similar not to be considered a derivative work. Thus, I think it needs to be deleted, but the good news is that it should be replaceable with an independent artists' interpretation of the blazoning. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the explanation LX, I know much more than I did! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems tries to explain this. Lupo 06:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Heidi.travel

I suspect that this user is uploading fair use promotional material outside the scope and in violation of policy. BrokenSphere 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & agreed. Logos deleted as "out of scope" and user given "out of scope" tag to look at. Worth watching probably - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Commons:Protected toolbar buttons

How does Commons:Protected toolbar buttons work - I understand it was cascade-protected to prevent cross-site vandalism?? Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It includes all the images that are used on the edit toolbar (above the edit window), and is cascade protected, so that the image description pages can not be edited on Commons. giggy _(:O) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparant compromised account

Per Google Talk discussion with Gnangarra (talk · contribs) (yes, I checked that it really was him), I have indef blocked his account with email disabled. This is a heads up for other wikis should his account play up (and also for OTRS). giggy _(:O) 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked; SUL issue resolved. giggy _(:O) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the quick block while working out what went wrong, it appears that SUL stopped functioning earlier today, blanking all passwords. SUL is now functioning again, but again blanked all passwords, oh what fun. Gnan garra 05:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User trying to revoke PD release... 5 to 10 months later.

Highshines (talk · contribs), between about September and December 2007, uploaded quite a lot of images from a book he was working on. Here, he says as much, and freely licences the image, for instance. He is now going through all these images, deleting the licencing, and replacing it with a claim they come from his book, and noone is allowed to use them without his permission.

He is also doing this in a fairly sneaky and underhanded way, blanking the page first, for instance, to hide all the licencing he gave it, and not mentioning that the book was his, so that his release into the public domain is a waiver of any rights he might have gained.

He is also doing this as Special:Contributions/64.59.144.21

I feel sorry for him, but he simply cannot go removing his permission 5 to 10 months after the upload, and cannot do so underhandedly. Adam Cuerden 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the photos look {{PD-old}} to me. He cannot talk about copyright of works that the copyright expired. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, they are, and before he decided to run around doing take-backs, he properly licenced them as such, as well as a number of other licences. Adam Cuerden 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless he's 120 years old he couldn't construe ownership of these images in the first place. There may still be a legitimate question whether some of the images taken at the very end of the empress's life might remain under copyright. She died in 1908, and if I read the licensing page correctly the duration of copyright is life+50 years. Durova 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to take back my contributions, don't I? I want all my uploads to be removed from wikimedia. They are all copyrighted, the copyright holder is the Forbidden City Publishing House. The book "Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum", (Chief editors: Liu Beisi, Xu Qixian) clearly states that "All rights reserved. Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing", "This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission". What I did were illegal reproductions, which is something I recently realized.

By the way, you are quite right, I'm sneaky and underhanded, so don't use my dirty sneaky images! Highshines 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times

I'm having a little problem with White Cat. She seems to have this idea that there should be preemptive full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times. Now that's practically all our templates. She also protects templates that are heavily used on other projects and simply share a name with a template on Commons (for example this redirect with zero links/transclusions was fully protected twice by White Cat simply because the template of the same name is heavily used on fr.wp. Not only that, but the redirect was to a (semi-protected) deprecated template where no new redirects should be going to. I just don't get the rationale behind this. Help would be appreciated. Rocket000 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess to being extremely uneasy about any licence template being unprotected, there's no reason for anybody to ever edit a licence template, and the consequences of a licence template being altered (and this includes a redirect which could be changed to read something legally problematic) must be very seriously considered. Vandalism at Wikipedia is a minor inconvenience which rarely presents legal problems, but vandalism here, especially on a licence template has all manner of legal implications. In the case of the redirect to the public domain template, it's not such a major concern if it's altered or a different licence template was to be placed there, say a GFDL template, because the material is in the public domain already and requiring attribution or a copy of the GFDL licence to be provided isn't exactly problematic, but if someone was to change a GFDL or CC-BY/CC-BY-SA template to a public domain template, end users could easily be fooled into thinking they aren't required to attribute the author or re-distribute their work under a similar free licence, which is problematic for us, the creator and the end user and could have a number of legal implications for the Foundation in particular as we could theoretically be sued by both the creator and the end user, and the creator and end user in general who are both at a risk of a lawsuit.

There's also the credibility issue here, if people change the licence templates here at random, users might be less likely to contribute if they believe their work will not be redistributed under the terms of the licence they select because we will not take steps to protect the site from vandalism and malicious editing, and ultimately, Commons gets a reputation for not respecting intellectual property. Nick 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even have to be done in bad faith. A disclaimer was added to the GFDL template on English wikipedia by a well meaning person. This had unintended legal implications. In order to use an image tagged with {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} you would need to not only provide the GFDL license (per GFDL) itself but also would have to provide the en.wikipedia's General disclaimer (again per GFDL: "The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License ..." and reusers are obliged to "Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers" ). w:Wikipedia:GFDL standardization has more on that. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok so we should start locking down the entire template namespace? We should protect all image description pages too since they contain licenses. We should also protect any other pages where those images are used, so people can't link the image to a page with a different license or where some anon can put "this license is PD" in the caption and cause all kinds of legal trouble. Might as well. The whole wiki "anyone can edit" thing is kinda dead anyway. The silence of others encourage me to give up. Protect away. I'm done. Rocket000 12:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All templates used on image description pages should be protected. For commons thats practicaly every template, yes. Only the templates used during upload are legally binding so adding a caption after the template is uploaded doesn't have legal implications since the copyright holder (owner of the work) did not agreed to it. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Placing the incorrect licence on a page is a problem, I'm not going to deny that, but an enduser can look at the history of the page to see who added the licence, was it the uploader or was it someone else, and I would encourage any enduser to do exactly that, indeed, I would like to see this recommendation added to the permission section of the Image Description template, but with templates, a good conscientious user will not see any problems with the history of the image and will be more likely to assume the licence terms that they see on the page - and we have no way to ask an enduser to check the history to see if the licence is likely to be valid, how many endusers will be likely to check the page source, check the template for tampering and deal with the situation. I understand the frustration over the "wiki anyone can edit" deal, but it's not entirely appropriate for this site - we deal heavily with intellectual property and letting anybody and everybody edit anything and everything isn't sensible. We're doing great work in providing a free content repository that anybody can add to, I kind of think that's probably good enough. Nick 13:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting many templates in this manner is not ok with me. Preemptive protection should be done only for heavily-used project-critical templates. 50 uses is nowhere near that unless it's used on the Main Page, and even then we will have people pining to be "the last wiki to cascade-protect the main page" (or whatever). It is actually not a legal problem, as it is every re-user's responsibility to verify licensing and to comply with it. Sure we should do our best to ensure it's correct, but not at the expense of what makes wikis work - you can edit this page. Granted, most of our license templates are heavily-used project-critical templates; so protect them, sure. But indiscriminate protection like this is not the same thing. I should point out that some of White Cat's protections are fine by me, but here's an example that is patently absurd, IMO:

22:19, May 9, 2008 White Cat (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Template:Span" ‎ (Heavy use template [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

This template is not used. Thanks, but no thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Span}} is used on either MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js. I was told to copy it so that the hide/show thing worked. The template could be indirectly used since the hide/show thing is still lacking a chunk of code to work. I think the relevant line is "var Button = document.createElement( "span" );" on MediaWiki:Common.js. Rather than risking a potential way for malicious code to make it's way to the css/js files in a way I couldn't think, I protected the template. "Heavy use" here is every page on the wiki even if it doesn't show on "whatlinkshere".

When disagreeing with an admin action it is customary to talk to the admin making the action first. When I am involved talking to me is the last thing people think of doing. All people do is give me warnings.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's referring to the HTML tag, not a template. Otherwise I think it would at least be semi protected on en.wp. Rocket000 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. This could have been discussed beforehand before the protection could have been removed. Good or bad admin decisions should not be reversed without a discussion. It is irresponsible to expect every admin decision to have accompanying discussion. We had none of that. No one for a split second thought I could have a rationale and logical reason to protect something, instead people got in long lines to reverse my decisions. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 09:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would take issue with the fact that "bad" admins decisions should be discussed not reversed although we could have a long discussion about what is actually bad.

If you consider people get in long lines to reverse my decisions can I ask you to consider whether there is something to learn from this. It is a collaborative project. If people do not agree with me I need to consider and respect that. Your talk page looks like a battlefield at present. Maybe you could take some time to consider whether a number of users are all wrong or that maybe you are not correct in everything yourself. This is no criticism - we all fail to see clearly at times - I have certainly been in that position myself in the past. Take some time - reflect - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cat, I think you need to consider that if a lot of people want to reverse something, perhaps it was a bad idea. We all come up with bad ideas from time to time, so having a bad idea doesn't make you a bad person. And reversing a bad idea doesn't mean people are out to get you. Please remember to be mellow, everything will work out better that way. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your talk page looks like a battlefield at present." <- Maybe that is part of the problem rather than the symptom. I never claimed to be right all the time. All I used to claim is I cannot be wrong all the time. At present I make no claims whatsoever. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should state for the record I don't have a problem with some of the protections. There are many that she protected and I unprotected because of low use (some weren't used at all), but now their use has increased (thanks to {{Featured picture mul}}) so I don't mind protection for them (although I don't think it's needed). Heavy use/server strain is an issue and I think some preemptive protection's necessary. But only where it's really needed. Rocket000 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in - can we please bear in mind that much good work is done by IPs on Commons - particularly in terms of translations & the like. I understand some of the rationale for protection however it would be at a cost of the potential for valuable contributions. Yes I know there is always "edit protected" requests but that really does not encourage IPs. Prior to SUL I edited non en wikis as an IP from time to time & I'd like to think what I did helped despite being "merely an IP". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Herby. "So fix it" and "everybody can edit" are key values of a wiki. We have never had serious problems with edits on templates and preemptive protection sounds like paranoia to me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to license templates, we barely allow admins to change them on their own. That is how critical they are to our project. So yes, let's protect anything that is meant to be stable. That will not take away the fact that we collect and spread media that can be used freely. Samulili 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "oh someone can vandalize a template and we'll get sued" is moot, sorry. Risking suffing beans up the nose, anyone can vandalize an image and put a fake license there. This is a wiki and we are be open to editing, including code fixing on templates. Heavy use templates are protected not to prevent vandalism, but to prevent trivial edits that put a lot of load on servers. Please do not protect templates that are not being used in more than a few hundred places, and above all, don't wheel war. If there is no consensus on protecting all license templates, then they are not to be protected. Patrícia ^msg 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the solution isn't protection, it's watchlisting. Go watchlist all the templates we're concerned over, and the vandalism will be gone much quicker. Per Herby et. al., protection this preemptive shouldn't be taking place. Willing to take the legal responsibilities, giggy _(:O) 00:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sense in which the licensing isn't worth the paper it is not printed on in practice. We know that there is a whole pile of either unlicensed or dodgy licensed material around - we deal with it everyday. I remain to be convinced that these protection measures will do anything all that positive - indeed personally I feel the time spent here would be better used getting the work that needs doing done. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there is merit in protecting license templates, because they are so widely used and because they shouldn't be fiddled with. I'm actually more concerned with small changes that change legal meanings than I am with blatant vandalism. If a license can't be changed or revoked once granted, that means the TEXT of the license that was used should be invariant after it was applied. So I favour protection, believe it or not, but I realise I may be in the minority. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the images are required to be under a free license, some with attribution. There is little long term damage vandalism can do, these templates are more like guides pointing to the actual laws that protect them. If an image was to end up the subject of a court matter, it would straight forward to show that any changes werent official(legal) but vandalism. Just compare it to a sign that says entry $5 its been sprayed over to say entry $50, its get fixed quickly(day or two) and even while it isnt they still charge $5 for entry. Gnan garra 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can think or half a dozen or so beanz reasons like most experienced editors, that dont need to be explained in detail that would warrant protection none them to do with the license Gnan garra 12:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two classes of license tags. The first are things like {{GFDL}} where the license is a grant being offered by the uploader. In those cases it is certainly problematic to change the meaning of the tag after the fact, since the uploader may not have agreed to the change. The second case are tags like {{PD-USGov-NASA}} where the declaration is meant to reflect copyright exemptions already existing in law. In those cases, one can make changes to more accurately reflect the underlying law without a risk of creating conflicts with the uploaders' intent. While, both types are potentially susceptible to vandalism, I can recall a number of examples where the accuracy of the second type of license tag has been improved via editing over time. Therefore, in the absence of an actual problem or very widespread use, I would not support preemptive protection of the second kind of license tag. Dragons flight 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --MichaelMaggs 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates like {{PD-USGov-NASA}} is a duplication of someone else's (NASA's) license. You can claim copyright of an altered PD work by NASA - such as the paining of a space shuttle. Unlike licenses like GFDL the derivatives of PD works do not have to be PD. Because of this strings attached to a {{PD-USGov-NASA}} can be legally binding especially if it is cleverly done. I cannot see any reason why we should take such a slim chance. A bad faith effort will find the right legal loophole. Even if such an attempt fails it would waste our time and perhaps money (legal costs). You should also think of this in international terms. An exact likeliness of PD work may be free in the US but it may not necessarily be free in country X. The upload license would mater in such a case.

When a user is uploading an image there is a drop down bar that you can select. After you select it, the license of your choice it is displayed below the drop down box. Imagine an inflammatory image displaying there instead of the PD logo. It isn't hard to fool the RC feed to make such a change without getting noticed. This is little different from getting the site notice vandalized. Even if you do notice it in a timely manner (there is no guarantee you will), the damage is done.

Changes to copyright license tags should be made with very good reasons. The integrity of the copyright license must be preserved. How often are license templates updated? PD-old PD-self GFDL Cc-by-1.0

Wouldn't it be better to have a fail-safe discussion mechanism to these templates? For example non-admins can propose the change on the talk page of the individual license templates. After all that is why such pages exist.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention requested

Could someone please delete these images as soon as possible Commons:Deletion_requests/Many_images_of_Gaynewyorker- they contain intimate photos which identify the subject by name and the uploader has requested they all be deleted. Gustav VH 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did that – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all deleted now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of adminship

m:Steward requests/Permissions#White Cat@Commons

I am formally resigning my adminship until the community decides on the matter of license template protection. I will not bear the legal responsibilities.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Was nice knowing you. :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dead. :P -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Edit warring is going on here: Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg so I protected the image for a week. THe warring is very obvious as it's been edited by the same two people dozens of times today. It seems related to the above thread: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sayyid_Kazim. As I can not read the language in question and am not familiar with the subject of the debate. I seek assistance from others. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protection (I requested you to do this). I hope, it can help to continue discussions wisely • Rohan^T21:53, 10 May 2008

Yes thanks for the protection, I do hope the protection does help in mediation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto uploadtext

please put MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/eo (esperanto translation) into MediaWiki:Uploadtext/eo. Thx AL

Done. I'm a bit apprehensive about the next one since i'm not familiar with teh gadget. Bastique ^demandez 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please update MediaWiki:Gadget-MyLangNotify.js with MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-MyLangNotify.js adding cs, eo and updating fr. unsatisfied requests since 7 February 2008 ! Thx again Arno Lagrange ✉ 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

you just have to put the simple lines among the other in the array so :

var mylangnotify_message = Array ;
mylangnotify_message['en'] = 'This image does not appear to have a description in your interface language. Please add one!' ;
mylangnotify_message['cs'] = 'Tento obrázek nemá popis v jazyce vašeho rozhraní. Prosím, přidejte jej...' ;
mylangnotify_message['de'] = 'Dieses Bild hat anscheinend noch keine Beschreibung in Deutsch! Füge eine mit {{de|Beschreibung}} hinzu!' ;
mylangnotify_message['eo'] = 'Al ĉi tiu bildo ŝajne mankas priskribo en Esperanto. Bonvolu aldoni {{eo|priskribon}}.  ' ;
mylangnotify_message['es'] = 'Esta imagen no tiene la descripción en español. ¡AÑÁDELA DE UNA VEZ!' ;
mylangnotify_message['fr'] = 'Cette image ne semble pas avoir de description en français... Ajoutez une {{fr|description}} !' ;
mylangnotify_message['nl'] = 'Deze afbeelding heeft nog geen beschrijving in de Nederlandse taal. Voeg die alstublieft toe!' ;

Arno Lagrange ✉ 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Did all the updates there. For future reference {{editprotected}} will get your requests noticed faster. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to do quickly, but I'm sorry to tell to you that pasting you lost some esperanto letters which are shown here and not in the js file. (Al ĉi tiu bildo ŝajne ... )Arno Lagrange ✉ 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I got it this time. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's OK now Thx again Arno Lagrange ✉ 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Persian Uploadtext

Hi. Please put MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/fa (persian translation) into MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fa (Updated). Best regards • Rohan^T14:30, 11 May 2008

and please add FA in Template:MediaWiki:Uploadtext/lang. thanks • Rohan^T14:32, 11 May 2008

Done ... please check my work... and as Mike says above, {{Editprotected}} might be a good way to go too. Thank you for your translation! ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Coa

Could an admin please nuke Template:PD-Coa (and associated category). It's deprecated and finally unused. Thanks /Lokal _Profil 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Extension:NewUserMessage

Prior discussion here.

I'd like to get some consensus on installing this extension for Commons so we can get a bug report open. Comments please. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support this idea once we have decided on a standard welcome and it's in enough languages. We have a pretty standard welcome now. One question, what would this do to the process we have now where a bot adds users to lists of users that should have their contribs reviewed after a while and given some guidance? (which process is backlogged I think) ... ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's possible to customize it in a way that you will get the template in the language you're signing in to? Well, even if it's possible to just do it in English, I support activating this extension too - better than nothing! Patrícia ^msg 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sound of this...I would suggest we use a shortened, modified version of {{Welcome}} as the default message (eg. basic info on what Commons is, link to welcome page, and basic info on how to upload (and link to COM:L). Support. giggy _(:O) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support & thanks Mike --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support One question to be answered: (1) An "editing user" can be configured. Which user would that be? I suggest the bureaucrats create a user with a pretty name and an impossible password they forget immediately. Two possible issues to be resolved: (2) There currently is no edit summary for the welcome message; this can be added by customising the code (unwanted) or by improving the code so that the edit summary is configurable from a page in the MediaWiki: namespace. I do not think this is a show stopper, but just making you aware of it. (3) A last thing is that a user should be redirected to his talk page instead of the standard welcome page (because the template has been added to his talk page and that is the information we want the user to see). I am not certain if this is part of th extension, or if that needs some more configuring... Siebrand 07:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but translated versions are also necessary (yes, I can do the German version ;-)). --my name 10:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Translations will be delivered the same way they are in current templates: with a language bar with available languages. Siebrand 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support But will be good idea to extract language code from user preferences to use appropriate welcome template translation. --EugeneZelenko 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there is no reliable way to do this at the moment. Also, on user creation, there is no used language preference known... Now that I'm thinking of this. Will this work for newly created SUL attached accounts!? Siebrand 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Please

I wish that all my image uploads can be removed from wikimedia.

They are all copyrighted, the copyright holder is the Forbidden City Publishing House. The book "Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum", (Chief editors: Liu Beisi, Xu Qixian) clearly states that "All rights reserved. Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing", "This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission". What I did were illegal reproductions, which is something I recently realized.

Very sorry for the incovenience. Highshines 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_trying_to_revoke_PD_release..._5_to_10_months_later.. What the user tries, is obviously Copyfraud. He uploaded pictures which he also published in his own book, pictures which are very old, like the linked one, which was made somewhere before 1908. In China all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were first published so the user obviously can't revoke a right he never had. -- Cecil 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I didn't publish anything. "My own book" is not the book written by me, it's just a book owned by me. Although these photographs were taken before 1908, they were first published in 1994. Highshines 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, than it is not your book, but it does not change a thing. Those images are still public domain according to Chinese law und you can't revoke that law. And stop screaming, you are extremly unpolite. -- Cecil 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to repeat this any more. The copyright does not belong to me. It belongs to the Forbidden City Publishing House (紫禁城出版社). They first published these old photographs in 1994, before then these were never published. You said that in China all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were first published, so they cannot be uploaded to wikimedia not after 2044. By the way, I'm not screaming, I'm just trying to grab the attention. Highshines 19:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you say that they were never published before (which is highly doubtable since the photografer was a court photografer), then please provide the proove for it. It's enough to upload a scan of the page in the book where this is stated (both the images and that page will then be deleted). And bold, big font is screaming. -- Cecil 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should provide an evidence that they have been published before 1958. Which is extremely unlikely. These court photographs were intended to be the private collections for the Empress Dowager, not something to be seen by the people. They are always preserved in the Palace Museum, and hidden from the public.

Here's the page in the book, you can look for it yourself.

Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum

Chief Editors: Liu Beisi, Xu Qixian

Responsible Editor: Zuo Yuanbo

English Translators: Wang Dianming, Yang Yihua

Japanese Translator: Qiu Mao

Designer: Zheng Zhibiao

Source of Photos: Library, Exhibition Department and Conservation Department of the Palace Museum, Reference Room of the First Historial Archives of China

Photo Reproduction: Lin Jing, Ma Xiaoxuan, Zhang Xiaowei, Qu Qiuhai, Liu Zhigang

Publisher: Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing

Printed by: The Xin Hua No. 1 Printing House, Hebei Province

Distributed by: Xinhua Bookstore, Beijing

Format: 16 mo in large, 899 x 1194 cm 1/16

Edition: First edition and first printing, January, 1994

ISBN: 7-80047-162-4/K66

This book may not abe reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission.

Highshines 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the information that those pictures are from the Palace Museum in Beijing. It's exhibitions are open since 1924, which is 84 years (a little bit more than just 50). -- Cecil 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The exhibition does not include these photographs. They are always kept in the archive chambers even today. Highshines 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Proove? This museum has a lot of pictures of that woman. Why would the ones that you want to have deleted be hidden. As I said you can make it really easy. Just upload the page where the authors say that this images are published the first time of their existence. -- Cecil 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all of her photos are always on exhibit (which is not true of course), people still have to PAY to enter the exhibition. They are not free images without copyright. Highshines 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they would have seen them => made available to the public => published. -- Cecil 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that all of her photos are on display since 1924, then you are the one who needs to provide the evidence. Have you been there and seen all of those photos on display in 1924?

At least I have my evidence. Again I have provided the ISBN of the book above and everyone can look for it themselves.

"Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum"

Postscript by Liu Beisi (刘北汜), Page 326.

“

After the founding of the Palace Museum on October 10th, 1925, a great number of figure pictures and other photos in the former imperial palace were turned over to the Museum and have been preserved well to the present. Most of them were never opened to the public, excepting a small part which were published in the bimonthly "Forbidden City" (started publication in 1980)."

”

“

In order to offer reference materials for research to the scholars and experts in culture, history, art, architecture and other circles, the Forbidding City Publishing House, based on data in hand, published an album "Old Figure-Pictures Collected in the Palace Museum" in 1990, which includes 413 pieces of black-and-white and colour photos. Owing to the assistance and support of our colleagues, especially the advisers of this book, Pu Jie, Pu Ren, Shan Shiyuan, Zhu Jiajin, Wang Shuqing and Li Huibing, who made a careful identification of name, status and date of the figures in some pictures, the album could be published without a hitch. ...........''

”

Just in case you can't figure out what that means, it means that the earliest possible publication of those photographs is in year 1980. So all my uploads to wikimedia (reproduction of the book) should be deleted, and they shouldn't be uploaded to wikimedia until year 2030. I've apologized for the inconvenience many times, and I won't apologize any more. Highshines 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Chinese law, an image owned by a non-personal entity (e.g. a museum) must be published within 50 years after its creation or it loses the right to copyright protection. From your description, it seems likely that either these were published a long time ago (in which case copyright lasted 50 years from publication) or they were never published in which case copyright was forfeited. Either of those arguments supports them currently being public domain. Dragons flight 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The book also states that the photographs published were just a small amount of selection compared to the total amount of photographs kept in the Museum. In that sense, the Palace Museum has lost its copyright to all those photographs it never published?

Even if that's the case, why does the Forbidden City Publish House have to make the following statements in its books:

Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing
This book may not abe reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission.

Please provide some proof for the existence of such a law. What's its original wording in Chinese?

Highshines 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a standard disclaimer you'll find in almost all books. Reproducing/publishing an image that is out of copyright does not generate a new copyright for the publisher. --Denniss 03:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Chinese is non-existent, but the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco has an English rendering of Chinese copyright law [4]. Specifically, see Section 3, Article 21: "... any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law". Dragons flight 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting is that the Forbidden City Pubilshing House has made a false copyright claim, which is highly unlikely. Highshines 03:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately this is not unlikely at all. In fact it is common for museums all over the globe to overclaim copyright for their exhibits. --Dschwen 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that museums all over the globe are copyfrauds??? That's unbelievable. Highshines 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more that museums are lazy/understaffed and it is generally easier for them to make blanket copyright statements as if they apply to all their works even when some of their works are in the public domain. From the museums' perspective their is little harm in making overbroad claims, while their might be considerable harm if they make a mistake in the opposite direction and saying something is free when it isn't. Dragons flight 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this sufficient time to play out I have reached a decision: all of Highshines's nominations have been closed and all images kept, with a block warning for disruption to Highshines. Analysis follows:

Highshines admits his behavior is improper: You are quite right. I'm sneaky and underhanded.[5] Immediately afterward he opens a duplicate thread on the same noticeboard to discuss the same issue.
Highshines's other conduct has been dubious.
- Uploads pornography over previous non-porn uploads.[6] (His claim that it was accidental looks dubious on its face, particularly so in light of his admission that he's sneaky and underhanded).[7]
- A recent polite request meets an inappropriate response[8][9] and has to be repeated before finally getting an appropriate response.[10][11]
There is no reasonable doubt that the material is public domain: Highshines's argument extends only to the museum's acquisition of the photographs 16 years after the subject's death. Regardless of the museum's curatorial practices, this is official portraiture of royalty in formal sittings and state events. Normal practice for such material is swift publication. The museum acquired this material only after its public relations value had dissipated.
When a doubt arises about the copyright status of a group of photographs, the appropriate means of addressing the matter is to post to a noticeboard or query a knowledgeable volunteer. Highshines pursued a disruptive path instead and responded poorly to feedback.

So I'm not going to issue an actual block right now, and I strongly advise this editor to move forward in a candid and straightforward manner. We'll be glad to address your concerns when you raise them in an appropriate manner. Durova 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator above has made a premature and incorrect decision. I still wish all my uploads to be deleted from Wikimedia. I've uploaded them, so I have the right to ask them to be deleted, particularly so in the sense that my labour has not get any recognition but a block warning. I havn't sweared or used any uncivil language. What you are doing now is using someone's free labour without gratitude, and then trying to block him/her for some trivial matter. That sort of behaviour is defined as DIRTYNESS, UGLINESS, SHAMELESSNESS, and is no doubt despicable. I have decided to take back my contributions to Wikimedia, because there's no point doing so. You may block me ONLY IF you delete all my uploads.

By the way, show me which "Wikimedia Regulation" states that if editors use bold/big fonts in discussions they will be blocked? Which dictionary defines bold/big fonts as shouting and yelling? Otherwise your action right now is called threatening and bullying.

Furthermore, I'm a girl, so stop referring to me as "HE"!

Highshines 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS help/question

Hi all, I'm unsure as to what to do with Image:Architectureinhelsinki.jpg. As noted at w:Talk:Architecture in Helsinki#Images, it's likely the uploader is associated with the band, but there's no real proof other than their name and edit habits. I don't think is "enough" proof that they own copyrights to the image - what would the process in terms of asking for permission here be? giggy _(:O) 09:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My usual suggestion in situations like this would be along the lines of emailing mail@architectureinhelsinki.com, on the band's website, and asking for confirmation that they have agreed to release the image under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license and that any agreement with the photographer they have permits this. This can then be forwarded to OTRS. Adambro 09:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Even better in my view is to contact them, but forward them the boilerplate to use, and ask that they forward it to OTRS themselves, with a note that you should be notified by the volunteer of the ticket number. I've done that several times now, works really well, it saves everyone steps. ++Lar: t/c 10:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, could someone else (preferably someone with OTRS access to make the process smoother) do this for me? I'm slightly paranoid about putting my real name etc. online. I'm happy to help in terms of providing whatever information is needed to help with the OTRS queries, if someone would be willing to do this....thanks heaps! :) giggy _(:O) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

↑ ^a ^b Amanat, Abbas (1989) Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement in Iran, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. p. 390−393
↑ MacEoin, Denis (May 1997). "The Trial of the Bab: Shi'ite Orthodoxy Confronts its Mirror Image". Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies 1. Retrieved on 2008-05-07.

[amanat-1] Amanat, Abbas (1989) Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement in Iran, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. p. 390−393

[trial-2] MacEoin, Denis (May 1997). "The Trial of the Bab: Shi'ite Orthodoxy Confronts its Mirror Image". Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies 1. Retrieved on 2008-05-07.

[1]

[2]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Contents

Protection of my user page

OTRS check

New User / Used username - User:Kore

User rename logging - Bugzilla request filed

MediaWiki:Ignorewarning

New account - User .:Alex:.

User:Kaytrax

Categories

Deletion backlog

User:Fz22

Sayyid Kazim

Problem uploading image

Question about coats of arm

User:Heidi.travel

A question about Commons:Protected toolbar buttons

Apparant compromised account

User trying to revoke PD release... 5 to 10 months later.

Full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times

Admin intervention requested

Resignation of adminship

Edit war

Esperanto uploadtext

Persian Uploadtext

PD-Coa

mw:Extension:NewUserMessage

Attention Please

OTRS help/question

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Protection of my user page

OTRS check

New User / Used username - User:Kore

User rename logging - Bugzilla request filed

MediaWiki:Ignorewarning

New account - User .:Alex:.

User:Kaytrax

Categories

Deletion backlog

User:Fz22

Sayyid Kazim

Problem uploading image

Question about coats of arm

User:Heidi.travel

A question about Commons:Protected toolbar buttons

Apparant compromised account

User trying to revoke PD release... 5 to 10 months later.

Full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times

Admin intervention requested

Resignation of adminship

Edit war

Esperanto uploadtext

Persian Uploadtext

PD-Coa

mw:Extension:NewUserMessage

Attention Please

OTRS help/question

Navigation menu

Search