Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Administrator's assistance
Vandalism (post | watch)	User problems (post | watch)	Blocks and protections (post | watch)	Other (post | watch)
English: Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard. Suomi: Raportoi ilmeisistä vandalismitapauksista. Muut estopyynnöt jätettäköön estojen ja suojauksen ilmoitustaululle. 한국어: 문서 훼손을 저지른 사용자를 신고하는 곳입니다. 다른 이유로 인한 차단 요청은 차단 및 보호 요청 문서에 남겨주세요. Svenska: Rapportera användare för tydliga tecken på vandalism. Begäran av blockering för någon annan anledning ska rapporteras på anslagstavlan för blockeringar och skydd.	English: Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Use of the disputes noticeboard if no admin assistance is required is strongly recommended. Suomi: Raportoi ylläpitäjän väliintulon vaativa käyttäjän ongelmallinen toiminta. Käytä käyttäjäongelmien ilmoitustaulua jollei ylläpitäjää tarvita. 한국어: 관리자의 개입이 필요한 분쟁을 해결하는 곳입니다. 관리자의 개입이 필요하지 않다면 분쟁 해결 게시판을 이용하시기 바랍니다. Svenska: Rapportera tvister med användare som kräver hjälp av en administratör. Använd anslagstavlan för användarproblem om ingen administratörshjälp behövs.	English: Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here. 한국어: 문서 훼손 관련 관리자 요청에 맞지 않는 차단 요청이나 문서의 보호/보호 해제 요청을 이곳에서 할 수 있습니다. Svenska: Rapporteringar som inte passar anslagstavlan för vandalism kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sidskydd eller borttagning av sidskydd kan också begäras här. Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit kuuluttaa vandalismin ilmoitustaululle sopimattomat ilmoitukset. Tällä ilmoitustaululla voit myös pyytää sivun suojaamista tai suojauksen purkua. ‪中文(简体)‬: 这里可以报告不适合破坏行为布告栏的报告。这里亦可以请求页面保护/解除保护。	English: Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here. Suomi: Tällä ilmoitustaulla voit kuuluttaa muille ilmoitustauluille sopimattomat ylläpitäjän huomion vaativat tehtävät ja ilmoitukset, esimerkiksi suojattujen sivujen siirrot. Pyynnöt sivuhistorian yhdistämisestä tai jakamisesta tulee tehdä täällä. 한국어: 다른 관리자 요청 문서에 맞지 않는 일반적인 관리에 대해 관리자의 도움을 요청하는 곳입니다. Svenska: Andra rapporteringar som kräver administratörshjälp (t.ex. begärda flyttningar/namnbyten) som inte passar i någon av de föregående anslagstavlorna kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sammanslagning eller delning av historik ska lämnas in här.
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
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. العربية: هذا هو المكان حيث يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع الإداريين، أو الإداريين مع بعضهم البعض. يمكنك الإبلاغ عنه التخريب، المستخدمين الذين يسببون مشاكل، أو أي شيء آخر يحتاج للتدخل من قبل إداري. Azərbaycanca: Bu bölüm istifadəçilərin idarəçilərlə ünsiyyət qura biləcəklər bir yerdir. Bir idarəçiyə vandalizmle müdaxilə ehtiyacı, problemli istifadəçilər ya da başqa bir şey ifadə edəbilərsiniz. Català: Aquest és el lloc destinat a que els usuaris puguin comunicar-se amb els administradors, o viceversa. Podeu notificar edicions vandàliques, reclamar l'atenció sobre usuaris problemàtics, o indicar qualsevol altre assumpte que requereixi la intervenció d'un administrador. Česky: Tato stránka slouží uživatelům ke komunikaci se správci zde na Commons, nebo ke komunikaci správců mezi sebou. Můžete zde nahlásit vandalismus, problematické uživatele nebo další záležitosti, které mohou díky svým pravomocem vyřešit jen správci. Deutsch: Diese Seite ist für Gespräche mit Administratoren. Du kannst hier Probleme melden, die den Eingriff eines Administrators nötig machen, zum Beispiel Vandalismus oder Probleme mit anderen Benutzern. 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. Esperanto: Ĉi tie estas loko kie uzantoj povas interkomunikiĝi kun administrantoj, aŭ administrantoj unu kun la alia. Vi povas raporti pri vandalismo, problemaj uzantoj, kaj ĉio alia, kio bezonas intervenon de administranto. 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. فارسی: این جا مکانیست که کاربران با مدیران، یا مدیران با یکدیگر می‌توانند ارتباط برقرار کنند. شما می‌توانید خرابکاری، کاربران مشکل‌ساز، یا هر آن چیز دیگری که نیاز به اقدام مدیران داشته باشد را گزارش کنید. 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. Frysk: Op dizze side kinne meidoggers oerlizze mei behearders, of behearders mei inoar. Jo kinne hjir fandalisme, problematyske meidoggers en oare saken dy't oandacht fan in behearder freegje melde. 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。 한국어: 이 문서는 사용자가 관리자, 혹은 관리자가 다른 관리자와 의견을 교환하는 곳입니다. 문서를 훼손하거나 문제가 있는 사용자를 보고하거나, 관리자의 중재가 필요한 사항이 있으면 이곳을 이용해주십시오. Македонски: Ова е место каде што корисниците можат да комуницираат со администраторите, или пак администраторите меѓусебно. Тука можете да пријавувате вандализам, проблематични корисници, или било што друго кога има потреба од администраторска интервенција. മലയാളം: കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുമായി ആശയവിനിമയം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള വേദിയാണിത്, കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർക്ക് തമ്മിൽ തമ്മിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യാനും ഈ താൾ ഉപയോഗിക്കാം. നശീകരണ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, പ്രശ്നകാരികളായ ഉപയോക്താക്കളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുടെ ഇടപെടൽ ആവശ്യമായ മറ്റെന്തെങ്കിലും വിഷയങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ താങ്കൾക്ക് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. 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. Magyar: Ezen a helyen üzenhetnek a szerkesztők az adminisztrátoroknak, vagy az adminisztrátorok egymásnak. Itt jelentheted a vandalizmust, a problémás szerkesztőket, vagy bármi más olyat, amihez adminisztrátori közreműködésre van szükség. 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 relatar casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador. 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. Русский: Это место, где участники могут обратиться к администраторам, а администраторы обсудить вопросы друг с другом. Вы можете сообщить о вандализме, некорректных действиях участников и всём прочем, что, по вашему мнению, нуждается во вмешательстве администраторов. 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. Slovenčina: Táto stránka slúži používateľom na komunikáciu so správcami tu na Commons, alebo na komunikáciu správcov navzájom. Môžete tu nahlásiť vandalizmus, problematických používateľov alebo ďalšie záležitosti, ktoré môžu vďaka svojím právomociam vyriešiť len správcovia. 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. Svenska: Det här är en sida där användare kan prata med administratörer, eller där administratörer kan prata med varandra. Du kan rapportera vandalism, problematiska användare eller någonting som behöver en administratörs ingripande. Türkçe: Bu bölüm kullanıcıların yöneticilerle iletişim kurabilecekleri bir yerdir. Bir yöneticiye vandalizmle müdahale ihtiyacı, sorunlu kullanıcılar ya da başka bir şey bildirebilirsiniz. Tiếng Việt: Đây là nơi người dùng có thể liên lạc với bảo quản viên, hoặc giữa những bảo quản viên với nhau. Bạn có thể báo cáo phá hoại, thành viên có vấn đề, hoặc bất cứ điều gì khác cần đến sự can thiệp của một bảo quản viên. ‪中文(简体)‬: 这里是用户能够与管理员或与管理员及另一个人沟通的地方。你可以报告破坏行为、问题用户或其他需要管理员干预的事情。 ‪中文(繁體)‬: 這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員之間進行通訊的地方。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的事情。 Shqip: Ky është një vend ku përdoruesit mund të komunikojnë me administruesit, ose administruesit me njëri-tjetrin. Mund të raportosh vandalizëm, përdorues problematik dhe gjithçka tjetër ku ka nevojë për ndërhyrje të administruesve.

Important discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion: Village Pump Village Pump: Proposals Graphics and photography: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Photography critiques Categories discussion Deletion requests Copyright and licensing questions OTRS noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks and protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Commons mailing list archive Bugzilla: Commons (last 7 days)

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Excessive posting of self nudity (exhibitionism)

Some users are using commons as a free webhost to post personal nude images. Is there any consensus on such users? This isn't an anti-porn/nudity movement before anyone asks. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not your personal free web host, Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not censored and Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. In the future, please use Commons:Help desk for general questions. This page is intended for giving notice of problems related to specific users which require the attention of users with administrative privileges. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a generic response. It was appreciated. :D The intention with my post was a sanity check but let's get on with business then.... DO consider Cheywen (talk · contribs), one of the many users who upload images in this manner. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes monitor the latest uploads, and I've come across quite a number of examples of low-quality exhibitionism from users without any ambition of improving Commons or other Wikimedia projects. This does not look like one of those cases. The photos are relatively well done from a technical perspective and illustrate a variety of aspects of male sexuality. Here is an example of the uploader adding one of his images to a relevant article on the French Wikipedia. It's not used in the latest version, but only because an anonymous user decided to replace all illustrations in the article with notices stating that Wikipedia is not censored. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information, I have now reverted this in the French article so that the images are shown again.[1] --Stefan4 (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with someone uploading lots of photos of themselves naked, we just don't like it if they have no educational use and are low quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with someone uploading lots of photos of themselves naked. There is however a problem if the person is ONLY uploading him or herself naked. For starters we do not know if the uploader is the owner of the copyright or if it is stolen from some adult website (speaking generally). Normally that too is no big deal but we are dealing with privacy issues as well. Issue can get nasty fairly quickly. Bear in mind that I am not suggesting mass deletion of every self-naked photo but instead a review of them in bulk. Often I see them get nominated individually which may miss the bigger picture in the context of Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is no problem with someone uploading a picture of anything in scope that they want to. If you're worried about them being stolen or privacy issues, why do you talk about self-naked pictures or exhibitionism?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a contributor only contributing in a certain area. Replace "nudity" with "trains" and there would be no issue at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I talk about "self-naked pictures or exhibitionism" as that is the claim by the uploader(s). That claim may not necessarily be true. Taking photos of trains without permission traditionally does not have legal implications unlike taking photos of people naked without permission. Even if the model gives permission to be photographed naked, that does not necessarily mean the person allows their body be published on the internet such restrictions are even beyond copyright restrictions. If the attitude is that I am trying to censor commons (somehow), I will be greatly distressed. I am merely trying to point out an area that has been in my view greatly neglected and suffered from "OMG Naked" type nominations which result in speedy keep not necessarily with an adequate review. Notice how I did not mass nominate images for deletion or even implied this should happen. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the comment about replacing nudity with trains I have to point out that unless any contributor here is actually a train we are missing out on the vanity element of users who seem to feel their bodies require wider publicity than some would want. While the human body is wonderfully varied we do seem to have an adequate stock of images of male genitalia and a rising number of users wishing to add to that stock who offer nothing very unique generally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a dicky move on the uploaders part. Ya I will be quiet with my horrible puns now. :p -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy

• Policy seems to be quite against such practices, especially with the high amount of flickr washing, the potential of personality rights issues, the sheer bulk of impossible to ever have real educational use, etc. The users should probably be dealt with soon regardless if some people above wish not to consider that. It has been shown before that people are either taking their own pictures over from exhibitionist sites or are stealing images from those sites. That has a lot of problems and is definitely what Commons is not for. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  Dare I add that uploading content to such websites may put them under a copyright of some sort. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  OK, personality rights is not an issue if you're uploading photos of yourself, and potential copyvio is entirely separate from someone uploading photos of themselves. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes - the user referred to above does appear to be offering images of himself I think. However I am still not fully comfortable with endless vanity images of male genitalia - there comes a point when we will have far more than enough (I think we have enough anyway). I delete the real junk ones anyway when I see them - they are of no use to anyone (although I did suggest elsewhere they might be useful to teach new photographers whet to delete from their mem cards straight away....). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  "OK, personality rights is not an issue if you're uploading photos of yourself" - Two things. 1. I probably should have clarified to say "supposed self images" as there are many people who claim they took it themselves without doing so. 2. Looking back, there are a few personality rights issues dealing with images that are self loaded - I can think of a few recent cases where people uploaded self taken nude images that then asked for them to be removed, with a few being removed (and one currently in DR to be removed). Now, as a side matter - how many images does someone need to upload of their own sexual imagery? Lets say we need all images of 3 billion males. Do we need more than a few of each? We could solve a lot of problems if we limit it to, say, 1 or 2 self-naked pictures (and allow derivatives of the same image I guess). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  That might be an issue if we had all 3 billion males wanting to upload. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  So, that generous group of, say, 100 should make up the difference? ;) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  If we are going to be dealing with arbitrary number limits it should be 9000. Once we have more than that number you know it is too much. It isn't the number of naked images that is the problem it is the review of them if they fall under project scope, if they are without copyright problems, if they are without privacy law issues, and if their quality makes their presence here worthwhile. I do feel we need a specific procedure to handle these images where naked uploads undergo some sort of "quality review" primarily because of the legal and other implications (naked pictures are commonly used for vandalism so maintaining a central list of these should help combat that) of their presence here.

  This does bring up an interesting angle to the issue. Just like the spam filter we may want to blacklist some images which wikis can locally opt in/out to allow/disallow images on specific articles. We already have something like this where wikis can do this for individual images but newer uploads unless added to the list are by default allowed on every page.

  I feel we definitely need more control over the naked images but I am unsure about the means to do it. Collateral damage should be minimized as always.

  -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  While you are current to say that the Super Saiyans of Porn would be a point that people would feel that there is a problem, I'm sure that it should be much, much lower. And for everyone's info, I don't believe in duplicates of the same topic/subject in general unless there is some extenuating circumstance (needing to show a specific aspect, altering images for feature picture, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that there is a very serious policy concern regarding nude and sexually explicit images and videos, but i would disagree what concern that is. In the deletion requests i constantly see personal attacks on those who upload these images and also on anybody who dares to vote anything but speedy delete on them. It would be preposterous to see in the deletion request of a train something like "Delete, the uploader is a trainspotter", and if such a comment would be made (especially if it's repeated vote without any other rationale) then the user would be at least warned. However, accusing people of being exhibitionist is perfectly acceptable based solely on their contributions to the project. The problem is bad, but it gets only worse because administrators engage in the discussions on whether or not a person is actually an exhibitionist rather than warning the offenders that personal attacks are not welcome in DR or anywhere else. Of course you can say that if i don't like something i can try to urge people to make it a policy, but it is a policy which simply gets ignored when nudity walks into the room. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Exhibitionism

There is nothing wrong about guys who abuse commons as a free web host for promotional purposes (also called exhibitionism). As long we have users who defend every piece of crap here, we should ignore that and look for pictures we are lacking, e.g. a picture of a rape or sth similar "valuable" we must keep because we donna have it yet. Easy, or? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of rape go against Commons core policy that says we are to not having images of violence. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is relative, since we also cats like bondage: I can see dozens of images of violence, so according to your logic we must delete them? --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The internet consists up to 95% of porn – why do we need to be just another fu**ing porn provider? Just one example: Special:ListFiles/Jjaman. Please explain the encyclopaedical or educational purpose of this crap! I only see exhibitionistic purpose!!! a×p_de^Hello! 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well they sure as hell help me feel better about my body, so they do have some redeeming qualities :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I can't unsee that. :(
  Dear God, that must have hurt to put in! I was wincing just glancing at it. I agree with Axpde, we don't really need all those photos/angles, but they'd probably be kept if they were sent to DR. :/ Killiondude (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  I believe the fact that File:Sodomie.jpg was kept at DR, again, certainly does prove that you are right in this assumption. I mean really, are Commons admins allowed to close with their own "vote", as has happened with with every other nudity deletion request?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

  Encyclopædic articles on pornography need a few examples to show. Having a few extra images is always useful. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  Ryulong, deletion requests here are not votes - the closing admin will make a decision based on the arguments presented and Commons policy. It doesn't matter if 10,000 people say  Delete if the closing admin decides that their arguments are not valid. I don't see that closure as a vote, I see it as an explanation of why it was closed with that result. All DRs which are not clear-cut should have such a closure - with the closing admin saying why they found some arguments compelling and others not. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a problem in itself. Why should an administrator make his or her own call that is contrary to the majority of those involved in the discussion?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On Commons DRs are not based on quantity of votes - they are based on the admins judgement/experience. Daft of course but so would keeping copyright violations be based on the fact that people on ignorance of the law wanted it that way. (& of course that is why we need to be careful about admin rights here) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I think the problem can be simplified. There is a Commons is not censored camp and a Commons is not for porn camp. Neither camp is wrong. Neither camp is right. If we keep arguing over ideology nothing will get done.

The issues of copyright, privacy, using commons as a free webhost aside we need to catalog nudity to allow implementation of filters that board of trustees made us vote on not too long ago. This could be a good opportunity for us to review nude images for mentioned problems as well. A good deal of these images are categorized so that could be a good start in processing these.

What to look for?

• Are images used externally (off of WMF websites)
• Are images used in articles
• Are all the images of the uploader the same person.
  • If so, does it look like these are a self photo
  • If not, investigate if the images are stolen from a website

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree (well pretty much) however the idea that you may get agreement on a simple sensible suggestion makes me think it may not be good to hold my breath until that outcome. (posting extremely quickly before the rest arrive...) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Threatening behaviour by User

On [2] user User:SouthSudan demonstrated threatening behaviour. I expect this to be seen to by an administrator. I expect an at least mild, but consequential response, meaning an ban for a period of days not hours. I see myself not whatsoever in a position to continue my participation with the project if such behaviour is remotely tolerated. Best regards. OAlexander (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I further advise on the generally ill devised and counterproductive contributions of the colleague. OAlexander (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Please do not reduce the size of the flag. I am uncomfortable because of your contributions. This is the last warning." - this is what you meant? I accept he's wide of the mark due to not being cognizant of vector image scaling, but I really don't see this as anything worthy of admin attention. Is that the only remark you found bad? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

LMAO. Flags all over the world are expanding in defiance. I've heard of being thin-skinned but fuck my boots! And at the Village Pump too. Is there more to this than meets the eye I wonder? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Turelio has left a message on User:SouthSudan's talk page suggesting that he apologize for the remark above. I don't it needs any further attention. I have left a message on his talk page warning him to stop changing perfectly good svg flags to new "larger" versions with bad proportions. I explained, briefly, that SVG files can be displayed in any size required.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect a language barrier might be acting up here. Please keep that in mind when speaking with User:SouthSudan. Multichill (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He knows enough English in order to have understood by now that he shouldn't be messing up flags, yet he keeps doing it. This is essentially repeated vandalism and should be reprimanded. ElMa-sa (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse clumsiness with malice. He hasn't done a single edit since this was brought up here. If he happens to do this again we can look into this again. Until then: No blocks. Multichill (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

After being told that he's wrong on Dec. 22nd he has edited three more flags and has told two editors that they're wrong. ElMa-sa (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't care in the least about the flags. When I signed up here, I agreed that everybody can change whatever they want to. However, I don't accept in the least, that anybody can just snow in and express a "warning" to me. If you think - for whichever and whatsoever reasons - that warm words will do I disagree severely, regard it as a total disregard for generally acceptable norms and also am expression of disrespect for my contributions. (see also [3] and other versions of WP, + numerous articles). Don't bother sending out whacky surveys anymore, as a couple of weeks ago. Now you know why people stop contributing: because people with a degree of productivity don't want to be pissed on by all sorts of incompetent fly-by-nighters. I am reasonably tolerant, but if this is to be kept on the lukewarm words level, I am gone. Nobody just comes to me and "warns" me without having a very good reason. The offending user had some time to come up with some reconciliatory words of sorts, but did not take the opportunity, rather used his User Page as a forum for venting nationalist sentiments (which I also consider intolerable, but this is a totally different matter). Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sooner or later (hoepfully sooner) you'll see that you're over-reacting here. Consider that the user's first language is clearly not English, and he/she is merely badly expressing some frustration. Policing language use for "civility" is hard enough within a single language community, never mind on the multi-lingual Commons! Let it go, and don't let a few words from someone with a handful of contributions affect your decisions on contributing. And if you need a policy reason for admins not doing more right now: blocking is meant to be preventative, not punitive. If he/she keeps overwriting files unnecessarily, that will be addressed, because it will be a continuing problem. If the user keeps on with inappropriate messages (I hesitate to call the offending phrase a "threat"), that will be a continuing problem, and will be addressed. So far, the user hasn't edited since Turelio's message, so we don't know what the reaction is. Rd232 (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Heeeeeeee's baaaaaack! Of course the South Sudanese flag was his first target, apparently it wasn't big enough so he larged [sic] it. So I unlarged it for him. At least he kept the aspect ratio right this time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

...and blocked for 3 days by User:Herbythyme as a result. Rd232 (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days now by Herby. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider the issue eventually resolved in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. I expressed that I would find measures measurable in days rather than hours satisactory - done. Thank you. OAlexander (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Harassment by Pieter Kuiper

If you've been around for a long time, you know that Pieter Kuiper has a wonderful way of harassing people (notice the sheer consistency in it) and has, in the past, harassed me. He has recently disagreed with my pointing out the uncertainty of flickerreviewr and has taken to trying to find any problem with an upload no matter how inappropriate his claims are. This, for example, is not an appropriate deletion rationale. It doesn't matter if there is a "higher resolution" - the dates are what matter. Many on the list don't exist. The image even has Meta data.

This one is an obviously PD painting that can have the frame cropped if needed. The only reason to put it through a DR is to try and annoy me with a talk page message. This one is from a magazine that can be searched and does not give an illustrator credit in the magazine, even though it does have copyright claims to the publishing company itself. The signature is indecipherable. The magazine itself is out of copyright in the US. The index page that lists and credits every other illustration fails to credit this illustration. This is more than enough to qualify it under UK unknown author, especially since the image is from 116 years ago. Peter knows all of this and is just trying to throw up whatever he can to harass and has done this many, many times over many years. (edit to add - I put proof that the "signature" on the image was merely an engraver that was on staff for the magazine and not the signature of the original photographer. The original photographer is unknown and the engraver died in 1909.) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You're thick-skinned enough OR, you can handle it, you don't need an admin to fight your battles for you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that Commons doesn't operate on battles. You don't harass people like that because you disagree with them. Peter has been warned dozens of times for this same exact action and has been blocked over and over and over because of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

 Support indef banning of Kuiper, as per the previous 10,000 discussions here that all ended up with us all knowing he does this but not doing anything about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the DRs are clearly fatuous. Why can't Ottava Rima deal with valid questions on his posts?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions are not dealt via DR. The one image would require a crop, not a deletion and that is 100% obvious. The other about the unknown author is still an unknown author. The signature was that of the engraver marking used by the magazine's engraver and is on many, many images in that magazine in addition to other signatures or credited to other people. So it wasn't a reason to think it was the creator. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rima has strange ideas about copyright. Of course engravings have the copyright of the engraver, in most of the world until 70 years after their death. (Although in this case, the image may have been produced by Swain's company.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Engraving is not a copyrightable act. It is an act of printing. Only the image's creator has the copyright. An engraver is merely a medium. Everyone knows that and your feigning above is exactly why you should be banned. You always make up stuff like this to harass people you disagree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Blue boy" (Bell vs Catalda) shows that you are wrong. Will you now admit that you learned something? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop making things up. 1. a Mezzotint is not the same as an engraved plate used to mass publish something. 2. The engraver was an employee who put together the sheets to be printed. This is the very definition of a "work for hirer". That case says nothing about an individual employee making a printing plate had the copyright over that plate instead of the original creator of the image or the owner of the magazine. You knew both of these before making the statement, so your claims are really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It requires a deletion, whether or not the cropped image may stay. You posted the copyrighted work of an organization who has threatened to sue Wikimedia and posters who have uploaded (uncopyrighted) work of theirs before.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. There is no proof that frames cannot be included or are original enough for a straight on image of them to be copyrightable. We have already decided that the copyright claims by the Portrait Gallery have been bogus for the most part when it comes to old images. Your sudden ultra defense of copyright is rather amusing with your recent attacks on people trying to enforce copyright. I see that you want to delete images that are clearly over 150 years old but don't care about flickrwashed images and those with other problems. That isn't appropriate behavior and it is just as bad as what Pieter is doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I seriously considered nominating the Chinchillas a while ago. My investigation required admin tools to establish that the wiki uploader is probably the legitimate author (I will explain on the DR as soon as I can). So I think it is understandable for Pieter to believe that it is a potential copyvio. --99of9 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It had Meta data and none of the images were from an earlier date. Everyone knows that you can stretch images out. It wasn't like someone got a high resolution image out of it, just a few bites. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as 99of9 showed on the DR, they didn't stretch the image out; they posted a scaled-down copy of the original, which we don't have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see the image 99of9 in the Tin link. The ones that were slightly above were stretched out and lacked Meta data. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Kuiper's block log is being waved (in the first line of this section) as if it's conclusive, but actually the recent blocks were overturned as erroneous, and the December 2010 one was overturned as "out of process". Whatever Kuiper's past or present, the block log cannot simply be pointed to in an "enough is enough, and here's the proof" way. If actual action is to be taken, clear, recent evidence needs to be shown to justify it. Rd232 (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the admin boards that discuss it, it was rather clear that those blocks weren't in error but that a few admin decided to take Pieter's word that he would stop. His blocks are consistently over the same problem. And recent evidence? The mere fact that he went through images of mine and put up things that he knew had no legitimate reason to be nominated simply because he disagreed with my views. He did this many, many, many times in the past. It is his standard MO. It isn't how Commons works. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

On the first point: can you provide links? The discussions aren't linked from the log, unfortunately, and if you know what you're looking for it'll be easier to find in the relevant archives. On the second: "he knew he had no legitimate reason" is an accusation of bad faith. What evidence do you have for that? Rd232 (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You will really have to look through the archives of this page for his name. He came up really frequently as a subject for complaint. There is really just no way to deal with the sheer mass in a manner that would give you a few examples. And accusation of bad faith - he didn't stumble upon 3 images that I uploaded that were old. That is fact and cannot be disputed. He specifically targeted two images that I used and had to go through all the others to find something. None of them were definitely problems and none of them were actual problems. None of them involved him talking to me or asking any questions. See mattbuck's statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You posted clear copyright infringement from an organization that's threatened to sue Wikimedia before. So yes, there was a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The Dcoetzee case already verified that the National Portrait Gallery has attempted to claim copyright over non-copyrightable images and items. We as a community has accepted the US copyright rulings that does not allow works not adding anything original be deemed copyrightable nor are the claims accepted. The problem is that you are conveniently forgetting the law and our policies because you disagreed with my previous statements, and that isn't allowable practice on Commons. It would be good for the whole community that they review your past inappropriate behaviors after we ban Pieter for his years of such problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The risk would be high for a commercial reuser. Especially for someone marketing the chinchilla image as a greeting card, as it turned out that Hallmark owns the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Stop making stuff up. Hallmark's contest said that people could not have previously used the material for business purposes before hand. At no time did it agree to give away your copyright. It is the same deal all contests use, just like America Idol, where they cannot legally prohibit people from using their work later. You have not proven that Hallmark owns the rights but proved that you are willing to say and do anything to harass others, including blatantly making things up. There is no room for such atrocious behavior on Commons and you made it clear on Wikipedia Review that you are acting this way to cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly normal behaviour to report that something is wrong if Commons hosts a copyrighted photo of the frame of a painting, and in particular if the copyright is held by an organisation which has previously threatened to take legal actions against Wikimedia. I don't think that Pieter Kuiper did anything wrong when he reported the National Portrait Gallery image. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not normal behavior to troll through thousands of edits and uploads trying to find things that might slightly be wrong in order to make half assed nominations in an intimidating manner. This has been a constant set of actions from him for a very long time. And the NPG image has already been dealt with and had consensus on how we deal with them. Putting up Deletion Nominations against someone you are in a fight with is not the appropriate way. That is the way that needs to be met with a ban and only with a ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice how he claims PD Old for that without any proof of a date. There was a King of Bavaria until 1918, and he was claiming that a work in 1895 would have an artist still alive to where PD Old would not apply. This proves that his actions are a doubt standard which he only comes up with such ridiculously false and imaginary high standards to harass people. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary that Pieter Kuiper must comment his edits with such derogative phrases? Why is he doing this? Which advantage does the use of such phrases have? Does Piter Kuiper not know that arguments are counting and not the loudest yell? --79.237.185.210 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose any block of Peter Kuiper. Ottava Rima seems to enjoy giving it out, but deflecting or ignoring any concerns about him. I've yet to see him truly acknowledge any of the concerns raised above, rather saying "stop making things up", and the fact remains that when you have uploaded a known copyvio, all your other contributions are up for greater scrutiny from any member of the community. I've certainly yet to see evidence of Kuiper "trolling" (sic) through Ottava Rima's history. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh! They're as bad as each other, they just use different techniques. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Getting along. Come on guys, you both know the rules, you both primarily do behind the scenes work at Commons, just behave. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The DR's were perfectly valid. To me it seems that it is Ottava Rima that is harassing Pieter. Just look at the proof presented by Ottava Rima. None of the DR's was speedy closed and the intro "you know that Pieter Kuiper has a wonderful way of harassing people" is a personal attack. Ottava perfectly knows that most of the blocks are disputed. If I block and unblock Ottava 50 times he would have a block log longer than Pieter. Would Ottava then agree that it is a valid proof that is Ottava harassing? I think that using the block log like that is manipulating with facts and a cover up for the lack of proof that Pieter is harassing with the quoted DR's.

If you do look at the Block log of Ottava Rima you will see quite a lot of blocks. It seems that when someone mention Pieter Kuiper they can get away with almost everything because Peter Kuiper has been reported here quite a few times and many users have strong feelings against Pieter Kuiper. I think that is wrong. You should not get away with harassing other people just because you play the "Pieter Kuiper card". So if someone should be blocked here it is not Pieter. --MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll avoid most of the truly daft threads around at present and hope that 2012 means some folk get bored with Commons again. However I am inclined to agree with MGA73 here. I think from other threads around PK is not the one harassing folk at present. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support a block of Ottava Rims for a while. I agree he is trying to use the "Kuiper Card" to his advantage, and as far as I'm concerned the only reason to bring up someone's block log is to make them look bad because your own evidence against them isn't as strong. Ottava has also used atleat two personal attacks while Kuiper so far has not in this AN/U. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me there is nothing here that would lead to a concensus to block Pieter Kupiter. A few users think Pieter should be blocked but as far as I can tell it is because they are tired of him for other reasons than was brought up here.

As for a possible block Ottava_Rima I suggest we discuss that on ----> Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Regarding_Ottava_Rima.

So I think we should close this discussion here.--MGA73 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

As a editor primarily on the en.WP I would like to have administrative action taken against a specific user who has harassed me here for

1. Moving a process on en.WP along that had an eventual result of their indefinite banning from en.WP
2. Taking a viewpoint initially and then striking my viewpoint

via what I would consider a exceedinly un-civil email. I am deliberately leaving out the name of the editor in question as they claim in said email that they are productive here. I have requested insight from the administrator who implemented the indeffinite ban at en.WP and they said that since the email came through commons, it should be addressed through commons' governance. Hasteur (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Info - such as who, nothing can be done without that - would be more than useful.... If you will not post it you will have to email someone --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We will call this resolved for now I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User Bulka UA

User adds template {{npd}} to File:Bazaliya.gif, but file was already kept after RfD. I explain user that he should not add {{npd}} if file was kept, and he should open other RfD. But he continue adding template. I blocked him because of edit warring, but than I decide to unblock him because I have conflict with him..--Anatoliy (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the block, but the file should be deleted anyway, see Commons:Coat of arms#Copyright on the representation. Trycatch (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

how can I link my page with my pictures?

I would like to create a Link of my page to the my added Pictures but I don´t know how I can make it possible because I have no any experience in this sector. I am really sorry that unfortunately I cannot find any solution as step by step add system to make it possible in wikimedia. The page called:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Djsudi&oldid=64425893

The Pisture is added in wikimedia record:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DiscoPost_%28Contents%29_Year2000-January-Volume_19.jpg

If anybody can help me then please kindly help me in this case. Thank you very much and good bye with best Regards. -- 22:24, 26 December 2011‎ 91.22.70.107

I don't really understand the question, and you should ask on Help Desk anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios

User:ZhaoX uploads copyvio images persistently, see Special:Contributions/ZhaoX. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked by Herby. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PereslavlFoto

Could an administrator who has enough "ass in the trousers" please make this user clear that a category which name is simply translatable into English has to be created this way, and not that way. I don't want to correct this again and again. There is a policy concerning category names and obvious cases like this one do not fall under exceptions mentioned there. Thanks - A.Savin 12:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I could not fine a rule that allows only the categories named in the British Empire language. I would be grateful for any help in this question. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"British Empire language"? ... In any case, the policy says that category names should generally be in English (although there are some exceptions, like binomial Latin names etc). Making parallel categorization schemes in different languages would certainly seem counterproductive to me. Jafeluv (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find the list of exceptions? I looked for the practical samples and could not state any rule. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"British Empire language", oh well... Did you ever think of the usability for thousands of users who don't have the luck to understand even the cyrillic alphabet (not to mention the Russian language)? This is a typical attitude of POV warriors in Wikimedia projects. A long-term block for "PereslavlFoto" should be finally considered. A.Savin 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why I agree with you, nothing here stops you from changing this category name.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Practical examples

Here are the examples of the categories that should generally be in English, but can easily be in any other language:

• Category:Pointe de Néville, Category:Société Nationale de Sauvetage en Mer, Category:Les Enfants de Don Quichotte
• Category:Jugendbildungszentrum Blossin, Category:Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Category:Energiewirtschaftlicher Wanderweg Herdecke
• Category:Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro, Category:Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica (Milan), Category:Osservatorio geofisico di Lipari
• Category:Wielkie dni małej floty, Category:Szybowcowy Zakład Doświadczalny, Category:Století českého hokeje (2008-2009)
• Category:Sōunkyō, Category:Seijin shiki, Category:Bōsōzoku, Category:Kishiwada Danjiri Matsuri

From Commons talk:Naming categories we see the language question is very, very hard and complex for this international project. Even in this discussion not every editor prefers to speak English. People even cannot agree about using English Wikipedia as a source for naming, for they feel Anglais Wikipedia is not international enough. This is why I think both sides are right: one side is right to make local categories, other side it right to converse it into English ones.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

English is classed as an international language, look at the airways and air traffic control as one example. If you are in doubt as to what language to use, then use English. If in doubt do not use Cyrillic characters as not everyone's system can eve display these,much less allow the reader to read them. But, as you say this is an international project, so naming categories in Russian using Cyrillic characters is understood by how many of this international project? How about Spanish viewers, or African viewers or even Japanese viewers? So please get a grip, stop being so bloody awkward and do it the way the guidelines suggest. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A user who respects WP:Civility would respect obvious arguments, but in this case it is useless to explain anything. Anyone who does not agree with PF in her abstruse "theories" is a wrecker in her opinion, and anyone who does some adjustments in the Pereslavl category violates PF's personal property. It's a shame that a project like Commons tolerates people who do not know what the wiki principle is about and no sysop seems to care. A.Savin 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir, what you said is so untrue. Looks like you are joking in your exaggeration... Also, why don't you think about User:Berillium, who worked for Pereslavl categories and made more than perfect structure? Is it because that example breaks your theory of my horrible person? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course - that was obviously Berillium and not you who editwarred all night long after I cleaned in this category. Don't make me laugh. And do not think that you may live out your destructiveness placing your ridiculous "No-FOP-in-Russia"-DR's prudently waiting for an admin of your trust. By now, I have had several e-mail complaints from Russian users about your behavior here, and several productive users like NVO already seem to have thrown in the towel because of your daily harassments. But my next steps will be some publicity in the Russian WP about your behavior, so I suppose you will have to reactivate your old account there very soon in order to explain your real motives to people who may read in Russian. - A.Savin 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Info Details about NVO are several lines below.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It was Berillium who arranged the categories for my home town, and they are well done. You made several good changes to that category tree, but you also created several empty and useless categories. This is why I cannot blaim you as a person, and would only receive the answer for my old question: can the category of buildings be in buildings category tree?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will stop your usual personal attacks against me.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

but you also created several empty and useless categories -> fine. Which categories of those I ever have created are empty and/or useless? And why I have to tolerate this kind of slander continously? A.Savin 19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed above, where you did not want to explain, why did you create several empty wrapping categories without images, also why the photos of buildings cannot be in buildings category tree.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that you will never be able to show which of categories I ever created are empty and/or useless. - A.Savin 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We edited the page in the same time . I am sorry: if you asked about empty category names, those are here, here, here, here, without any content images.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Following your logic it seems to me that Category:Churches in Austria is also a useless category without content. It's really getting better every minute. A.Savin 20:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued

Re: Fred, that is why I use Cyrillic categories more than rarely.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Rarely" is too often, you shouldn't do it at all. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the discussed category any different from the examples above?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you really relying on the argument that because someone else has done something wrong that you should be allowed to do something wrong too? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic categories have an advantage for us that do not normally use its English transcription in Latin characters. I am not able to type it, but it is more neutral, and some places and names may be easier to find. For the most part, it does not matter much. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

How about I start using colloquial slang when I start naming categories because it's easier for me? The fact that a non-native English speaker would struggle to make heads or tails of it doesn't really matter based on what you say. The fact that it's easier for me is all that matters? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't look wrong, with the policy of soft "should", with no ban for local languages, an with plenty of examples. So I made conclusion everything's fine. At last, when A.Savin found the category not perfect, he translated it into English. And Commons talk:Naming categories shows the situation is not plain.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well now you know. So we can all feel safe knowing that you'll use English in future, unless it really has to be in Russian, such as a street name/town name etc, but even then in Latin characters? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO

«NVO already seem to have thrown in the towel because of your daily harassments». I asked NVO about this, he says the main reason to leave is administrative activity in Russian Wikipedia.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fucking liar; yes, that's the last straw. Jim must be proud of his protege. NVO (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I made the direct links to your phrase. Please do not troll here, this is not your Talk page, where you state «This user is a a troll».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO, using such words is inappropriate. --High Contrast (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO said he's thinking to leave Commons in a month or two, so I fear he won't mind the words.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NVO's outburst is understandable. It seems that he is just fed up with constant unpunished harassment and trolling from PereslavlFoto (in this case, astonishing misinterpretation of his words taken out of context). Things like this wears you out rather quickly. Trycatch (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the User talk:NVO at all? [4]--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I should add a fact to this exciting discussion. Beside other pecularities of his/her activity, User:PereslavlFoto is using Wikipedia and Commons to promote antisemitism. This user has uploaded this file: File:Terlezky-2010-doloi.jpg. It is the antisemitic graffiti, "Down with the authority of kikes", at so called Terlezky park in Moscow which is traditional place of gathering for Russian fascists (then the picture was anonimously added to the article about this park in ru.wiki without any caption, just as if it were simply a picture from the park). It is OK to have here some pictures with offensive and abusive content, we need them to illustrate the articles about offensive and abusive things. But here in Commons the user gave totally false description of the picture, feigning that the offensive Russian word 'жид' ('kike') means something different here: see the history of the page starting with this version. (For those who don't speak Russian, check the meaning of Russian 'жид' in Wictionary or multilingual online dictionary, see also this discussion and translation of another graffiti at Commons.) Two other well-known sysops from ru.wiki, User:Blacklake and User:Mitrius, went to revert the attempts of PereslavlFoto to mislead English speakers of Commons. I see this kind of PereslavlFoto's activity as absolutely intolerable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the image (and only the image). Like it or not anti-Semitism exists and there will be images that represent it. The fact that anti-Semitism exists is reason enough to host images like the one in question. Just hosting it, or even uploading it is not necessarily anti-Semitic nor promoting anti-Semitism. How it is ultimately used is beyond the purview and responsibility of Commons. Please remember that Commons is not censored. There are always going to be images that offend someone, it cannot be helped. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• After inspecting the history, I have to support this. This is a criminal offense according to Russian laws and should not be tolerated on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what about that link is illegal in Russia? If it's any of the text in any of the revisions then they can simply be deleted. Please also remember that Commons isn't bound by Russian laws. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Showing antisemitism is not antisemitism. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 07:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Making the photo, I thought not about nationalism, but about the political statement. This is why I want to know, is it possible to delete the photograph? In the text I wanted to descript this political item. After Blacklake's explanation I added the words about neo-Nazi organization hosted in the park twelve years ago, but according to the Moscow newspaper, everything is changed now. See my latest description. The 2nd sample from Андрей Романенко is not about Russia, it is about Ukraine.
• So, how can I remove this photo that is used by other Commons users for dirty needs? (Seems strange that noone thought about this photo for 1½ years, but one by one suddenly appear now.)--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's irrelevant how the image is ultimately used. If the image is legal to be hosted, has a correct license then we host it, it's as simple as that. I can't see a reason why a DR would result in its deletion, but you can try if you wish. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe because it's used against its author. It doesn't look enough?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who protect PF in this discussion should basically note that, albeit uploading and hosting an image of an antisemitic graffiti is not antisemitism by itself, it is very well antisemitism to downplay the translation of the depicted slogan as already shown in this difflink. Here we have a typical pattern of PF's behavior when any NPOV is worth nothing to PF and objections by wikipedians are being reverted in editwarring (in this particular image, there was a revert war against three other users). A.Savin 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• There was a substantial discussion on Talk pages of those users, with explanation for every change in description. Is that discussion a revert war?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear administrators

User PereslavlFoto must be blocked for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, his contribs plunges Russian Wikipedia sections in the stagnation, contains only vandalism. Martsabus

If this is the case then you should be requesting his block at ru.wp not here. Could you please let us know what PereslavlFoto has done on Commons that requires he/she to be blocked? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I venture to translate the solution:

• 1.1 The Arbitration Committee has reviewed the unnamed party's response and actions of participants in these Mitrius episodes.

• 1.2 The Arbitration Committee finds that in the situation that led to the blocking of a party unnamed answer was a violation of the rules of the EP, Wikipedia:No original research, as well as Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Part VI: inaudible, and as a consequence, Wikipedia:Edit warring
• 1.3 The Arbitration Committee notes the systematic violation of party rules Nameless response WP: NDA, VP NPC and [Wikipedia:Gaming the system] non-constructive style of discussion which goes into trolling (for examples, see the discussion of arbitrators). In particular:
  • 1.3.1 Adding maloosmyslennyh or absurd comment.
  • 1.3.2 Giperkriticheskoe relation to the correctness and accuracy of the remarks and actions of other participants in the absence of a critical attitude to their own cues and actions.
  • 1.3.3 Communicating to the absurd rules of the EP, Orissa, WP: NPOV, etc.
• 1.4 The Arbitration Committee is blocking Безымянный Ответ party timely and correct response, the actions of the administrator Mitrius corresponding need to protect the project from rules violations.
• 1.5 The Arbitration Committee notes on the page of the application for arbitration a number of violations of ethics unnamed participant response relative to the administrator Mitrius.
• 2.1 The Arbitration Committee decided:
  • 2.1.1 consider blocking Безымянный Ответ party answer the appropriate rules.
  • 2.1.2 notify the participant of the unnamed non-response rules violations WP: FL and WP: But in relation to other participants.
• 2.2 The Arbitration Committee considers that the systematic violations of the rules set out in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of this decision shows the destructive behavior of Безымянный Ответ participant response. Similar violations in the future Arbitration Committee recommends that the stop lock on a progressive scale, beginning with a period of one week. Martsabus

• (Edit conflict.) I appreciate what you're saying unfortunately none of that applies to Commons which is an entirely separate project. PereslavlFoto is entitled to edit, within the rules of course, at Commons regardless of any blocks on other projects. Until such time of course he/she breaks the rules here too. On the bright side though, now that you've brought it to the administrator's attention they will be able to keep an eye on PereslavlFoto. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it some provocative joke? Dear editor, stop mixing me with your counterparts on wikipedias, move back to the theme of discussion.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• А joke? Do you think, that removing the contributions of user`s is joke? Martsabus

May I suggest that you stop feigning innocence, and although you are within the rules to stay here regardless of your blocks elsewhere the admins here will be keeping an eye on you. You're already starting to show up on the administrator's noticeboards a little too often already. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But how may I act when people tell I'm not myself but someone elseone elsewhere?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe, but regardless, what happens at ru.wp is irrelevant to what happens at commons, just know that if the same things start happening here as happened there the end result will be the same. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, Commons is a separate project independent of other Wikimedia projects. However, as long as Commons does not have own Arbitration Committee and the few active admins do not really care about any conflicts ransferred from ru.WP to here, decisions of the Russian Arbcom should be respected unless we want to have a kind of anarchy here. And in this special case, PF is a very probable re-incarnation of the Russian user Безымянный Ответ (transliterated: Bezymyanny Otvet) who was blocked multiple times in ru.WP due to non-ethic behavior and where a concerning decision of the Arbcom does exist. - A.Savin 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(a) "probably" - so identity is not proven? (b) projects are separate, and blocks/bans don't normally translate (unless it gets to global ban level, which requires indefinite-blocking on two projects, among other things). Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but that's how it is. Information about behaviour on other projects can be used to identify likely problem areas, but that's all. Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which presumably has to mean that Russian photographers are "fair game" for every troll and stalker here on Commons, since there is neither an arbitration committee nor a neutral admin who will ever read up on a bigger conflict concerning Russian users. Oh well. A.Savin 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that is an unfair summation. Just because other project's blocks aren't recognised in Commons doesn't mean that they are ignored either. Trouble-maker editors on other projects invariable start making trouble elsewhere, and if they start making trouble here then they get shit-canned sharpish. It's just a matter of time. Though I'm not too sure what you mean about there not being a "neutral admin". I sense what you really mean is an admin who's on your side. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no admins "on my side" here. There are some (mostly English or German speaking) admins who are active at this board, but none seems to have read this or the older PF thread attentively. A.Savin 11:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This is why you claimed there are no "neutral" admins. the sense you gave to your statement is that you equate "neutral" with being in your camp against the Russian trouble-makers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Russian copyright law

I would like to know what the community thinks about Russian copyright law (Civil Code). Do we have to obey Russian laws here, or can I break Russian laws here at Commons? I ask this because the administrator offers me to keep illegal photos marked as free, while they cannot be licensed as free, because the rights of artists, sculptors and architects are protected in Russia. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the Commons servers in Russia? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are at least two obvious aspects: 1) Commons servers are not in Russia and 2) it is impossible to delete even just the half of all the images which could be appropriate candidates for a "No-FOP-in-Russia" DR. On the other hand, PF aims particularly at pictures which are used in several wikipedias and their subjects are not obviously eligible for any copyright due to their very simple design, like for instance two of her newest DR's [5] [6]. A.Savin 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• This situation is discussed in the Russian section of Wikipedia, with the participation of administrators, bureaucrats, and arbitrov. Now community is discussing the problem. I draw your attention to ВП:457. Please, don`t let vandal`s actions user PereslavlFoto, Sincerely Martsabus
  • Your links are off topic, please do not lead the discussion to your own troubles in other wikipedias. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • My links was not off topic, you is blocked in Russian Wikipedia for troll, you simply settle the score with part of user Russian Wikipedia. Stay! PereslavlFoto, Sincerely Martsabus
      • Don't be silent: it was me who killed President John F. Kennedy back in 1963. Now let's return to the theme.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Say that again and I will personally report you for harassment. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is very simple. Commons tries to follow the laws of all countries but if those laws are counter to US laws then US laws take priority, after all that is where the servers are and they are under no obligation to follow any country's laws other than the US. Simple enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred the Oyster (talk • contribs) 29. Dezember 2011, 23:36 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC))
  • So the image unfree in Russia and free in USA is allowed?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • That's the way I understand it, yes. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I asked here because COM:FOP explains: «such an image cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy», and Russia is «Not OK».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It would all depend on what the image was of, plus the fact that COM:FOP is basically a guideline. Commons maintains different country's FoP laws basically as a courtesy, rather than it being compulsory. It isn't so much that Commons may be breaking the Russian law, as it is the uploader that is the offender. It's actually quite a convoluted situation really and depends upon all manner of different variations, for example what if a tourist from the UK went on holiday to Moscow took a load of images of copyrighted buildings etc, but then brought them back to the UK and uploaded them to Commons from London. Are those images legal or not? :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Thus, there is no single-valued summation for all FOP situations. Well, this is in line with my insight, and that's why I start FOP DRs to make other editors speak and decide. And the result is, I am comprehensively blamed for those DRs. What a mess...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't blame you :) Keep up the good work. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
          • If it were that simple, we wouldn't have commons:Freedom of Panorama guideline at all. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• When it comes to objects in Russia we must obey Russian law: there is 'no place on Commons for modern Soviet and Russian architecture. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• You must obey Russian laws, because you are in Russia, the rest of us who aren't are not obliged to follow Russian laws. The only reasons Commons follows Russian laws is as a courtesy plus the fact that if a Russian uploads an image of architecture that doesn't have FoP then they don't have a right to give the image a copyright license suitable for Commons, therefore it's the lack of a copyright license that Commons is refusing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Excerpt from commons:Licensing

“

...that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

”

No FOP in Russia → No PD → No image on Commons. Pretty much clear to me. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, it is less about the copyright itself (for which a better place exists), but about the usual behavior of accounts like PF and their motivation when they request masses of files for deletion. So let's get back to the topic please. A.Savin 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from possible time-wasting putting files up for deletion is relatively harmless. They'll either be deleted after discussion because something is wrong with the licensing or some other point, or the deletion request is refused. It's not as if PF has the ability to delete the files their self. It's up to one our admins to make the decision and most of them know what they're doing. In fact there's actually a core of admins who do most of the work here and by-and-large they do know what they are doing so please have faith in them. If they delete a file then most of the time it's a file that needed deleting. And if a mistake is made there is always the undeletion review process. So it's not as PF is going to get to delete many files at all even if he wants to. Have faith. The admins here are pretty good... as far as admins go ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not the reality. Some admins who handle open DR's make some guidelines pretty simple to themselves. In the result, many files from Russia already have been deleted, although their existence on Commons hardly violate someone's rights and they were used in many projects. And every RfD decided positively is seen by PF as license to further destructive behavior. A.Savin 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if mistakes are made then there is always the undeletion review process. Don't forget, images are never truly deleted on Commons and if there is a justifiable and lawful reason for them to be restored then they would be restored. All one has to do is ask. In any case has any reason been discovered as to why PF is requesting all these files to be deleted, or is it just a sad form of entertainment? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking truly, I cannot understand why noone have asked the architects. Thus I set myself a plan to apply to Moscow underground projects institute (Metrogiprotrans) for the permit. I think they will explain me the official position of the architectural bureau, and possibly will let us to use the photos of their creations all over the country.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Because there are licensing and FoP policies which we follow and do not take shortcuts. Questioning PF's motivation is a sad form of entertaining. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Usual behaviour of PF is following the rules. Why are you questioning it? Is there something wrong in adhering the policy? Artem Karimov (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia

Can an admin (preferably one with an open mind) have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LGBT flag map of Albania.svg and speedy keep then take this homophobic twat in hand and deliver a stern message? Thank you. This sort of thing pisses me right off, so please excuse the tenor of this post. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Speedy keep with closing comment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is calling people "this homophobic twat" acceptable on Commons? The user is an Albanian, which means he's probably a Muslim, which means he has been probably taught since the childhood that there is no homosexuals in his country. Instead of explaining to the user, where he got it wrong, the free Western world demonstrated the same kind of intolerance to a different culture and a different religious believes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, in my book, intolerance of something that is intolerable is perfectly correct. I don't give a shit what his religion is, or why he thinks the way he does, homophobia is wrong. It's as simple as that, and in my view anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong is a "twat". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think it's the kind of language to use on Commons, really, and it did seem a little unnecessary for something that was, really, always going to be rejected. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 20:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not, but at the time I was angry and it expressed my opinion quite ably. Bearing in mind that due to my autism I have next to no impulse control, nor was I gifted with that little filter that usually exists between brain and output device. Accordingly I use the word I find most appropriate, the level of profanity doesn't come into it. My measure is one of relevance, not one of societal appropriateness. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, deciding it's homophobia is a bit jumping the gun. I asked the user to explain on his talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Cultural homophobia is still homophobia. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• "User:Fred the Oyster wrote above, "I don't give a shit what his religion is, or why he thinks the way he does, homophobia is wrong. It's as simple as that, and in my view anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong is a "twat"." "

Such crude and extreme expressions of cultural bigotry would seem out of place on a multilingual project.67.168.135.107 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the intolerable is not bigotry. Not allowing someone freedom to display their own sexuality is bigotry. And to paraphrase myself, cultural bigotry is still bigotry. Homosexuals have a basic human right to be homosexual regardless of what someone's culture or religion demands. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fred the Oyster -- It's not necessarily a problem that you hold strong views, but the usual idea is to avoid creating unnecessary drama... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The "drama" wasn't started by me. Jim solved the problem and as far as I was concerned that was the end of it. The 'dramah' came as a result of MBZ1's posting. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but AceDouble made a somewhat problematic statement on 9:08, 27 December 2011, and instead of isolating the issue in a suitable manner (making clear that pointless personal opinionizing has no place in a deletion discussion, firmly yet without creating unnecessary drama), you immediately went ballistic, treated it as some kind of of personal insult against yourself (which you apparently considered the most important aspect of the problem), and escalated all kinds of mostly-unnecessary drama... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree to the substance of what Fred the Oyster states but not with the form. I wouldn't call a 'twat' to my grandmother just because she believes that being gay is a sin (maybe it was she who nominated the image for deletion...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Gentlemen, perhaps we all need to look at it in a different light. As the creator of the file, and a gay male myself, I'm not actually as upset as one might expect. Although I would ask AceDouble to study homosexuality and potentially reshape his views on it. While I am greatful to Fred and NikNaks and Jim for all defending my file, I am really not surprised. I knew when I started the LGBT flap map project, that eventually some form of "opposition" would come. As long as we do not allow such opposition to achieve it's goals here, Commons will always be a place I frequent and immensely enjoy contributing to. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• <ec>I dont necessarily disagree with Fred the Oysters position that the reason for the nomination isnt a valid one. I do take exception to way thats being expressed Commons is a multilingual, mmulticultural project we need to be respectful of the idea and POV even when we dont agree. A simple "Keep, not a valid reason for deletion" would have been sufficient rather than the personal attacks that have occured both in the discussion and here. Even the discussion on the users talk page presumes a POV and is worded to exclude the user from any reasonable discussion. The map itself what is its educational purpose its not in use on any projects its doesnt appear to have any purpose except as part of a set of images that put the LGBT flag over each country most of which arent used either(havent checked them all). I do think its valid to question whether these images are actually within the scope of Commons as files must be realistically useful for an educational purpose in this case I dont see the realistically useful for an educational purpose nor it legitimately in use. Gnangarra 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the "informational" bit, and what you do or don't see is of no greater importance than that of the author of the file. I have to say though that if anyone has ever misunderstood what PoV means then it's you in the above statments. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All I've seen is a series of personal attacks against an editor, a lack of good faith in the users action, abuse of the person culture and a presumption about the person religion. All because you carry a different point of view none of which makes your comments justifiable. The person just expressed their own experience of their own culture from thei. own country and questioned the validity of the map based on that. All thats been achieved from those outbursts is a validation of the reason behind that person experiences it does nothing to encourage the person to seek an understanding of LGBT. Gnangarra 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's no good faith, the statements made were homophobic, you can justify it as much as you like it's still homophobia. Ragardless of what his religion is, what his country is there is absolutely no justification or excuse for homophobia whether it's personal, cultural or religious. It's a simple as that. And I'll tell you what, you defending this guy means that for me your reputation is going down the pan too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I havent defended the editors POV, I've been critical of the way in which you have expressed your POV nothing the editor said deserved the outburst you gave, if I'd come along earlier in the discussion I would have cautioned you about that and blocked if you had repeated it, it was inexcusable. You have been given considerable latitude in your choice of words more than most ever recieve, I suggest that the next time something or someone pisses you off wait, cool down before you start posting. You've already indicated you have a medical issue that unpins your responses in such circumstances when your cautioned about your language I suggest you appologise and seek out friends like Fry to assist you. Gnangarra 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I suggest you keep your patronising comments about my "medical condition" to yourself. Secondly your previous message accused me of several things which didn't happen, e.g. "abuse of the person's culture", "presumption about the person's religion". You better get your facts in order before making shit like that up. You suggest good faith in his nomination. What total and absolute bollocks. A 5yr old could tell that was homophobic through and through. So there is no way in hell an apology is coming his way any time soon. And the fact that you are suggesting I should is yet another clue that you are siding with this homophobic. I don't see you suggesting to him that he should apologise to Fry over his bad-faith and homophobic nomination. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Gnan raised an interesting question by implication. I don't think the subject f. Gile is out of scope, but I do wonder if creating maps that are very unlikely to be used, at least for the next few years, is a good use of Fry's time. That is, of course, his choice, but there is so much work to be done on Commons that he might use his considerable skill someplace else.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see a use for them, perhaps as an accompanying graphic to an article about a country's gay population, or an article about a country's cultural bias against its LGBT citizens. As a professional layout designer who does all sorts of article layouts etc I come across these sort of graphical requirements all the time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So you have concieved a decorative use a a commercial use of the maps by something that isnt a part of Wkimedia projects that still doesnt make the images within the scope of Commons. Where is the educational use of these images Gnangarra 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't talk bollocks. This is a media repository and the files here are used for more than educational purposes. A decorative graphic that has a CC or PD license is a perfectly acceptable addition to the library and you know it. Any more of this tenuous justification and I might start believing that you have the same beliefs as the guy who started this. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Jim, if I may again interject. I have made countless national flag maps, and derivatives thereof. For me, the LGBT flag maps are a natural progression, and infact another user started it, and I simply completed it. While many are not in use, several are, and they all share a common potential of usability, from user templates, to LGBT rights templates and more. Moreover, they have a usability beyond Commons. There are websites which pro idea maps of this style, but they are watermarked and you must pay for them. I provide all my works unmarked and free for anyone to use however they desire. While some may feel there are other places I could us my talents more often, I assure you that I coordinate my abilies and my expertise in symbolism wherever I can. As for Fred, do cut him some slack. He has become a good friend to me here, and his intentions are good. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree that there's no harm in completing the whole set to make them all available for use, even if some of them don't end up being used. Sometimes it's hard to say what will end up being used: I've made several flag maps that I thought would be mostly theoretical exercises -- such as File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg and File:Flag map of Palestine.svg -- and lo and behold they're both now in use (though File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg is still unused ). -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to take over an still existing commons user account (my old one?!)

Hello, administrator needed for some help:
I think, that once in 2008 the special user creating the desired commons account "Jaybear" was myself!
Unfortunately my old email adress from then isn't existing any more -- my old provider has retired.
Thus I can't receive any "change password" email for this account.

• The page Jaybear doesn't exist
• The page Discussion for Jaybear is empty except the standard introducing welcome topic:

"English: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jaybear!" ShakataGaNai 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion / History for Jaybear is empty/no log-entries found.

It would be very helpful for me, if I could take over this commons account for further use.
212.29.41.30 15:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(that is at present: de.Jaybear 16:15, 30. Dez. 2011 (CET))

At COM:CHU, you may request that your username be changed or you may usurp a disused username. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for any help on this issue.

Now I'm owning the desired account

Jaybear (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios

I suspect all uploads by Naminyan following 3-day block for copyright violations, which has just expired, are copyvios. 92.40.225.117 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinite. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All images marked as copyvios. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:SYRYNX

All of his files are blatant copyright violations, many containing Japanese brochure text and so on. Most of them are simply scanned from Toyota brochures, but the first file is from a book.

File:CarinahistorySYRYNX.jpg - from a Japanese book on Toyotas...
File:Toyota carina 7g.jpg - contains brochure text
File:Toyota carina 3 2g.jpg - European Carina brochure, ca 1985
File:Toyota carina 2g.jpg - early eighties European brochure, with "TOYOTA" plates
File:Toyota carina 1G1.jpg - same, except older
File:Toyota carina 5 2g.jpg - European marketing photo
File:Toyota carina 5g.jpg - official, Japanese photo
File:Toyota carina 6 2g.jpg - period European marketing shot
File:Toyota carina 4g.jpg - period Japanese brochure, with Katakana on plate
File:TCGT1.jpg - from Japanese used-car website
File:TCGT2.jpg - also
File:Toyota carina 40632.jpg

File:Toyota carina 6g.jpg he simply stole from here in Commons (seems like unecessary work), but Túrelio has already merged the duplicate file. I notice that he has already had several files, all of Toyota Carinas, deleted for the very same reasons. I suggest a block, since talkpage conversations seem to have no effect on this user. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this report, Mr.choppers. I've filed them for speedy deletion (most of these pics came from here), and the remaining files which I couldn't find elsewhere filed for regular deletion, and blocked the user for a week as he has been warned multiple times before. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Cheers. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios

I suspect that all uploads by User:BobIScool are copyvios. 92.40.225.117 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And given the recent massive number of copyvios on this SNSD band (Naminyan, SNSDfan, Emmakalim, Bolmae) and given the account creation at Commons I strongly suspect that this not only a copyvio uploader but also a sockpuppet. --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the user blocked indefinite and I also strongly suggest for a sockpuppet check. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

did this, inconclusive. Left the account open, such obvious copyvios will be found at the latest when included in the articles. But ok, the user came here do only upload copyright violations and include them in en.wp, its an vandalism only account. --Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need Chinese-speaking admin

I think we need Chinese-speaking (well, Chinese-reading/writing) admin to communicate with Sfp2013 (talk · contribs). I don't think this user gets the scope of Commons in terms of copyrights and/or does not understand what it means to claim something as "own work". - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)