A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing. This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will. He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users. He then tried to upload his improved version of the image. Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error message suggested to use a different filename. Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can replace the image on Commons. Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced wherever it is. Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons. Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site accounts. Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new". This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons. Thanks for listening! Timwi