User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2013

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Pulteney Bridge, Bath

Hi Michael, I've come a cross an interesting photo credit that you might be interested in; namely: Photo credit: dullhunk / Foter.com / CC BY.

Yet, you state under your licence agreement on WC: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Foter's terms of use neatly get out of this conundrum with: 5) You agree not to alter or remove any part of the embed code in order to remove the photo credit. You agree not to change how the embed code displays in order to hide the origin of the photo, the owner of the photo, and in the case of embedded images, the link back to the Foter.com credit page unless the change better represents the original photo owner's attribution requirements. (emphases mine).

Any thoughts?--P.g.champion (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WLM doodle poll

Hi, unfortunately your response on the Doodle poll was removed by a spammer after the link to the poll became public. If you could respond again on the poll, that would be appreciated. Sorry about the inconvenience. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Apologies for making more work for you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wellcome back!

Hi Michael,

I feel very happy to see you back as an active contributor! Wellcome back!

--Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Looking forward to contributing again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know you from the time when you were an admin and crat, but welcome back I assume. If you have any questions, do ask! :-) Trijnstel_talk 16:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Freie Deutsche Jugend logo.png

Your reason for keeping the image is incorrect. Adding a border (if it ever turned out to be part of the design) is as simple as adding a stroke in inkscape, and if someone doesn't know how to do so we have several graphic labs where they can request it. That's not a reason for it to stay when we have an SVG and the file has no use. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I did of course take your view into account, as you've expressed it a couple of times in deletion requests, but in the end my judgement was to keep. To be honest, I doubt it is worth your expending too much future energy on this single image. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Without a proper reason for it to be here and without absolutely any use, I have every right to question it. The image was uploaded by a user who does not discuss things, does not engage in cooperation, and who frequently adds psuedo-3D effects to images because he thinks it looks more cool or fancy. It should also be noted that the uploader has not even given a reason why the image should stay. Without any of this, it needs to go. Changes can be and are made to SVGs every day, there is absolutely no reason why a change can be made to this image's SVG equivalent if a source is provided that something is amiss. Your "weak" (as you put it) keep is unsatisfactory. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera files with bad file names

• Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-04#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Al Jazeera files with bad file names
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Al Jazeera files with bad file names
• User talk:Fæ#Egyptian Revolution photos

Hi Michael, in your comments on the first link above, the undel req, you appeared to oppose the undeletion, though your rationale appears to be for undeletion (if AJ are the copyright holder, then they are the ones that originally released these files on a free reuse licence, they were originally deleted because of possible concern for the copyright of the photographer, not AJ). Could you clarify? If you have some thoughts about concluding this so that all parties can be satisfied, you may want to add either to the discussion on my talk page, or on the re-opened DR. I'll return to this next week. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see why my comments were confusing to you. I have posted some more complete thoughts here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:01- Prakash Kumar Meher.JPG

Hi, you recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:01- Prakash Kumar Meher.JPG saying that "The image is currently in use on a user page as well as a Wikipedia article" but the main problem with this image was dubious authorship and not whether it is in scope or not. The talk page discussions on the corresponding file talk page also raise concerns about description and genuineness of the file. Will you please reconsider reopening the discussion atleast if not change your opinion about the file status? Also, it was added to an en.wiki article only after I made the deletion request by an editor close to one of the subjects in the photograph. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I will. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've personally seen any sysop reconsidering their actions. Would you also please care to vote on the DR page? Thanks for being nice! Rahul Bott (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have stated my opinion as requested. Will now leave it for another admin to close. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS backlog

Hi, I saw your statement here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Mackay 2012 Publicity Shot.jpg. Please be aware of a *huge* backlog in OTRS. We received a valid permission 5 March, but nobody processed it until today. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jcb, thanks for letting me know. Will certainly bear that in mind for the future. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OAS Flag

Êtes-vous êtes personne folle! vous ne pouvez pas supprimer le drapeau de l'OEA! 99.229.41.79 23:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nous devons respecter le droit d'auteur ici. Malheureusement, l'image est basée sur une autre image qui n'était pas dans le domaine public. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For humbly accepting that anyone can make mistake. For reconsidering your decision without bringing ego in between :-) Rahul Bott (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's kind. Thank you very much! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unused

Hi Michael, File:محمدصالح عابد عبدالله عبيد 2013-04-25 11-45.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمدصالح عابد عبدالله عبيد 2013-04-25 11-45.jpg) is not in use. The page was deleted. Best regards, --Polarlys (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Polaris. I checked when I closed the DR and it was in use at that time. Not sure what may have happened since, and I would prefer not to re-open as I think the closure was correct when I did it. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) detail.jpg

You deleted File:The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo) detail.jpg because "PD-Art cannot be used for images showing a 3D frame. It could have been kept if anyone had thought it worthwhile to crop, but apparently no-one did."

This image that was deleted is itself a crop of the center-right portion of File:The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo).jpg (shown) and does not contain any 3-dimensional aspects.

In light of your statement "It could have been kept if anyone had thought it worthwhile to crop [out the 3D frame]" please reconsider.

Thanks. Davidwr (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see: that makes all the difference. What I had thought was a frame was actually a part of the right hand creature's painted tail. I've restored the image as requested. It's fabulous (in both senses of the word). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast restoration. I just hope none of the language-wikis bot-swept it away from any pages that were using it. Davidwr (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Justice007

Did you mean to close both DRs on this page, or just the Karachi press club one? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just the first one. The others I meant to leave for further discussion as there do seem to be pretty serious issues. Thanks for noting that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

UK WLM teams

Hi, I'd be interested in volunteering, but I'd also really like to participate. Would I be allowed to both participate and volunteer? Kyores (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I'm planning to do the same! I'll make that clear on the page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! I've been wanting to volunteer for a while, but then I picked up a nice telephoto lens for cheap a few days ago, and that makes me want to participate more than ever. Kyores (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message asking me to move my name to the right section - but I'm unsure what I can do to help. I'd probably be able to do some promotion - presuming this is online as travel is difficult with work & family commitments, however I'm not sure about seeking partners and sponsors for prizes. It might just be best to leave me in supporters and potential contestants & I will help if and when I can.Rodw (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rod. Fine to leave your name there if you feel that's the right place, or move it to Promotion if you could do some online stuff. The initial need is to get some initial teams set up who can then discuss what needs toi be done and who is going to do it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Homelessness photo

Dear Michael, I ask your permission to publish your photo at my Facebook page, "Homelessness as an urban planning issue: is there a feasible solution?". I´m an architect and urbanist, from Sao PAulo, Brazil, and work with homeless population, concerning urbanist and city planning. I would apreciate if you coud see the Facebook page. Yours sincerily, Paula Quintao

Yes, that's fine. I have replied by email --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:MichaelMaggs_is_even_more_back...

I just noticed this. I'd be happy to nominate you. Are you willing to go through the rigmarole for 7 days? --99of9 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be the way forward. Thanks, I'd appreciate it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs (2). --99of9 (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Photos in 2009

Hi, please resume my deleted photos so that I am able to change the notification restriction.

Hi Oscark, and welcome back. These all date from some time ago! I assume you mean all the images listed on your talk page under the section Photographer notification requirement? If you could confirm that is right, and that you agree to remove the notification restriction I'd be more than happy to restore them for you. Could you reply here, please? (You can sign your name by adding four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your response. Look forward to hearing from you again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree to remove the notification restriction and let you restore those photos. Thanks. Oscark (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have restored for you the 32 or so images that were deleted in 2009, and on the basis of your above coment have removed your requirement for notification from each. However, some of them still seem to have a few problems and you will need to check them all carefully, one by one, to make sure that each has an indication of the original source. For the photos you took yourself, you should simply add {{Own work}}. Some of the images are aerial views, and I imagine that you found those on the net. You'll need to demonstrate that those came from a source which freely licensed the image, otherwise they cannot be kept. Could you please do that quite quickly, as the automated systems we have here are likely automatically to flag some up the images with unknown source for deletion again very soon. Hope that helps, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment at

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington It seems to have gotten everything going and the OTRS ticket has now been approved. See the deletion request or File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG

Can you undelete the effected photos, or is there somebody else I should ask? User:Jcb was the approving OTRS guy.

I'll contact him just so that everybody understands each other. Smallbones (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done See my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington. Thanks for arranging the US sculptor's permission. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. All I can do is say thank you. Smallbones (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New headache for you

I don't know if you have seen User:Canoe1967/Sculptors yet but you may be interested in it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, but it looks an excellent idea which you could perhaps move into the Commons mainspace. The OTRS permission mentioned Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington in could be added. Hope you didn't mind my referring to your analysis in the closure. It was very good, but my feeling is that the circumstances here are rather exceptional. Happy to discuss further if you want. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your decision you did weigh all the points brought up. I may bring one image up again for DR to discuss the issue. Our precautionary principle states: 4.“Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter.” The copyright owner, if they are still alive, may have the opposite view of our consensus. If we decide not to host images of their work then that may draw more attention to a cause they may have died for.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely fine. It's an issue that could certainly bear further discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I may just bring it up at vp/copyright instead of taking to DR again. Consensus their may decide if DR is needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Michael, yet again I pester you! If you have some time, will you please have a look at the second discussion thread on File talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG. I removed,with this edit, a gallery of photos which were not other versions of the file but simply different photographs from the other_versions entry of the file description. User:Roland zh reverted it soon enough with edit summary "potentially vandalism reverted, next one will be handled as 'Commons User Problems'". I tried to start a discussion with him on the file talk page, since he has made clear on his talk page that he does not like the messages to be posted there and erases any such message zealously saying he is too busy. He replied saying that "forced discussion" is a "personal attack" and frankly, it might also be a bit about language problem as English is not the mother tongue for either of us!

I know it is not a big deal but for future purposes and for my own benefit alone, I would just like to know

1. Whether putting all of these files as the gallery on the file page was correct? Please evaluate each individual file entry if you can.
2. Is there some limit to what can be put in the other_versions entry in file description?
3. Was I so wrong in removing them that it should be called "potentially vandalism"?

You may please consider commenting on the File talk page or my talk page. As always, thanks! Rahul Bott (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you were in the right, and I agree with the comment that was made by Jameslwoodward. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

PHOTOS NOMINATED FOR DELETION BY DAVIDWR

Dear Michael,

I sent Davidwr a message regarding the photos nominated for deletion:

Please note that I have changed the description of Alberto Gonzalez Family Photo to state that I, the user CGLUQUE1958, took this photo at a family gathering for Alberto Gonzalez birthday. This was not for profit. As a family member, I had full access and own my photo. Please remove the request for deletion of this photo.

Regarding the others, I have no objection to deletion as I did not take them personally. Many of this publications in Puerto Rico are not in existence, but I ignore whether or not there could be any claim. Therefore, I understand that it is best to be prudent and avoid conflicts on the remaining photos, except the one above.

Again, only the Alberto Gonzalez family photo is the one I took and authorized it's use for the Alberto Gonzalez webpage as well.

I hope this clear the matter, regards, CGLUQUE1958 CGLUQUE1958 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It look all OK now, but please let me know if there is anything else you need. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Manuela's deletion requests

I made several deletion requests for some of the files I have uploaded. I write this because I did not get any new reactions so far. You asked a question here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kanal_Wien_3._Mann_Tour_(7).JPG. I hope my answer was sufficient, and you or an other admin will perform the deletions eventually, thank you, --Manuela (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, now  Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I hardly dare to ask, I have quite a few other open deletion requests (11.5., 22.5.), please... --Manuela (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though Lupo and Fastily got round to them in the last 24 hours. That seems to be all, but if we have missed any please let me know. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I got the messages already from commons. 4 Files are still open, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kanal_Wien_3._Mann_Tour_(6).JPG, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kanal_Wien_3._Mann_Tour_(9).JPG, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kanal_Wien_3._Mann_Tour_(5).JPG, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kanal_Wien_3._Mann_Tour_(4).JPG, greetinx, --Manuela (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much again, --Pd4u (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Again :-)

Hi again :-) I return to cause you a bit more of trouble! The file File:User-Prakash Kumar Meher.jpg which you recently closed as kept has other problems too besides being an obvious private album photo IMO. As is very clear from the image, the image has been taken by someone else and not the uploader himself who is also the subject of the photograph, but has been marked as "Own work". And, I'm not so keen on assuming good faith here. Now, I was recently told that subject-requested photographs are allowed if limited to userpages. But does that extend to use in article pages too. And don't we require OTRS permission for that? TIA. Rahul Bott (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Well spotted - you are quite right. I have re-opened the DR and have stated my view that the file should be deleted unless the uploader can provide permission via OTRS. I'll now leave it for another admin to close. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

His other images look suspicious as well. I have nominated for deletion all of the remaining ones. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a case of blatant advertising and self-promotion. The uploader has scant understanding of Commons' laws. Even the en.wiki contributions and article page need to be reviewed IMO. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael, you only deleted the redirect File:05- Prakash Kumar Meher.JPG but the file was previously moved to File:User-Prakash Kumar Meher.jpg by User:Lotje. The related DR request is also still open. Also, I've discussed about this user at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Deutz-Fahr. It would be good if you can express your views there on this user. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay in my getting round to this. On the question of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Deutz-Fahr, I'm not sure at the moment that I have much useful to add to that page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind Michael, thanks so much for both of your replies :-) Rahul Bott (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File deleted:Mumtaz (actress).jpg

Deleted: Sorry, we can't keep this as there may well be extant copyright in the old photo itself, which was not taken by the you. Ownership of an old print does not mean it's allowable to scan it and upload it here, as copyright does not generally get transferred on purchase of an old photo. We would need a licence from the copyright owner, which is not likely to be possible if we don't know who took the picture MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear to me as to how it was construed that I did not take this photo myself. I had not 'bought' this photo from anywhere, but took it myself. Hence I own all the copyrights to it. When I saw there was no photo of Mumtaz on her page, I had uploaded it. I could of uploaded umpteen others which are around, but seeing the conditions, I had uploaded this one only. I would like to know as to what kind of licence is required from me. As, the photo has been deleted without giving me a proper opportunity, I request you to please undelete it. --Juhi47

Hi, thanks for the information. You'll understand that we have to be very careful to ensure that we do not inadvertently infringe the copyright of photographers, and this appears to be a professional photograph. Could you explain, please, your role in the film, and how you came to take this image? Would you be prepared to confirm your true identity (in confidence if need be)? Presumably, you have the negative in your possession, so could you explain why you scanned a print? Thanks for your help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I do understand that it is right to protect the copyright, but there should be some guidelines for the amateur photographers like me to prove that it is their own work. I did not play any role in the film. Incidentally, one of the crew members who knew my father took us to the shooting spot in a village where an outdoor shoot was going on, featuring Mumtaz and Rajendra Kumar. Had I known that I would one day be uploading the photo, I would have properly preserved both the negative and the photo. I have no idea as to how to scan the negative. Anyway, considering that the photo was taken over 40 years back, the negative was no longer usable. I had scanned the photo quite sometime back. As there were innumerable cracks, I had to do quite a bit of retouching, which are visible in the full resolution scan. But I must have done a 'good' job, as you have termed the photo as a professional one. --Juhi47

 Done. I've added your comments above to the image page, as that should provide useful information to other users who might worry about such an old image being 'own work' --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for restoring the image. -- Juhi47

Bureaucrat again

My congratulations! --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats and good luck again! :) Trijnstel_talk 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats and good work :-)--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please delete only empty categories

We are trying to bring Special:WantedCategories to an all time low level. Deleting non empty categories just brings it back to this list. --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, I expect you've seen some of my efforts this morning to close and clear out some of the very, very old CFD requests. Not sure which particular closure you are referring to, but it's of course a natural part of the process that sometimes the correct closure of a CFD is 'delete', whether or not there are images there. In an ideal world, of course, users might calmly agree on a categorization, and someone would come along and helpfully clear out all the images in a bad category, but in practice that does not happen too often. More usually, the CFD sits in the backlog, sometimes for years, until a brave admin comes along to make a decision one way or the other. How do items get onto the wanted list? If an entry is just added automatically whenever an image is classified to a non-existent category, would it help if I manually removed the category from all images where the decision is 'delete'? Or is there some tool that could help with that? All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I emptied the :Category:Single men that you deleted this morning. Cat-a-lot seems to be the best tool for such operations, and anyway, if the category comes back in the next version of the wanted list, I will remove them or restore the category, as you have seen in the two cases at hand. So I restored Category:Paintings with signatures (lower right) because the question is what to do with the content and the sister categories (right, top, bottom); do they all have to move up one level ? So you have a nice example why closing CFD's can take a very long time and we don't have a lot of "brave" administrators especially since interested admins tend to be involved too. Personally, I follow relatively well the CFD's and whenever seems reasonable, I delete/move/redirect as needed leaving only the difficult cases. Basically this particular CFD should be announced in all related sister categories and a deletion procedure (move/merge or delete) proposed. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This makes me wonder if we could specify a helpful bot based tool, possibly an extension to Category-bot, to run a report on a daily basis for some statistics or conflicts on categories that are proposed for deletion, such information plonked on the category talk page (or in the category summary on a temporary basis) might be quite helpful. For example a breakdown of the numbers of file pages that link to children of the category, or numbers of links elsewhere to the category. If the numbers update within a day when referencing pages are changed using hotcat or similar, this would help whoever is deleting the category make a more informed decision. Are there things along this line that either of you might find helpful in CFD work? --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I must confess that I haven't looked in detail at the outstanding CFD requests for some time, and my session this morning has reminded me why I (and probably most other admins) have historically given them a wide berth. Clearly, the system we have at present is not working; it's a pretty poor state of affairs when closures are so difficult to handle that some CFD requests are still open and unresolved after as long as three and a half years. So far as I am aware, no-one has looked at all seriously into our rules and procedures for closing CFDs in at least the last 5 years (perhaps for ever), and it occurs to me that with some concentrated thought we ought to be able to come up with something much more efficient than we have now. Our systems should support both ease of closure by non-involved admins, and include an integrated mechanism for removing unneeded red-link categories from the wanted list, so that that does not have to be maintained manually as a separate process. I'm away over the weekend at WikConference UK 2013 (as I believe is Fae), but if you'd both be agreeable perhaps we could make a start next week on some thoughts as to how we can improve things? And in response to Fae, the answer to almost any question as to whether a bot would be useful is a most definite "yes!". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten this, but have been working on some other stuff for a while. I'll think about picking this up again later. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK userbox

See {{User Wikimedia UK small}}. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi Michael, a moment ago I've seen that you have been expressedly mentioned in an opinion piece about Commons in the current Signpost[1]. I've also put a personality tag on your portrait photo. --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "useful or potentially useful to a Wikimedia project", I fear that many of my batch uploads would be thrown in the bin, so these might provide a case study or two for your counter-OpEd. For example, only a couple of hundred of Category:Gnuplot charts using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are in use. They are all educational (or why else would the ABS be publishing the data), but most are too specialized for general Wikipedia articles. Similarly, I'm in the middle of a project creating and uploading high quality vector maps of Australian census data, currently working on the first region: Category:Demographic maps of Inner Sydney (about 16000 maps so far). Again, these are (IMO) fascinatingly interesting, and clearly educational, and should be a massive boon to amateur demography-watchers who don't have the time or expertise to create the maps themselves. How many will be used on Wikipedia? Perhaps a few hundred. Flickr may be better for random party photos, but Commons is *the best* place to make available organized, high quality educational graphics on the internet. --99of9 (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael, considering the Signpost, to me it is clearly from a person that has no clue what is Commons about, but merely sees it as a department for "his" Wikipedia. I have no intention to waste my time on such rants, although I consider Commons as one of the largest and most productive multi-cultural cooperation projects that exist on our world. --Foroa (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Project scope

Hi Michael. I don't know if you are the right person to ask. I'm a bit confused about the project scope pages. For example the COM:PEOPLE guideline. Rather than discuss this on the guideline talk page, we have the guideline copy/pasted and chopped into sections with discussions on each section. There doesn't seem to be a page on the scope area for discussing the guideline as a whole. For example, your proposal to make it policy is buried in the section discussing a copy of the lead. Nobody will have these various sections on their watchlists. Does an important discussion on Commons scope really need to discuss individually each and every section of COM:PEOPLE? Colin (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, my experience of just having an unstructured debate about everything at once on the main talk page is that strands get confused, everybody posts everything at the bottom, and that once a suggestion moves higher up the page it tends to get overlooked by visitors. The idea here is to allow users to go straight to and focus on the areas of specific interest to them. They can ignore sections they are not interested in without having to read them at all.

I do agree with your concerns about visibility, though, and the fact that at the start of the review these pages will not be on watchlists. Perhaps we could copy or link the full text of each proposal onto the talk page of COM:PEOPLE or COM:PS to increase exposure and drive traffic through? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that attempting to discuss the whole guideline could result in the mess you describe. And a short link to each proposal from the guideline talk page would be a good idea (but not a copy of the whole thing, as that might encourage response on the talk page too). Colin (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you've brought out some suggestions made from 4 years ago. I was aware of them when redrafting the current guideline, and tried to incorporate the idea that there were degrees of consent, degrees of identifiability, degrees of privacy, etc. I hope the current text gives the reader information and aspects to consider for them to work it out for themselves, whereas previous approach seemed to take the "we've worked out the rules for you" approach (all those levels). That approach stumbled when the community couldn't agree rules that applied in all circumstances. However, I don't think the current draft is perfect: I couldn't take it too far away from what was there before otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted. Colin (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for all you contributions :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I love strawberries! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Hey Michael, in relation to the RFC on scope and ident, sorry if it's come across there that I've thrown a spanner in the works with them, but as you can see other editors also think it's simply too big and cumbersome to deal with effectively (we need to hold attention if we are to get anything done). The most important aspect of both SCOPE and IDENT that keeps hitting my ear is the {{Consent}} issue; and it's an issue that many of us have tried to address in a fair manner. That's probably the most important thing that we as a community need to discuss. I would probably be inclined to put the scope RFC on hold, and do the ident issue as the main priority for the project. Or do you see serious issues within SCOPE? I've let a few editors know I'm bringing this to you on your talk page, so don't be surprised if you get some blow-ins and wondering where they came from :) russavia (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that consent is an important thing to look at, and if editors feel that it's best to review the issues one by one, then that would be where to start. On Scope, by far the biggest issue that comes up again and again in DRs is what is encompassed by the phrase "Realistically useful for an educational purpose". The conclusion may ultimately be that the wording is already as good as it can be, but clearly one group of users strongly feels that it allows too much to be kept and another equally strongly feels that it allows too much to be deleted. The wording is in my view now overdue for a full discussion, and that could be taken next. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion clarification

Hi Michael, you may wish to add some context to User_talk:Fastily#Removal_of_Speed_Deletion_request, they seem to relate to past actions of yours. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:HextallProfile1988.jpg

Is there sufficient or insufficient permission permission for this image from the flickr source statement? If you think it is not sufficient, please feel free to launch a DR or tag it with a npd tag. I don't think I can mark this image...but you may have more experience here with this 1988 photo. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have opened a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HextallProfile1988.jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I will make a reply in the DR. Thank You for your help, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC Structure

Thanks for organizing the RfC. I think the structure of it is pretty unclear. There's no way to get to the actual discussions and proposals from the main page. I spend 5 minutes looking for where you moved my proposal to, before digging through your contrib history to find it. At a minimum, I think the "discussion" links in the navbox should link to the actual discussions, not copied versions of the existing policies. Gigs (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea. I have changed the navbox links as you suggested, and have also added the navbox to the discussion pages. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael - Gigs, and the follow ups in the Signpost, largely touched on the subject of what "Educational" means. Reading Commons:Project_scope#Aim_of_Wikimedia_Commons doesn't quite spell it out either. Could you create a page to discuss what Educational means to Commons?--TParis (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael, I don't think the "propose text to add" idea for the RfC on COM:IDENT is working. The actual text change should be the last step. We need to engage the community in thinking about the issues, collecting all the factors and concerns together, and to contemplating the current text to see what might be changed. I think reheating the failed 2009 texts is very unhelpful. We need to move on. That approach didn't work then. I wonder if it is almost better to scrap the RFC suggestions so far and start again. Have people propose issues that they see wrt deletion discussions or the collection of images we currently have, and then discuss how the current guideline does or doesn't help them. For example, the issue of assumed consent, requiring a formal declartion of consent from the uploader, or even requiring evidence of consent from the subject. That's a big issue the community hasn't solved. Any discussion on that certainly shouldn't begin with the proposed text of any policy.

Given the publicity this has had, the response has been very low. (I haven't looked at SCOPE yet, though). I do think the fractured pages approach is a problem, even though it does separate discussions cleanly, it also inhibits folk from reading the whole guideline. A discussion might result in a new section or the merging of sections. Colin (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

However a review is structured, we probably have to accept that engaging with the minutiae of policy is not most users' idea of fun. Reviews structured in the way I have done it may put put off casual editors, as it does make it clear that the issues are pretty complex and that a lot of thinking and reading is needed. On the other hand, an RFC such as yours may attract a lot of fly-by editors who don't and can't add much to the discussion as they cannot be not bothered to read it, and I'm by no means sure that attracting such editors is worthwhile. There really is no right way of doing this. I understand of course that a focussed discussion could be an option, but the reason I set up the review this way was precisely that the existing focussed discussion was not really going anywhere. We have tried that, and this review was simply the next step. Ultimately, if most users are not interested in getting involved then policy will inevitably be decided by those who do. I've replied in similar terms to your comments here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these policy documents should be merged, consolidated, or refactored, a discussion which is very difficult to have with the current fractured format of the RfC. Gigs (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Francisco A. Arredondo, motor transportation operator, 2nd Platoon, Battery B, Battalion Landing Team 3-5, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, toasts bread on the mess deck of USS Rushmore 130425-M-VZ265-010.jpg

Hello!

Your "keep"-decission on this DR seems to be a clear reflection of your personal point of view. DRs should not be decided after personel beliefs and likes. Which comment of Fae brought you to your decission? --High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My DR closures have always been based on my best understanding of Commons policy, and that will always be the case while I remain an admin here. The image you refer to is in scope as it is realistically useful for an educational purpose, where the expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative": see COM:SCOPE. It is instructional and informative regarding day to day life on the mess deck of USS Rushmore. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Disruptive editing by Ottava Rima. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Fæ (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

imzorain

[[--41.143.149.111 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)File:--41.143.149.111 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Jkkjjol|thumbnail]]Italic text

Involved

I point out that you committed a serious violation and a breach of trust. How do you plan on correcting your mistake? It is obvious that the page is completely out of policy and not within the remit of Bureaucrats, which is something you should have known also. These are fundamental violations and need to be addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have responded on the relevant page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You cannot edit war like this and remove comments. It is for discussion. All things are for discussion. You need to stop violating our policies like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I am not sure if you saw my edit summary, but your comment was incorrectly posted as a threaded response on the page for opinions and not for discussion. Of course you are free to raise any issue you care to on the main discussion page at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Disruptive editing by Ottava Rima. All things, indeed, can be discussed and nobody has inhibited your ability to comment on AN/U in any way, nor to present your view (as you have already done) on the Opinions page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, no no. What do you not get about discussion? You cannot limit people to areas. You cannot tell them how much they can post. You do not have that authority. The page is out of authority and I am tempted to nominate it for deletion. You cannot just dictate, and I have already been in contact with multiple admin who are really upset with your actions. Why do you think you can just make up rules as you go along and ignore our current ones? That isn't your right. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

You may wish to contact WMF about File:ACMI 14.jpg. See the edit history at w:Academy Award. See also the templates and their links on the file page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

misplaced signature?

Looks like you doublesigned here. Best regards Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fotos loaded up to start law cases

Dear MichaelMaggs

found your comments on an Foto deletion of Harald Bischof.

This guy loads up Pictures specially the last 18 month.. As i get reportet a lot of people are faced with copyright law cases very soon. Obviously Harald Bischof load up pics with very hot topics, like Football Manager Ulli Hoenes with his court case. Good chance the picture get reused and a mistake in naming the Wiki Common licenses is made.

I just only today found in Berlin 4 Lawyers with law cases from Harald bischof and already a half dozen people who paid to him for exactly his uploaded Fotos here.

I guess you agree thats not the idea of Wiki Commons even if its more a german law problem.

Some of the pictures are unclear if he was the Fotografer

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OlyStadion-M%C3%BCnchen-im_Bau-1-800px.jpg

Same point is her.. i can ask Claudia Cane if she gives us a good picture.. Its in doubt that Harald Bischof had the right to take, publish and than courtcase her Picture.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ClaudiaCane01a.jpg

This picture was used twice for a copyright law case https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K%C3%BCrbisse_3082-1.jpg

same discussion here.. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anke_Gei%C3%9Fler_4226.jpg

Thanks

Hi. I am afraid that this is not an issue that I know anything about. My only involvement was to close as 'keep' this deletion request on the basis that the sole objection to the image was that the photographer was 'not allowed to' take the photo. If, as you say, there is much more to it, I would suggest that you would be better off asking a German-speaking admin. If you need a recommendation, please let me know. Sorry I can't be of more help myself. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg

Thank you for the message. You're a bit unfamiliar to me because you returned Commons quite recently. Anyway I hope you can do something to save Commons for us. Please remember, closing a discussion will not help to close an issue. JKadavoor Jee 10:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for speeding up my decision to retire from Commons. I'm glad we have many people like you; so I didn't see a sudden threat for Commons. Please receive my best wishes and prayers for your every attempts to reform the Commons. Thanks, Jee. JKadavoor Jee 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would feel sad if anything I did has encouraged you to move away from Commons. The community needs more people like you, and I do hope you will stay and continue with your good work trying to improve things here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How could you possibly see all of those editors arguing for deletion (especially of the video) and believe there is a consensus to keep these files on the Commons. Opinion seemed to be evenly split and it's typical to err on the side of caution.

Is it because the subject is Jimmy Wales? If the painting was another person who had not given consent, would they have a better case? If it was a child? I just wonder what limits, if any, the Commons has. 69.125.134.86 01:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have the right person? The main deletion request was closed as "keep" by User:Beria, not by me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo upload misused to start law cases

Thanks for your feedback MichaelMaggs, if you send me an Mailadress or other contact way, i can send you more details.

Already the foto upload list shows that Bischof specially upload very actual places or Persons. Very soon you can see them as reported law cases in Blogs or on Lawyers homepages. Hope that abuse is not in common with Wiki Philosophy ?

You can send me a private email buy clicking on the "Email this user" link in the toolbox on the left hand side. I'd be happy to look at any evidence you may have, but I suspect that my knowledge of German may not be good enough to allow me to do much. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

this topic is already discussed at length on de.wp (de:Wikipedia:URF#Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F; de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen#WP:URF.23Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F; de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia#.22Datei_von_Massen-Abmahner_entfernt.22) as well as on the German Forum (Commons:Forum#de:WP:URF.23Fotos_werden_Hochgeladen_-_gesucht_und_dann_gezielt_abgemahnt_.3F). --Isderion (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Images without subject consent are not the same case as other courtesy deletions

I do not think it advances the discussion to continually re-route it from forum to forum, or to conflate subject consent with uploader remorse.Dankarl (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. Please add your thoughts on that to the discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (de-Bureaucrat)

I have very serious reservations about this process. First off how this vote came to start is problematic. Secondly we seem to have a non-Commons community (en.wikipedia) attempting to decide our Bureaucrats for us given the evidence of canvassing at least through Jimbo's talk page on en.wikipedia. And thirdly I do not think the issue is advertised enough for the general community to know. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that 99of9 is handling this very carefully and correctly, and I agree with his approach. On the issue of en.Wikipedia editors coming over to Commons, my view is that we are all part of the same large family, and that we are all in our own ways attempting to support the WMF's mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". Commons acts as a repository for all the the WMF's projects, including the English Wikipedia, and it is absolutely right that English Wikipedia editors who have opinions on the way Commons operates should feel free to come here and express those opinions. Both Mattbuck and I have strongly argued for that in respective Wikipedia Signpost Op-ed articles. As Mattbuck rightly says,

• "Wikimedia projects are based around collaboration and discussion within the community. I would urge those of you who feel that Commons is "broken" to come to Commons and offer constructive advice. Attacking long-term Commons users will get you nowhere, nor will pasting links on other projects, or on Jimbo's talk page. If you truly want to make Commons a better place, and are not in fact just looking for any reason to tear it down, then come to Commons. Come to the village pump - tell us what is wrong, and how you feel we could do better. Use the systems we have in place for project discussions to discuss the project. Sitting back and sniping from afar does nothing for your cause, and it only embitters the Commons community."
  

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My worry is not about 99of9 conduct. I specifically stated that I have serious reservations about the process. In other words the local communities voice can be silenced by a larger wiki if they so much as feel like it? I don't think that's your message but that is the sense I get from the current poll/arguments. I do not like how we do not have an agreed process on how to handle the issue and as a result I will not be satisfied with either possible outcome. I think other members of the commons community may share this sentiment. Also, En.wikipedia can dominate any and all discussions here which is very unfair to all other sibling projects including other language editions of Wikipedia. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unlike actions taken on most Wikimedia projects, actions taken on Commons have the potential to affect the entire Wikimedia community—hundreds of other wikis." "Commons supports the other Wikimedia projects, but we can only succeed with the support of these other projects too." "Therefore, keep in mind that when communicating with other users you may be seen as representing "Commons" in its entirety. It's important to be polite and patient." '"'In community discussions, in many respects (but not always), Commons community is Wikimedia community. We have duties to all those users, not just the ones with active accounts at Commons." Hope you get an idea. JKadavoor Jee 09:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to encourage the wider community to join us, not try to keep everyone else out, as it is important that Commons retains the trust of the other projects. Your point about en.W potentially dominating any discussion here is already I think adequately addressed by the Bureaucrat policy which says "A bureaucrat closing a discussion or vote will do so on the basis of policy and if appropriate on the basis of consensus. Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count. Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons. Bureaucrats also have discretion to extend the period of a discussion or vote where they feel that would lead to a clearer consensus or otherwise improve the outcome."

The fact that Commons does not yet have a detailed written policy to deal with this precise issue is not surprising, as it has never to my knowledge arisen before, but that should not mean that it should not or cannot be addressed. 99of9 has done exactly what I would have done, which is to make use of the closely analogous existing procedure for admins. This type of analogous process is quite normal and is the way in which policy evolves and matures. While I do understand the points you are making, I don't myself think that a case has been made out that the process should be overturned. There is always meta discussion about the process when anything new comes up, though, and it's fine for you to raise the issue even though I may not agree with your conclusions. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

John the Preacher

Re Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abomination_of_Desolation.jpg, there are other images, some merely architectural, but File:Antichrist in the Holy Place.png (recently removed from en:Third Temple) is highly offensive, and File:Iran Nuclear Missile.png and File:Israel Peace Treaty.png questionable. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nominated those for deletion. Actually, of his uploads seem of pretty doubtful educational value. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Virginia or Florida

Hi, I just came across this change. According to http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/19/wikimedia-sites-move-to-primary-data-center-in-ashburn-virginia/, the servers are now located in Virginia and Florida just serves as a fallback. Kind regards -- Rillke^(q?) 19:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I have fixed it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk page

Read your talk page on Wikipedia, and please reply there.

I suggest that you expand your call for help to the whole world.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Russavia closure discussion

I mentioned you in a discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I expect that we do have a crat who will close when the time comes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember this?

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abomination_of_Desolation.jpg

The same user appears to have uploaded some more, including one that was already deleted. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See a couple of sections up. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WLM UK

Happy to help prejudging (er, that doesn't quite sound right). Also shouldn't that GLAM-images conference be booked, for what should be the first of many presentations on WLM 2013, especially in the UK? Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to help with the screeening - tell me more about how the process would work :-) The Land (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. Details to follow - currently waiting for an update of the jury tool to be loaded to the WMUK server. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For Your Kind Attention

You have a message at Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Biographies_of_Living_Persons_and_Defamation. Thanks, JKadavoor Jee 16:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Onam greetings!

Have a nice Onam tomorrow! JKadavoor Jee 17:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OnaSadya

Thank you, Jee. You too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical Wiki

The group from rads wiki are physicians. Why would they 1) not have access and 2) not have obtained appropriate consent? Can you please review [2] James Heilman, MD (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am very short of time at the moment and I'm afraid I won't have a chance in the near future to give this the study it needs. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WLM pre-screening

Just leaving a note that I'd be interested with pre-screening images for WLM UK. Drop a message on my talk page if you decide you want someof my help. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WLM UK

I'd be willing to help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Have emailed you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"

While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!" – JKadavoor Jee 06:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your early closure of a FPC

Hi Michael, can you please reverse your early close of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg here. This closure directly failed to comply with the FPC community rules for how closures are allowed to work, and appears to be a hasty close on your part that may be seen to support the moves to institutionalize a NSFW policy on Commons. I am unsure if this is something that a bureaucrat should be seen to be encouraging.

If you are not around to reply later today, then I will take the initiative to reverse your closure as a probable oversight on your part. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, after examining the FPX process more closely, I have just gone ahead and contested it. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fae, the FPX template is not a closure of any kind, it's merely an opinion by one editor that the image is clearly not of sufficient quality to pass the FPC process. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Morning

Congrats on bringing WLM to the UK. Nice pictures Victuallers (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey. Dear MichaelMaggs/Archive, Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place. You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help. To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Please see

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv Sorry this is so messy. Smallbones (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not to hat this, as the statement may potentially be relevant for the closing admin to read. I have warned Russavia about attacks, though. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey! Dear MichaelMaggs/Archive, Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests! In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days. And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy! Kind regards, the Wiki Loves Monuments team

The final decision

Hello! I don't know if I am allowed to invite you, but I would like you to take part in the final decision about "to be or not to be on Commons" of the making of video. Seleucidis (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help if you want me to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. And thank you for offering your free time just before Christmas. After reading your balanced comments I am sure your input in the discussion will be very valuable. Seleucidis (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Michael Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this (on en:) - you could do the same

Thanks Roger. Merry Christmas to you too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Uploading picture & video

Hello! Sorry for disturbing you just before Christmas, but I am a bit hopeless at the moment. I have already contacted two admins and asked them to help me: one did not answer at all and one said may (maybe). Tim Patch – the artist Pricasso – is willing to cooperate and offers his new (neutral) artwork and making of video to Commons. Unfortunately I can not upload it, because I don't know how it works and I have no experience with OTRS issues and the policies which must be fulfilled. I am looking for somebody who is willing to take care of the uploads and so forth. Are you willing to do it? If not, do you know who I can contact? To be clear: I don't want you to replace the controversial picture and video, I just want to add a second picture and video (neutral ones) to his category, so we have more pictures in our repository and still can illustrate the article in case the controversial picture and video would be deleted one day. I will be grateful for your answer. Seleucidis (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seleucidis. Merry Christmas. This sounds like a good initiative, and I'm fully supportive. To be honest, though, the subject matter of the images are not really my type of things and I would prefer not to use my account to upload them. Have you tried Mattbuck? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, Michael. I am very lucky today. I have found a person who will help me to convert and upload and so forth. The new portrait by Pricasso is a portrait of a cute little dog. Really a very nice dog and a very nice portrait. So I guess our problem is solved. Greetings. Seleucidis (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

about

Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv. Please take a look. Smallbones (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Homeless man, Tokyo, 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Homeless man, Tokyo, 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Date stamp to force archiving: --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg, which was nominated by Paris 16 at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Date stamp to force archiving: --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Michael, I recently created User:Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0, my personalised copyright licensing template. However, when I place it on my uploads, I encounter some problems. Just take a look at any of my images and you will see the problem. Could you help me fix it? Thanks a lot. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your uploads are still lacking a valid license tag that is recognized by bots. Did you know there are:

• The attribution paramenter: {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution="Athyma kanwa kanwa (Dot-dash Sergeant), March 2011, Singapore" by Arctic Kangaroo. Licence: CC BY-SA 3.0}}
• {{Credit line}}

They perform a lot better and are recognized by automated tools, including Nikbot and those attempting to create credit lines. As long as every single Commons user must create an own non-standard attribution template, we cannot really expect our re-users to understand us. I have written down what would be required at User:Rillke/Technical file description policy but I guess this won't happen until we get Wikidata for Media info here where some users will get into serious trouble converting their templates into something machine-readable. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was creating the template from modifying Jee's User:Jkadavoor/ccbysa3, not from any other template as you thought. So the border should only enclose the first line of text. Could you help me fix that? Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An official license tag is still missing. -- Rillke^(q?) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Added. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AK. Sorry I've arrived a bit late here, but it sounds as though with some help from Rillke everything has been sorted out. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the valid licence tag, but when I place {{Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0}} in the "Permissions" field of the old upload form with all the other required information, I always still get this message (as before): You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license. What's gone wrong? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Make a page in your user namespace (for the title of that page, an abbreviation would be a good idea) only consisting of one line: {{User:Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0}} and insert {{subst:User:Arctic Kangaroo/ABBR}} where ABBR is the abbreviation you choose. I cannot tell you more as otherwise I would betray my own principles. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

AK, are you still getting errors? I'm not remembering as I switched to CC4 and use User talk:Jkadavoor/spec with basic upload form; most of my uploads are identified organisms. So {{Specimen}} is more suitable to me. Rarely I use User talk:Jkadavoor/desc for unidentified organisms. You may try checking the "Ignore any warnings" check box. Jee 13:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...

Hi Michael, why can't the {{Collapse}} template on Commons "collapse" discussions, such that we need to "expand" the box to see the discussion? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope resolved. Jee 07:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)