Commons talk:For Wikipedians

"lawful" content?

A section of this page causes confusion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Black_genitalia.jpg#File:Black_genitalia.jpg (user:claritas). Please join/clarify. --Saibo (Δ) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I know I didn't make it up... but I can't find a source for it now. I've removed it. Rd232 (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! Well, we have the parts of COM:L which basically require lawful (regarding copyright) in the US and source country - more or less (FOP, URAA, ...). Maybe you mean this? And .. I mean it is obvious that the WMF cannot host content which is unlawful in the US if they have the server in the US (no source for this ;-) ). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Galleries instead of articles is a major cultural difference that should not be removed

--Foroa (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - most of LX's edits were improvements, but I've reverted that (whilst trying to incorporate some of the idea, and add something new of my own). The main point of that bullet is what is the content of the main namespace. LX added something about the project scope; I've added a separate bullet for Inclusion (project scope) under Policies. Rd232 (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done. I appreciate the link between galleries and files. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

On dispute resolution

After pointing out the fact that there is no arbitration committee on Commons., this document goes "Sysops have a priority over non-sysops, unlike e.g. English Wikipedia where opinions of all users with substantial contributions have essentially equal weights" - I don't think this reflects the reality. Can it be removed, unless anyone wants to rewrite? Or at least can someone clarify? The sentence was added by Incnis Mrsi. whym (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an allusion to the fact that some administrators, when it comes to closing deletion requests, indeed weight the arguments of well-known community members, often administrators more than those by new members. This probably isn't intentionally, though. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding about this particular addition. Comparison with en.wikipedia hasn’t any sense. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi and Rillke: Thanks for the partial removal, but do we really want to keep remaining line "Sysops have a priority over non-sysops"? Do you have a policy, guideline, essay or RFC to cite to back up this observation? whym (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No policy, but an evident Realpolitik. What else could you expect from a project without any chain of command? Incnis Mrsi (talk)

I think this kind of documents should describe situations that can be found everywhere and that newbies are very likely to encounter one sooner than later. And if it is everywhere, you should be able to cite something (not necessarily a policy, it could be a conclusion of a discussion that was widely participated, etc) easily. I suggest you to start your own essay, if it is just an opinion. Please remember that this is a document written for Wikipedians starting editing Commons. Pinging DennisDenniss who reverted your edit. [1] whym (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Re-pinged, as I wrote the wrong name. --whym (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)