# Pastebin 2YZMCWEM Hello all- Nearly a virgin IRC user. Can anyone point me to guidance on how to discourage a user from uploading snapshots of mediocre quality? Do we have templates for such things? I couldn't find anything on the help pages. 20:38:45 R Revent, This File:33 MOS.jpg seems to be a better version of File:33d Maintenance Operations Squadron.png but obviously one is a jpg vice png 20:39:05 R Can I use the same source info since its just a file type change 20:39:51 ⇐ ksft quit (~k@wikipedia/KSFT) Read error: No route to host 20:40:04 N MrPique: what's the username of the user in question, or an example of the files you're concerned about ? 20:40:29 → ksft joined (~k@wikipedia/KSFT) 20:40:57 M https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragonard_museum.jpg for one. He's uploaded a bunch of them with the timestamp included. 20:41:30 M another: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_view_La_mure.jpg 20:42:11 POLICIA → Turroncito 20:42:26 M and another: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_mure_city_center.jpg He's then putting them into galleries on multiple wikis. 20:42:45 R Reguyla: Er… I think that was someone’s ‘personal’ rendition, it’s a bit different from the official version. 20:42:53 R http://www.afhra.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/432791/33-maintenance-operations-squadron-aetc/ 20:43:02 N the quality is OK, but you could ask the user if they could upload a higher resolution and avoid the timestamp on the images. 20:44:26 R Revent, ok thanks 20:45:36 ↔ slowdown (was Guest3945) nipped out 20:45:47 N MrPique: the templated warning is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:No_watermarks however. 20:46:05 M @NotASpy But we don't discourage the practice of uploading a bunch of snapshots like that? 20:46:29 M NotASpy: Ok, thanks for the link! 20:46:37 N MrPique: there's also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Provide_better_quality 20:46:48 R Revent, should I use that link you provided as a Source? It seems like its pretty different so I'm not sure 20:47:52 R Reguyla: No… not the same, I actually think it kinda indicates that the version we have was some (unknown) person’s ‘own work’, based on the actual insignia. 20:48:06 R Ok me too 20:48:54 R That specific insignia would not be ‘approved’, as it does not meet the ‘design rules’ 20:49:01 N MrPique: but we don't really discourage shots of that type - they could come in useful (at a push) for sites like Wikivoyage. 20:49:22 M NotASpy: Ok, thanks for the help! 20:50:15 R Reguyla: 33rd MOS was stood down 13 June 2013. 20:50:47 R http://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/391029/33d-mos-inactivates-with-air-force-reorg 20:57:09 M NotASpy: I think this guy might be a bigger problem than I thought: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leon_petrosyan 20:58:59 M NotASpy: He's uploaded hundreds of snaps of some convention, all with meaningless filenames 21:01:26 R https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fifth_World_Congress_of_the_Game_Theory_Society_45.jpg <- personal photo album, basically. 21:02:11 M Yes, that's how I would put it. 21:02:33 M I'm asking an admin I "know" for an opinion. 21:03:00 ↔ FDMS nipped out 21:03:55 R MrPique: I think the seemingly ‘random’ shots of unidentified attendeed could go away, as simply not in scope. 21:04:22 M Yes, for sure. 21:04:34 M Is there a bulk speedy deletion process? 21:05:02 R “Scope” is not a speedy deltion rationale. 21:05:09 R (it’s subjective) 21:05:37 R You can use Visual File Change [[COM:VFC]] to open a bulk DR, however. 21:05:37 W https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:VFC 21:06:05 N there's scope issues on some, quality issues on others, low resolution aside, some of these shots taken through glass cabinets are badly affected by reflections 21:06:08 R (It can, also, be used to add speedy templates to files ‘in bulk’) 21:08:02 N stuff like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_mure_city_center.jpg is OK, stuff like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museum_bottles.jpg might be worth trying to get rid of on quality grounds 21:08:16 R MrPique: As far as asking an admin ‘you know’, lol, that’s fine, but there are at least 3-4 admins in here that are probably ‘awake and lurking’… and nobody has expressed disagreement with them being largely out of scope. :P 21:09:00 N https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fifth_World_Congress_of_the_Game_Theory_Society_47.jpg could well be someone important. If only we knew. 21:09:14 F the bottles are [[COM:INUSE]] 21:09:14 W https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:INUSE 21:09:32 M Revent: Oh, ok, thanks. Well, I'll look into cleaning up the mess. 21:10:04 R MrPique: Remember that ‘in use’ defines something as being in scope, even if of poor quality. 21:10:21 R (we might simply not have anything ‘better’) 21:10:40 M NotASpy: It's gotta be important--it involves PowerPoint! 21:11:16 R But a lot of those from the conference are simply ‘not realistically usable’ simply because of any lack of context or identification that would move them beyond being ‘random personal images’ 21:11:32 M Revent: So he can establish the scope simply by using the pics in articles as soon as he's uploaded them? 21:11:56 N yeah, the INUSE is due to the uploader spamming his content in various articles, some of the uses are very close to being inappropriate. 21:12:14 R MrPique: Technically, yes, but if a use is not ‘legitimate’ in the opinion of the other project it’ll be reverted locally. 21:13:39 R “Commons” doesn’t ‘judge’ the validity of a usage elsewhere, ‘ourselves’…. but, commons editors are also editors on other projects, and can act as an editor there to say ‘this is hot helpful' 21:13:41 M Yes, I always assumed that we shouldn't go overboard putting all our photos into articles. 21:13:48 R *not 21:13:52 M But I've never seen any policy or guidance on it. 21:15:02 R That’s because edits to the other projects (that put them ‘in use’) are not really something that Commons (as a community) has any business writing rules about. 21:16:00 M Revent: Oh, yes, that makes sense as an approach. Well, I'll be doing some local policing on en.wp... 21:17:23 M NotASpy, Revent: Thanks to you both for the input! I have to get away from the computer and go back outside now while it's still a gorgeous day out... 21:17:37 N we can rename anything which is legitimately in use to a more useful file name, btw 21:18:17 R MrPique: The commons policy is that any image ‘legitimately in use’ (in that context, legitimately meant to exclude vandalism) is in scope… but you can (obviously) act as an editor ‘locally’ to determine consensus about if an image ‘should’ be used there. 21:21:39 M Revent: Got it, thanks!