User talk:LX/Archive/2011: January to March

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Possible sock error

Hello LX, I am an editor at the English Wikipedia who has been advising a new editor there, User:Schulzdavid. I just found out that he is being accused of being a sock, and that you have CSD-tagged the image files he has uploaded. I want to let you know that I am contesting the CSDs. I realize, on looking at the socks listed at the sock investigation, that there is a similarity in the editing styles that could certainly make one suspicious, but I very much believe that this is only a coincidence, and that this editor is simply a new contributor who is being falsely accused. I have not personally inspected the copyright permission, but I have every reason to believe that it is for real, and was provided in good faith. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help clear this up. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the issue of the images, Commons only accepts content that anyone may use for any purpose, including commercial purposes; see Commons:Licensing. There is no basis whatsoever for the {{CC-by-sa}} tagging of the images. According to the statement repeatedly pasted to multiple pages by User:Schulzdavid, "our photos cannot be sold or transferred to other parties and can only be used for the Temple Beth Sholom's Wikipedia page." These are {{Non-commercial}}, {{Wikipediaonly}} and {{Non-free}} conditions that fundamentally contradict the CC-by-sa license. Claiming that these images are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license constitutes copyright violation, and I've restored that tagging.

As for the sockpuppetry issue, it is discussed at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aju lion. Aside from the behavioral evidence I put forth as basis for investigation, the result of the actual CU was also that the accounts were likely related. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. After reading it, I went back and looked more closely at the permission, and I agree with you that it fails CC-by-sa. I regret that I advised the editor to use Commons for the files, and I agree with you now that the files should be deleted here. But as for the more serious accusation of socking, please note that (as of this time) the Checkuser evidence only applies to the other account, and CU appears not to have been run yet on this user. The behavioral evidence appears to me to be a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad we can agree on the permission problem (as unfortunate as it is that we didn't get an actual usable permission). Regarding the CU case, Magister Mathematicae has checkuser privileges and wrote in the results section of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aju lion that "I believe there's strong enough correlation to link the accounts." My interpretation of this statement is that a CU was run and indicated likely correlation (such as dynamic IP addresses in the same range). Add that to the overlapping interest in a rather geographically and topically specialized field (cf. Aju lion's log and Southern jew's log), the disregard and lack of understanding of copyright and Commons policies, and the fact that Schulzdavid became active here less than a month after the last known sock was blocked. I'm sorry, but I'm finding it a bit hard to believe that the combination of all those factors are a coincidence. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do feel bad that I advised the user to upload those files without my having first looked at the permission letter myself, and I've deleted the images now from the English Wikipedia. But in the mean time, checkuser Tiptoety reported at the sock investigation that the CU confirms socking by the other account, but seems to indicate that the account I'm discussing with you is unrelated. It really is just a case of a new and inexperienced user who made some beginner mistakes about copyright policy, but did not do so intentionally. And the southern US is a big place. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to think now with two different CU results contradicting each other. The southern US is indeed a big place (I've traveled through a fair bit of it), but Temple Beth Sholom from Schulzdavid's uploads is less than 2.5 miles from Temple Emanu-El and Cuban Hebrew Congregation from Aju lion's File:Temple emanuel.jpg and File:Cuban Hebrew.jpg uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:DMCA Takedown, NCI Photos

I read the village pump yesterday to know what happened, but thanks for your message anyway :) Lobo (howl?) 12:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Page

Hi, I realize that this is really not important, but could you please post all the block requests on the specific page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections instead of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard? It could help a little for people who have one page or the other on their watchlists. Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of admins are only watching the main COM:ANB. I'll try using the blocks subpage at least for a while and see if response times have improved from my past experiences. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Image of Rk 95 Tp

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:FinFihlman#File:RK 95 TP.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Need some help...

Hi LX! I have a bit of a problem. I uploaded this: File:Umeå studentkårs medlemsantal.svg, and it looked like hell when uploaded (dont know why...). How do I do to delete it? dnm ^{(t | c)} 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hej Daniel!

Tråkigt att det inte blev som du tänkt dig. Eftersom filen är nyuppladdad och inte används någonstans kan du förmodligen få filen snabbraderad genom att lägga in någonting i stil med {{speedy|Uploader's request; not rendered correctly}} på filbeskrivningssidan.

Ett annat alternativ är att försöka fixa problemet och ladda upp en ny version av filen. En bit ner på filbeskrivningssidan finns en länk för att ladda upp nya versioner.

Du beskriver inte vad det är som ser fel ut. Jag ser att texten har flutit ihop en del. Om det är problemet kan bero på att du angett en font som inte stöds. På meta:SVG fonts hittar du en lista över vilka fonter som stöds. Annars brukar man kunna få bra hjälp angående SVG-filer på Commons:Graphics village pump. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Łukas Biedny

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jumpman23. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Massa_critica_pinturas_poa.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Tigre do oeste. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ash Headshot.jpg

Take a look. Thanks. --RanZag (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, so there's no need to notify me, but I have nothing to add really. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Lepota

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Lepota Kuzmanovic#User:Lepota. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin

Dear LX.
I would - again - kindly ask you to become a sysop again. I know, you had some issues in the past, but that does mean, you are not a fine editor. And by not being an administrator here, you don't change that old licensing-issue. You are filling in so damn many requests on the adminisrator's noticeboard, you really need those tools. Please think about this idea again. If you wanted to, I'd nominate you, of course. Kind regards, abf «Cabale!» 10:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. Since the policy on certain photographs protected by Swedish copyright law remains the same (i.e. that the law should be ignored), I would still be forced to make the same impossible choice between abiding by the laws by which I'm bound and the policies by which administrators are bound. Please understand that my resignation was not a protest, but an action intended to protect Commons. I'm not bitter, I know I'm a good editor, and I intend to continue with that. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you "exclude" decissions on such images from your work as an administrator? abf «Cabale!» 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In practice, that would be the same as refusing requests to delete such files, thereby supporting the infringement. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sad but true. :( abf «Cabale!» 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted [1] this category edit - it may have been the case in Britain some 200 years ago, but municipal workhouses in Moscow in the end of 19th century were neither prisons, nor industrial buildings. Rather, they're half way between free municipal housing and almshouses or orphanages. Admission was voluntary, and in some years there was quite a waiting list. The buildings themselves were converted from former upper-class mansions, and located in "ordinary" residential areas - so they're not industrial either. In the beginning (1880s-1890s) they were more like a modern charity-run free hostel, and then degenerated into ordinary filthy flophouses and lost their work component altogether. It just didn't work.

Regards, NVO (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• As an example, see caption for File:Municipal Album 1.126b Sokolniki workhouse.jpg: "Asile des incurables, hôpital boulangerie et hospice" = "Hospice for the incurable, almshouse and bakery". Definitely not a forced labor institution, and yet called a division of the city's workhouse. NVO (talk)

Thank you for explaining the edit – I had just noticed it and was about to ask you about it. Was there a reason why you reverted my entire edit rather than just removing the categories which you think do not apply? In other words, was it your intent to move Category:Workhouses in Russia back to Category:Workhouses rather than the more specific Category:Workhouses by country? Additionally, workhouses were certainly buildings, so I still think that the category should be a descendant of Category:Buildings in Russia in one way or another.

Also, if workhouses were only prisons or industrial buildings in some countries, those categories should probably be removed from Category:Workhouses and Category:Workhouses by country. It seems you are more familiar with the subject than I am, so perhaps you could help? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I moved it into Category:Workhouses by country. The case of buildings is more complicated: "buildings in Russia" will, technically, include the former East Prussian workhouses that were more like British model (and were not part of Russian Empire ever). Perhaps, the whole set of Moscow photographs should be moved into something like "former social services buildings in Russia" (on the same level as orphanages, almshouses and hospices). NVO (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Well, there's nothing in the name Category:Workhouses in Russia to imply exclusion of East Prussia. Perhaps Category:Workhouses in the Russian Empire is needed to make the distinction? That could then be a subcategory of Category:Buildings in the Russian Empire, which could be a subcategory of Category:Buildings in Russia and Category:Buildings by former country. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The last proposal seems unmanageable: there's not enough resources to maintain "by (current) country" categorization. Parallel "by former country" will be, I suspect, stillborn from the start. And a can of worms of all EE conflicts. Perhaps the simplest solution will be to move Category:Workhouses in the Russian Empire to Category:Workhouses in Russia. Already there. NVO (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Granted, national borders changing over time does pose a problem for categorisation (especially for things like buildings, which tend not to move or disappear along with those borders). Suppose we get some photos of workhouses in East Prussia. Where should they go? I still don't see why Category:Buildings in Russia would imply inclusion of East Prussia if you think that Category:Workhouses in Russia does not. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation detection - Could/ Should normal users warn to block?

Hello LX, as I saw, you're looking for copyright violation. But some users prefer not to follow the guidlines (e.g. User_talk:AdryDN2). Are normal users like me allowed to post the "End copyvio" - message on a useres talkpage? (Example here: User_talk:Antmanpym)? Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes :) (it means an admin coming along on the next batch should block not warn) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One of my stalkers :-P has apparently answered the question already, but yes. I'm a regular user too, and I use it. Even if you don't have the ability to block them yourself, I think it's only fair to warn people of the fact that getting blocked is a highly likely consequence of persistently uploading copyright violations.

User talk:Antmanpym has already been given that warning (by Dodo), so there's not much point giving them the same message again. If I notice that a user ignores that warning and continues to upload copyright violations without getting blocked quickly enough for my liking (I'm impatient), I usually leave a note at COM:AN/B requesting a block.

Keep up the good work! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply. I am looking at uncategorized images and there are so many useless images :-( And it seems not to become better. Sometimes up to 30% of the new files are garbage - that's frustrating. --RE RILLKE Questions? 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lot of work done to make it easier to upload files to Commons. We broke the nine million barrier in February, just a couple of months after the previous million milestone. Subjectively, it feels like it's getting harder to keep up with new uploads. So the efforts to make it easier to upload stuff to Commons seem to have worked. I'm just not sure that the useful uploads have increased at all. I think a lot of people who find Commons difficult to use do so because what they are trying to do isn't what Commons was intended for. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)