This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
This user continues to add incorrect categories to photos, even though he has been warned multiple times to stop doing so. According to his user talk page, his categorization behavior has actually been problematic for years.
In recent weeks, he has been warned multiple times to stop doing so and to first correct the mistakes he has made. However, he does not respond to these requests but continues undeterred. This kind of behavior is simply destructive when the person’s name is even included in the file name, and the photo is used in his biographical article and Wikidata entry.
I don’t think numerous well-meaning requests will suffice anymore. Stepro (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. I mentioned as an example that Krok6kola has added "unidentified men" to images all men in the image are clearly identified by name and category, eg File:CalderonDubyaHarperCommanders.jpg, File:Dali 2 Allan Warren.jpg a week ago, I asked the user to stop doing that and fix the clearly wrong edits they have done, but they have not. If they continue to refuse to undo their own bad edits, what is a solution? Perhaps a temporary block and bot reverse of all Krok6kola over the past month? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support further block of Krok6kola, preferrably indef. Eversince this legendary edit, I'm convinced for the rest of my life that this user is not able to be a net-positive for Commons. --A.Savin 22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Support per Infrogmation and A.Savin. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons that I am sadly not able to share due to confidentiality. - Jmabel! talk 03:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Commons is about creating free media content (preferrably of decent quality), not about worshipping "saints", not about charity and the like. INeverCry was also considering kind of a "saint" by not few users, including admins, but we all know the rest of his story. --A.Savin 08:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
What makes you consider that edit "vandalism"? It's inaccurate, but understandably so (it took me a minute to realize the error). Omphalographer (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
The fact that they repeated it, and probably are going to editwar over it. --A.Savin 23:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Support per Infrogmation and A.Savin If possible, include a reverse of edits over some period of time to help reverse invalid categories, like the suggestion by Infrogmation. -Ooligan (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Deleted files courtesy of Ziv. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted both his uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
@Taivo Now the master reuploaded the same files again. Jonteemil (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. Thanks to Shaan Sengupta for deletion! I also blocked the master temporarily. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I have deleted both the files and had issued an indefinite block for two reasons, one Abusing multiple accounts and second reuploading content deleted per community consenus and personal files generated by AI. I still think that the user is NOTHERE. But I have removed my block bcoz @Taivo: had handed the user a one week block just seconds ago. Shaan SenguptaTalk 11:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Usually I am kind do not give indefinite blocks easily, except for sockpuppets. There is an essay en:Wikipedia:ROPE for it. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
This user has been consistently reverting my edits and leaving comments on talk pages (both on files and three on my own within the past two days) that I perceive to be passive-aggressive in nature. I have already contacted the user on their talk page regarding their behavior, which I believe falls under COM:HOUNDING. The user admitted that they are following my edits and has accused me of "not being concerned with the consequences of my edits." I have attempted to ignore the comments, in an effort to disengage in the conversation, as many of them appear to be passive aggressive; in particular, this thread in which they warn me "not to collide" with them; this thread in which they mention they "surprisingly" had to "sort out" my edits; and this Revision of File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg, in which they verbatim tell me "don't approach [their] files"—despite not even being the original uploader of the work. While I recognize that I have made mistakes in using simpleSVGcheck, and have looked at these automated edits more carefully, I still believe that this conduct constitutes COM:HOUNDING because of the sheer number of reverts to my edits over the past two days and numerous talk page discussions on my own user talk page and on other files, some of which I feel are not within the scope of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of local policy"; refer to the posts here and here for examples. ForeverFlying (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
First, I have corrected the “maintenance burden” that has been inserted (in “other fields”) on File:Valle di Cadore-Bandiera.svg (correction diff.), since, after the file was overwritten a second time, the code no longer displayed the corresponding information (last uploader & exact file size).
Leaving the original code as is—as is customary on many files—would have ultimately avoided all the additional steps.
I'd like to add, by the way, that while the latest upload highlights the risk of a non-binary {{Image generation}} code in a file page SVG information field, i.e. other than simply w3c valid/invalid, overwriting a 233-octet file with a 160-octet one is generally pointless, since both files take up the same amount of space on the server's storage device —at least 512 octets, probably 2kb each— but it does require storing an additional webp/png preview in the file history; depending on the image, not only might there be no benefit, but the overall impact could actually be negative.
That said, I was indeed in the process of grouping a user's files into a specific category, so that they could easily access their files for maintenance purposes, when a new Image generation code was inserted on one of those files by a scripted action —was I hounded??—, the file overwritten, then the next Image generation code placed.
Usually, within a user category, an effort is made to maintain a certain degree of consistency among the files; I would also add that it may not always be well-received to point out in the description that a file was originally larger than 40 MB when it is now a few octets, in the sense that it isn't necessarily very considerate to highlight the mistakes of contributors who may not be well-versed in these kinds of issues and who, in the end, are quite capable of resolving them on their own.
On the other hand, the file size comparison shown on the image page may be relevant in the case, for an example, of a 233-byte file that has been reduced to 160 bytes, but this would only apply to example files, intended for a specific type of user —not all users, who, above all, need to have access to a user-friendly tool, i.e. as simple as possible. That is why it seems to me far more sensible to keep the original tool per original uploader, so that the said uploader remains completely independent on this matter, without having to get involved in considerations that fall outside their area of expertise or even interest.
Eventually, I admit that this comment: “also, don't approach my files”, wasn't very appealing, but in my defence, if I may say so, it happened after several reversions, and during the work I mentioned earlier. So I'll put it another way: Please @ForeverFlying, don't you ever approach my files, thank you.
I do not think it is necessary to revisit the matter of my involvement with this file – I mean, as far as I am concerned, since I personally have nothing further to add on the subject, other than to say that the fact that the result was not taken into account, nor even looked at, is exactly of the same approach as the the intervention that has been revoked here (July 3rd) for having removed the codes “gf” (French graphic Lab) and “s=d” (“diagram”), and therefore the associated categories.
The reason I've taken a while to explain my reversals on the user's page is that I believe, first and foremost, that when using this kind of scripts, one should ensure, above all, that everything is working perfectly before using it, and also be prepared to take on board any criticism in order to improve their tool; nevertheless, it is a mistake I will not make again.
It goes without saying that if the original uploader overwrites the file, they will most likely not know what to do with this information, or even what it refers to – it's hard to imagine how many Inkscape users are scared by the mere, absurd idea of opening an SVG file in their Notepad – or SimpleText. Furthermore, this is certainly not a change that can be considered as minor, as it adds a significant amount of height –not to say weight–, to the page, and is not necessarily the most aesthetically pleasing; here again, this is intended for specific users and files, and not all.
Then the {{Unbulleted list}}, placed by the script has been removed, for the mere reason that althought the field {{Author|design|unknown}} is used by certain users, it is not essential, in the sense that a coat of arms, especially in this particular case, is not an exact vectorisation of a document, but an original representation created by the user, based on a description –the blazon– which is itself in the public domain.
There is therefore no obligation to cite the author of the description, moreover, the information is not always available; when it is available, generally the files are placed in a dedicated category, example Category:Coats of arms by Jean-François Binon, where it can be seen that few files credit the author of the description, who, in any case, is never the author of any image reproduced here, since the images –the representations– themselves are not in the public domain – unlike the blazon (description), that is.
Eventually, whilst the time a photograph was taken is important, the time this kind of file was uploaded is of no significance, therefore it was removed too.
Not only it is of no significance, but it has to be systematically removed, since the only result of its presence is that it clutters up the search engine with useless keywords, thereby weighing down the database. That said, I also admit that it is possible to view servers' capacity, just like their storage space, as being as infinite as it is free.
To conclude the discussion which would have been interesting to have, the question arises as to whether there are any plans to run a similar script, some day, for an example on the 2,000 files of this category, or even on just a few, or one or more files from that one, for another example, in which case it would no doubt be advisable to give notice before carrying out any work, however minor, even if it's only a test.
That's what I might call “coordination”.
Just like, perhaps, in the fact that we have been reverted several times, the key point to remember is not that we have been reverted but why, in this topic, the key word to remember, in my opinion, is rather “coordination” than “collide”. But it's true that in both these examples, one is free to choose.
If any specific questions – or less specific – I'd be glad to answer them.
Uploaded File:Roger Lukaku-1994.png falsely claiming it as own work in December after having been tagged with {{End of copyvios}} in October. No blocks were given then so reporting them now. The user has uploaded 7 photographs, that yet aren't deleted, only one of which has any Exif information. Given the uploaders history of uploading copyvios, would {{No permission since}} on these seven file be in order? I've tried TinEye/Google lense to find the source of these photos but to no avail. I however suspect they might be very zoomed in, given the very bad quality of most of the photographs. Jonteemil (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
It is a constitutional right to express our opinion in Europe. I stated that Didym is making statements without legal basis, I did not upload the photo against the common WIki policy. Yes, I consider it an abuse to intervene in a person's work without analyzing the actual situation. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: the First Amendment of the United States, even if imported to the European Union, does not override the policies of Wikimedia Commons or any of the myriad other platforms operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, as an American online platform, Wikimedia Commons enjoys the legal right, granted by that very law, to moderate your content.
Isn't deleting the same file twice without reading the license distribution notices an abuse? Are you authorized to abuse the patience of volunteers? Please answer! Fdanielbic (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
If Didym had abused the patience of volunteers, the other editors would have prohibited himthem from being an administrator, not to mention an interface administrator. You have, on the other hand, abused the patience of volunteers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times, in a conservative count inferred from your talk page. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 09:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyusedyou are so wrong! some photos (1-5) are waiting for permission from the Moisescu family, and the volunteers in Romania did not have the patience to validate it. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
"I believe I have a solid argument for my statement."
File:Dorel-Popa-senator-Arad-2008.jpgDorel Popa, senator, Arad, România 2008 was deleted abusively and the conversation with you ends because you don't want to accept the truth. Fdanielbic (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
It is evident and obvious for anyone to believe that the file is copyrighted and since it is already available on internet, the copyright holder must send the permission to COM:VRT.
You asked, "Isn't deleting the same file twice without reading the license distribution notices an abuse?" Not, when the file in question is clearly a copyright violation, and fails to provide the evidence of copyright information. So, you comments here and here are highly inappropriate and might result in blocking of your editing privilege. However, I'll leave that decision to another administrator and ask you to read policies and guidelines. Ratekreel (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment This appears IMO to be a new user who wants to contribute but doesn't understand how commons works. The bigger issue is the lack of civility and threats/accusations. Whether that behaviour is bad enough to merit a block or a stern warning I will leave to another admin to decide Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I have this account for 11 years, I don't understand what means old or new for you, @GbawdenFdanielbic (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: have you read COM:THIRD? If not, it may make it clearer to you what is going on in terms of copyrights and Commons policies. - Jmabel! talk 18:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Why You don't understand that some files were my own work (Popa, Voicila), and some files were sent by the families of the subjects about I have wrote? Why are you trying to impose an imaginary reality? Fdanielbic (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I respect all of you and this community policies but I will spread just the clean truth. Fdanielbic (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Gbawden@Jmabel Please note, this user @Ratekreel does not allow me to reply, I cannot respond to his message accusing me of copyright infringement. Fdanielbic (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: Exactly where and when did this happen? Please include logs of such. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: When I tried to do that, something in this section was too complicated, so I got 'The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit ".'. Please do the suggested edit for this section instead. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Fdanielbic: Asta nu răspunde la întrebarea mea dacă ai citit sau nu COM:THIRD. - Jmabel! talk 22:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I will respond this week, promise! Fdanielbic (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Done indef-blocked Antonioquarto05 as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet.
Left a message on the user talk page of Alessandraquarto attempting to correct her notion that this image has no copyright. - Jmabel! talk 21:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Done All except SarbZ2201 are now blocked locally since the SRG is taking too long. SarbZ2201 isn't registered locally. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Continued uploading of copyvios after final warning. I've tagged a few of the uploader's file for deletion but likely more are copyvios, please help with going through them. Jonteemil (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Blocked on enwiki (most recently by me) , and he's been nonresponsive there or here to talk messages. SilverLocust💬 07:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
@SilverLocust: Hi, and thanks for sharing here. Such information should also be helpful on cuwiki. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
I would like to request review of Jcb’s handling of copyright-related (speedy) deletion nominations. My concern is not simply that we disagree on the copyright status of a file, but that speedy deletion is being used in situations where the legal/policy interpretation is genuinely disputed.
In the case of File: Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg, I provided a detailed explanation on Jcb's talk page based on the source's own copyright information and the relevant anonymous-work provisions. Regardless of which interpretation is ultimately correct, the issue is clearly not an unambiguous copyright violation suitable for speedy deletion. A regular deletion discussion would have allowed the community to evaluate the competing interpretations.
Jcb's response did not address the specific evidence provided about anonymous works and publication-based copyright terms, but instead asserted that there was 'no indication' of anonymous authorship and treated the source’s copyright notice as sufficient evidence of continued protection.
I am concerned that this reflects a broader pattern of wrongfully filing deletion requests, particularly (though not exclusively) involving uploads by me. Examples of previous cases concerning myself where I believe similar issues occurred include:
Given the number of disputed copyright assessments involving my uploads, I am concerned that there may be a personal element influencing the way these cases are being handled. I cannot determine Jcb's intentions, but I am concerned that the listed mistakes on his behalf may have contributed to the decision to now use speedy deletion to avoid the kind of community discussion that these disputed cases require.
I kindly request that you review whether the approach in the Du Croo case is consistent with the purpose of speedy deletion, and whether this case should instead be handled through normal deletion discussions.
I would also appreciate a review of whether Jcb's approach in all of these cases reflects an appropriate use of editorial discretion and whether there is a pattern of dismissing reasonable copyright discussions.
My concern is not that Jcb reached a different conclusion than I did, but that disputed copyright questions are systematically treated as unambiguous and objections supported by policy-based arguments are not being meaningfully addressed. Goran.Mont (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment Jcb's own interpretation of copyright rules is indeed disconcerting. File:Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg may be deleted due to URAA, but other cases mentioned above are clearly in the public domain. Nevertheless, Jcb created DRs with weird arguments. Yann (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Just a reminder that anyone can contest a speedy deletion tag and turn it into a normal DR instead. - Jmabel! talk 20:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
There is no problem. In my opinion the file was PD-Simple. Now it's deleted and that's ok. So why are you reporting? Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
The other files are Requests because they weren't clear cases. Usually I always upload PD-Simple, and if a different decision is made, that’s fine too. Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Blanking your user talk page doesn't help matters. You also changed the {{Delete}} subpage parameter badly (including too much) and omitted transclusion in Special:Diff/977076192. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, because I just happened to notice it. That doesn't change the fact that this report is completely unnecessary. Bildersindtoll (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Done Blocked for a week. Last warned on 6 August 2023, but without effect. Yann (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment I strongly disagree with the deletion of File:Nuke grey dark.svg (this logo) as a copyright violation. It is in my view certainly below COM:TOO US, which applies here & it should not have been speedily deleted. COM:F1 states This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality. - uploader correctly tagged using {{PD-textlogo}} & {{TM}}. Pinging User:Alno, User:ShakespeareFan00. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely certain it is below TOO, but I am certain that it should not have been a speedy deletion on that basis. Speedy deletion over copyright should be used only in clearcut cases. - Jmabel! talk 00:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi there, I decided to delete the file as the site from which it was reproduced clearly claims copyright on anything it contains. Apart from that, it's difficult for me to say whether this logo is or isn't below the threshold of originality, as for example the 'nuke' symbol in the logo is somewhat distorted in an artistic way, which seems to be an attempt of its author to provide some originality. I just hope I didn't harm by deleting the file... -- AlNo(discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, claim by the source site is irrelevant to whether it is above or below TOO. - Jmabel! talk 22:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Do we have a list of sites that we don't trust to provide truthful info about copyrights, provenance, etc.? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
I would like to report a possible pattern of copyright violations by the user @Parallelepiped09
Over the past year, this user has uploaded what appears to be hundreds of photographs, many of which are claimed as their own work. Based on my review, I believe that a significant number of these files are not actually his own photographs and have been uploaded with incorrect authorship information.
Last year, I contacted the user on their talk page regarding one specific file (File:Condominio La Casona Sc.jpg), which was a cropped version of File:Northern Skyline Santa Cruz.jpg, and asked them to correct the attribution or source. Unfortunately, I have not seen any change in his upload practices. Some of their uploads have already been deleted as copyright violations, but many others remain on Commons. I believe this may warrant an administrative review of the user's uploads and, if appropriate, further action.
A Wikimedian began the discussion below on User talk:Jameslwoodward. I have the opinion that that page is not the best venue to talk about the alleged issues, hence I'm grafting the mesage here. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Begin of copy.
Grand-Duc (talk·contribs) He has been filing excessively disruptive deletion requests. I kindly ask that you have him cease this behavior at once.
Far from having him cease, I encourage him to continue. These are all copyright violations and must be deleted. As I have said many times, the rule on de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough so that an average reader will not notice if it is omitted. That is plainly and clearly not true in these cases.
If you continue to make unfounded accusations such as this, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
All of these are de minimis. I believe I have valid grounds for that conclusion, and I kindly ask that you refrain from directing personal attacks at me Y.haruo (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
So, it is all right for you to make unfounded personal accusations against Grand-Duc, but it is not all right for me to warn you that your behavior will lead to your being banned? .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
I got the ping, so I hope I'm not bothering Jim by writing here too.
First of all, I'd like to know how you, @Y.haruo, come to the conclusion that my DR are "excessively disruptive". Judging by how often my argumentation convinces an admin to close them by deleting, I don't think that my interpretation of Commons' policies on which I base the DR are too far-fetched and disruptive. It's much more of quality-assurance work to better the repositories, isn't it?
Furthermore, I've read and re-read your Japanese posting of law texts and its English translation. I think that the basic intention of the law is to make it legitimate for people to engage in exchanges about hobbies on social network services (SNS) and fan communities, up to and including Otaku ways, also using fundamentally copyright protected works (like Pokémon sculptures or vehicle liveries). The inclusion of that "socially acceptable" wording points to such an interpretation, it being facilitating common communication.
But this media use is quite different from an image hosting service and media repository like Commons is. On social networks, any image is bound to slip into the oblivion of the unseen depths of old feeds after some time, whereas Commons is hosting images in curated archives. The visibility there and the influence, the encroachment upon third-party intellectual property, is much more pronounced than in some random SNS feed.
Trudging on such a borderline between copyvio and OK is hardly recommended in the light of COM:PRP. Unless an appellate court or the highest court of law of Japan (or any other country, for that matter) is interpreting and concretizing the law, we IMHO can't boldly assume that such imagery is OK to host here, not when the wording is still fuzzy (by including both "socially acceptable endeavours" and " legitimate interests of copyright holders"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek new restrictions. What you are doing effectively narrows the previously accepted scope of De minimis, and that constitutes a new restriction. How many of the administrators who deleted files actually understand this point? Moreover, I am aware that you have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis and misrepresented Japanese law when filing your deletion requests. This is by no means quality‑assurance work. Y.haruo (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
End of copy.
@Y.haruo: Please elaborate on how I "have distorted the Commons guidance on De minimis" in your eyes; and what exactly constitutes a misrepresentation of Japanese law. Especially the first point is hard for me to understand, I don't see anything in the wording on COM:DM that I have distorted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
This would only be disruptive if they were closed as keep and Grand-Duc continued to nominate similar images. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Did you actually read Commons:De minimis#Guidelines? The sentence about categorisation is directly taken from the page you're saying I'm distorting. And, while I stayed quite short with "COM:De minimis not applicable, image categorized according to Disney motifs.", I meant to imply that the whole image impression was not covered by DM. If that was not concise and explanatory enough, then it's on me, but otherwise, the point still stands. The Louvre pyramid example is something maybe worth looking into, but you can't conclude, simply because nobody challenged the legitimacy of imagery within Category:Louvre Pyramid at night yet, the set is assuredly OK. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Support further block of Krok6kola, preferrably indef. Eversince this legendary edit, I'm convinced for the rest of my life that this user is not able to be a net-positive for Commons. --A.Savin 22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons that I am sadly not able to share due to confidentiality. - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Done. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted both his uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
_2025.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Comment This appears IMO to be a new user who wants to contribute but doesn't understand how commons works. The bigger issue is the lack of civility and threats/accusations. Whether that behaviour is bad enough to merit a block or a stern warning I will leave to another admin to decide Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_NRT_09JUL01_(7026968593).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8637493082).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8639157327).jpg){kind=link}
