তারেক জিয়া এবং খালেদা জিয়া সাথে আমার পিক এড করতে চাই

তারেক জিয়া এবং খালেদা জিয়ার সাথে আমার একটা পিক এড করতে চাই Imtaiz ahmed shovu (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

(working via Google Translate) @Imtaiz ahmed shovu: who took the photo? - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request Block

Hello,

Could I please request a six month block for myself? The entire Wikimedia movement is not conducive for my mental health at the moment, and I'd like to have a reinforced Wikibreak. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Potential need for merge two files (1, 2)

I noticed two files that seem to be identical: File:Gehörnter Gott, Enkomi.jpg and File:Gehörnter Gott, Enkomi, 12. Jh. v. Chr. C.jpg. They were uploaded by the same user (who is not active anymore) in 13 months gap, so I guess he just forgot he had already uplaoded the file when he uploaded it again. Should the files be merged? פעמי-עליון (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@פעמי-עליון: This is basically why {{Duplicate}} exists. Feel free to hand merge the descriptions, structured data, etc. to one copy, them mark the other with {{Duplicate}} so that it can be deleted, turned into a redirect, and anything that references it on sister projects can be changed accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Suppression demandée de cinq photos. Demandes plusieurs fois refusées

Je suis l'auteur des cinq photos suivantes, présentes sur Commons Mollans (70). Château de Mollans (1), château de Mollans (2), dépendances du château de Mollans, chapelle castrale du château de Mollans (1), chapelle castrale du château de Mollans (2). Ces vues ont été importées le 05-07-2024. J'en demande la suppression pour raison de courtoise. Merci. Espirat Jean E.J (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Référence: Commons:Help desk#Suppression de plusieurs photos concernant une propriété privée dont la propriétaire exige le retrait des vues la représentant. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see any administrative issue here. Any further discussion should be on the Help desk, where Grand-Duc linked, or on individual DRs, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Unresolved issue regarding categorisation

Hello,
We recently had with ARK and Nebula84912, a discussion about “Categorisation of colors on flags” that was started on Nebula84912'talk page and continued on village pump without any follow-up (discussion was archived on october 14th), which is a problem since many files have been categorized in opposition to the existing principle, and thus the abandonment of the discussion suggests that those files are bound to be left as is, i.e. without any reversal or change in either direction.
It looks like additional advices may be required to help resolve this issue, hence the opening of this topic here,
Thank you, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: are you asking for some administrative action here? If so, what?

If you just want to un-archive the discussion, make it "live" on the Village pump again, and continue it, that does not require an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: since User:Nebula84912 has been categorising lots of files in opposition to the principle that has always been in use, starting to mess the whole sector, I'd dream of some global reversion, especially given the fact the user ultimately disappeared after that the discussion proved to be a dead end – unless they reappear to discuss again. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: I stay largely out of policy decisions on flags, other than issues about whether a given flag is real-world or user fiction. Is there some admin who works in that area? Alternatively, might you be able to form something of a consensus at Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology? I'm not taking unilateral action in an area where I'm not at all expert and don't think consensus is clear. - Jmabel ! talk 12:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Regardless of the fact that, in effect, all it takes is for one user to have an offbeat approach and take unilateral actions in their own point of view against a long-standing process for that process, not to say the long-standing implicit consensus, to become unclear, it may indeed be more relevant to continue this on the Heraldry and vexillology talk page; I ping @ARK: for the tracking. Thank you, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Among users with any domain expertise in heraldry and vexillology, it probably wouldn't take much to reach a consensus on the simple proposition, conventionally considered a matter of course, that heraldic flags should have their colours categorised in the traditional heraldic manner, which counts black only as a 'colour' if an actual element of the heraldic design is coloured black, as opposed to merely having its outline strengthened by a black stroke. However, it does not look like WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology is frequented by such users on a regular basis. Ziv is an admin who's been taking an interest in heraldic matters. Maybe she'd like to make a judgment call? ARK (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if it took a while to reply. I skimmed through it at work, but didn't want to comment in detail until after work. First, reading through the entire discussion would take too long, so I'll summarize briefly. Edits by Nebula84912 related to flags, coats of arms, etc. are unwelcome, as they're incorrect. Am I right about that? Since the user hasn't been active since October 4th, I think judgment call is rather hopeless, unless the user reappears and continues in the same vein. @Kontributor 2K, you're talking about a rollback, of what? Only in connection with "Black"? How many reverts should we assume, given the user's 53,764 edits? Could they be handled manually, since they were only unwanted in connection with black, or in general? Enlighten me, please. Could you and @ARK: possibly handle the reverts yourselves, or is the number of reverts exceeding a certain number that would make it better to use a bot for that? Something I've never done, though; I'd have to leave it to someone else. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: Not quite. Let's use a simple example to get to the core of the issue. The Swiss national insignia look like this: on a red background, a white cross that doesn’t touch the edges, which translates to gules, a cross argent couped in formal heraldic description. The formal heraldic description need not concern us here. We just need to recognise that this is a heraldic design and as such it can be rendered, interchangeably, as either a coat of arms or a flag. Note also that the formal description only specifies two colours: red and white.There's even a federal law [PDF] that dates back to 1889 and defines the Swiss national insignia as a couped white cross in a red field. Again: two colours.

Now, how does this heraldic design get rendered in practice? In practice, artists may choose to strengthen the contrast between the white cross and the red background by putting a black stroke on the cross. As a general rule, this practice is used more commonly in coats of arms than it is in flags, but it can be seen in flags as well.

According to Nebula84912's logic, a Swiss flag with an outlined cross would have to be classified among the black, red, white flags of Switzerland, which not only flies in the face of the most basic common-sense understanding of what the Swiss flag looks like, it defies long-standing usage on Commons and descriptive practice established long before the internet came into existence.

Due to to Nebula84912's intervention, the category Black, red, white flags of Switzerland is now a very mixed bag of flags that belong there and flags that have absolutely no business being there because their presumed "black" is just an outline, an arbitrary rendering choice rather than an actual design element.

The "Black, red, white flags of Switzerland" category is one out of many categories that Nebula84912 has corrupted in the same manner over a period of several months. ARK (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If it were just this one category, I could tackle it myself and undo the edits, but if there are several more, then it becomes a Sisyphean task that would probably be better done by a bot. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Nebula84912 was quite active and went unchallenged for months. However, the user's edit logs consistently feature accurate edit summaries, e.g. on 1 Oct. 2025 the edit summary for the file Flagge Elchesheim-Illingen.svg says that it was moved from category Blue and white flags of Germany to category Black, blue, white, yellow flags of Germany. If a bot were to target for reversion all edits by Nebula84912 that include "black" or "Black" in their edit summary, we'd have the issue fixed rather quickly. Still: However flimsy the arguments are that have been put forward in support of the idea that heraldic flags should be categorised as featuring "black" even if that colour is used for outlines only, there are still those who would credit these arguments as valid dissent from the consensus. Fornax is an active admin with conspicuous rightheadedness about heraldry and vexillology. Maybe he could help us out with a verdict? ARK (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm not an admin on Commons, I've never been involved with admin-related topics there, and I'm not familiar with the issue at hand either. Fornax (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fornax: My mistake, sorry for the confusion! Since you're here, however, may I ask you as a heraldic artist yourself whether you consider the municipal flag of Hérémence to be correctly categorised as having "black" among its "colours"? Should the black outline on the star be counted as a "colour"? Thanks! ARK (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

In my view, an outline should not be classified as a “color” within the context of Commons categorization. It serves primarily as a design element that accentuates the shape of a motif without altering its inherent coloration. However, outlines might reasonably be considered a “color” when they are visually dominant or carry symbolic weight—for instance, a black cross on a white field with a red border, where the border is an integral part of the design. To avoid semantic confusion and ensure more accurate categorization, it would be preferable to introduce dedicated categories such as “Flags with outlined stars” or “Flags with black outlines.” Fornax (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fornax: Thank you for your advice regarding a new category “Flags with black outlines”, which might be well taken, but the issue at hand concerns a user who has incorrectly re-categorised large numbers of heraldic flags as featuring the colour black, merely because elements with black outlines are present in their design. We're trying to reach an informed consensus on this re-categorisation being in fact incorrect. On the face of it, your assertion that black outlines "should not be classified as a 'color' within the context of Commons categorization" supports this consensus. You add the qualification, however, that "outlines might reasonably be considered a 'color' when they are visually dominant or carry symbolic weight". This qualification might be misconstrued as a weighty exception to the general rule. So allow me to ask: In your expert opinion as a seasoned heraldic artist, wouldn't you agree that any doubt regarding the status as a "colour" of any such coloured border could, in the overwhelming majority of cases, very easily be resolved simply by reference to the formal verbal description of the design, the blazon, which would explicitly call for a white star with a black border if such a border, as opposed to an arbitrary outline, were considered a constitutive part of the design? (Sorry if this is beginning to sound like a cross-examination of a witness at trial, but the primacy of the formal verbal description of any heraldic design is a key technical point that needs to be understood by non-experts if they are meant to support this consensus.) Best, ARK (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree that the formal blazon—the verbal description of a heraldic design—should be considered the authoritative reference when determining whether a border or outline constitutes a heraldic tincture. In the vast majority of cases, if a black border were intended as a constitutive element of the design, it would be explicitly stated in the blazon. Absent such specification, a black outline should be treated as a stylistic aid rather than a color in its own right.

My earlier remark about symbolic weight was meant to acknowledge rare edge cases, not to undermine the general principle. I appreciate your clarification, and I support the consensus that outlines alone do not justify categorizing a flag as featuring the color black. Fornax (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No further questions, M'lud.Thank you for your evidence, Fornax! ARK (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

To illustrate, shown below are two municipal flags. One has two colours, the other has three:

• 
  Red and white
• 
  Black, red, white

Also observe that the corresponding coats of arms do not only state the formal heraldic description, they also show the colours under their heraldic names as "tinctures". Two of them in the case of Hérémence and three of them in the case of Gurzelen.

ARK; I understand where the problem lies. The question is, how do we best solve the problem? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: Two steps:

1. convince Jmabel that "consensus is clear".
2. Get a bot to revert all edits by Nebula that have "black" or "Black" in their edit summary. ARK (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@ARK: I think we can reach a consensus if you include me. The request and problem description should then go here: COM:BR. That would probably be something for @Schlurcher: , and would also have the advantage that you could describe the whole thing to him in German. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: Thanks for the tip about SchlurcherBot! However, I'm not very well versed in protocol: technically, what is the standard that needs to be met for a consensus to be a consensus? ARK (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I said “I would dream of some global reversion”, in a dream world some artificial intelligence, or a magician, would handle this at a glance; in reality it will most likely have to be solved via cat-a-lot, manually (i.e. by non-admins). In a better world, Nebula84912 would suddenly appear, to relieve their fellow contributors from this task which, anyway, will be initiated soon. unless otherwise advised

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No need to convince me of anything. If some admin thinks consensus is clear (and, I hope, can summarized that consensus), fine. As I said, I largely stay out of issues about vexillology and heraldry because I am not an expert. The world would be a better place if a few more people were unwilling to take action on things they know little about. - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks! The clearest and most succinct statement of the consensus consists in the assertion that the colours of any heraldic design are stated in the formal verbal description of that design, the blazon. This consensus hasn't existed for weeks or months but for centuries! For an expression of this consensus that might be more accessible to the geekier kind of modern person, see my final contribution to the prior Village Pump thread about the present issue, in which I liken the blazon to the source code of a heraldic design, and any specific representation of that design in a coat of arms or a flag as a rendering of that code in any given environment, the argument being that the the quirks and peculiarities of any particular rendering should not be the object of either description or classification; the source code should. In addition, this has just been re-confirmed by Fornax further up in the present thread. Best, ARK (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear all: Per Ziv's suggestion, I have requested a bot run to revert all edits by Nebula84912 that include "black" or "Black" in their edit summaries. Best, ARK (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Protect of protection shackle files

• File:Extended-protection-shackle.png
• File:Full-protection-shackle.png

Please proect this files. Full protection. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why? They are currently not widely used. Do you want only the file or also the filepage protected? GPSLeo (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry. I submitted this request assuming that the English versions were fully protected, but it turns out they were only partially protected. Since the files will be used in the system, partial protection might be sufficient, but continuous monitoring will be necessary. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The other files are in use on widely used templates, but these two files are not. We only protect files they are used in very visibly templates or if they got vandalized in the past. GPSLeo (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

These files are used directly in the system. They’re not a template, but rather like an icon on protected pages. Like that. Look at the top right corner of the page. And this means simultaneous use on a large number of pages. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

They are directly added used using javascript and therefore not counted as used? GPSLeo (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Revert mass split of previously merged categories

A few months ago, I started a project to merge the categories for Boeing aircraft manufacturer serial numbers (msn) and line numbers (ln). For context, see Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation#Boeing_msn/ln categories. Long story short, msn and ln are two systems of serial numbers that Boeing uses to designate individual aircraft. Having separate categories for an aircraft's msn and ln is entirely unnecessary and overly complicated, so I had begun the long process of merging them. However, starting last week, Ardfern began an unexplained effort to revert back to the overcomplicated separate categorization system, undoing months of progress in only a week and severely setting back the project. I'm not asking that any action be taken against Ardfern or anyone else, but I want, if possible, for the speedy deletion of the merged categories be restored and the separate msn/ln categories be redirected back to them. If Ardfern or anyone else believe they should be separate, they should have first attempted to discuss the issue before undoing months of work. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears the primary admin who speedy deleted the merged categories at Ardfern's request was Yann. There may have been others, but so many pages were deleted and I couldn't possible check them all. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The subject in question was put up for discussion but received no support and only an objection from myself. Therefore no consensus was reached on what is a major change and it should not go ahead Ardfern (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The subject in question was put up for discussion but received no support and only an objection from myself. That objection was made 9 minutes ago and offered no explanation. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I won't push this further. If a single user can halt months of progress with a single unexplained objection, then so be it. Either way, this will create a lot more work as Template:Boeing msn, which was created specifically for this effort, is still used on 567 categories and will have to be depreciated. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ardfern has changed their mind and begun the process of restoring the merged categories. I think we can consider the core issue settled, but if an admin could help by restoring the rest of the deleted categories, that would be great. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a list? Yann (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete my uploads and delete my account

I have requested speedy deletion of all of my files as I am the author and wish to withdraw them Zaragoza Enamora (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I deleted all files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zaragoza Enamora. Yann (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - October 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in October 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-11-02. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Category move request

Hello. Category:Jeff Satur currently redirects to Category:Worakamol Satur, this should be reversed, as Jeff Satur is his stage name, and all wiki articles refer to him as such. We also don't list Category:Lady Gaga as "Category:Stefani Germanotta". Thanks in advance Xia (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File still missing SDC copyright status and license nearly 2 weeks after upload

Hello. This file is still missing SDC copyright status and license (it was uploaded on October 21). I don't know if this is an isolated problem, or if it affects all files uploaded during a certain period (I uploaded several corrected versions of the file shortly after upload, maybe this has something to do with the problem). Could this be fixed (if there are more files with the same problem, for all the files)? Thanks in advance. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

These tasks were done by BotMultichill which is still blocked after an unsolved discussion got archived. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

So it's a general problem? Well, then its scope is far bigger than I thought. I suppose it will be fixed (sooner or later) in some way for all files uploaded after the bot stopped working (it doesn't make sense that all new files are marked as missing something). Thanks for your response. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed by SchlurcherBot now. If this other bot is doing the job, even if it's a bit slower, there is no true problem, then. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Uploaded while editing..."

I've noticed a lot of files with this upload detail, saying "Uploaded while editing" an article on one of the wikis. Here's an example: File:Rebello Alvarenga.jpg (CSD F-10 - non-notable writer). Most of the ones I've seen are either copyright violations or spam. Are these people allowed to upload thru another wiki? Whatever this is, the results are tens of thousands of uncategorized, abandoned, and unused files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2025 from driveby uploaders who have no idea what they're doing in regard to copyright or scope and don't know how to actually add the image to the article they were editing. Geoffroi 22:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion about this: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Is current limitation of cross-wiki uploads sufficient?. Nakonana (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

.webp files

A lot of the .webp files I come across in Category:All media needing categories as of 2025 are copyright violations. Is there any list maintained here that tracks .webp file uploads? I've seen users with pages that track CoA uploads and aircraft uploads, and it would be nice to just be able to patrol new .webp files for copyright violations. Any other way of patrolling just .webp files would be useful as well. Geoffroi 22:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can just search by webp filetype https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=filemime:image/webp&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current={"fields":{"filetype":"image/webp"}}&ns6=1 ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice. That'll work. Thanks for the help. Geoffroi 00:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Overwrite video/remove audio

Hello, I have tried, using VideoCutTool, to remove the audio from this video (it's just background noise and bits of not relevant dialogue); I selected the option to overwrite the existing file, and instead it got uploaded as a new file. Is it possible to merge them, or to overwrite the former? Or could anyone removed the audio from the first video and just delete the second, or tell me how to do that? Thanks, Syrio posso aiutare? 22:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think Túrelio has dealt with this. @Syrio: please indicate here if there is still something further you think needs to happen. - Jmabel ! talk 05:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

No thanks, I found out how to do it and it's done :) -- Syrio posso aiutare? 07:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Renaming a map

How do I request a map to be renamed such as Data:U.S. Route 63.map to a different title? 2600:1700:6180:6290:1D31:19D8:EE95:2515 00:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The same way you request any other rename. See Commons:File renaming. - Jmabel ! talk 05:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wrong image

Hi, I uploaded the wrong image. How do I delete it? Thank you. Leo ab1981 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Leo ab1981: Add the {{Speedydelete}} with a short reason to the image page, and it will get deleted. -- regards, 32X (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

See also Template:My bad upload. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Tks!🙏🏼 Leo ab1981 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of User Page and Uploaded Media – Md Ariful Islam

Hello Administrators,

I am Md Ariful Islam, Founder of the World Rural Indigence Foundation (WRIF), Bangladesh. I recently created my User Page and uploaded my own photographs and media files to Wikimedia Commons.

All uploaded files are my own work and released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

I kindly request a review of my User Page and uploaded media to ensure that everything complies with Commons guidelines. Any feedback or approval would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

-- Md Ariful Islam MBA (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Md Ariful Islam MBA: Commons is not the place to promote yourself and your organization. I have blocked your other account and deleted your promotional edits. Any further spamming will result in you being blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing original research from a map

Hello, I hope I am referring to the correct board. I would like someone to upload the original version of this map: File:Europe in 1328.png, at least in its section regarding Bulgaria. It seems that some users have uploaded completely wrong and misleading versions, containing unsourced original research, regarding the borders of Bulgaria. In 1328 the region of Dobruja was part of Bulgaria, not of Wallachia, as wrongly indicated (it was in fact never part of Wallachia, except for a few years of temporary occupation almost a century later). Furthermore, Bulgaria was not divided between Vidin and Tarnovo in 1328. At the time, it was ruled by Michael Shishman (r. 1323-1330) and the country was fully unified, as the original version of the map suggests. I would be grateful, if someone could correct the mistakes and baseless changes regarding the borders of Bulgaria in particular, that have been accumulated over the years. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Gligan1 (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gligan1: At this point, that map is a mess in terms of citation.

I would hesitate to revert to the earliest map, though, because I think some other changes have been correct. I would suggest that you download the latest version, edit as you think it should be, and cite your sources in the edit summary on upload (and/or on the talk page).

I don't think there is an administrative issue here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you for the reply. The problem is that I don't actually known to do a partial edit of a file... Do you know to which board I should raise this issue? Best regards, --Gligan1 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gligan1: You would have to download it, bring it into a graphics tool (e.g. Microsoft Paint; GIMP; Photoshop); edit; and re-upload. If there is an earlier version that has the portion you want exactly as you want it, then you can download that version as well, cut the portion you want from that, and paste it into the latest version.

In theory, you could ask at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, but you'd have to take a lot of care in terms of letting them know what to cite on upload, etc. Again, if there is an earlier version that has the portion you want exactly as you want it, then it would be a lot easier ask. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons used as a file hosting for a business

Have a look: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dian Furi -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. All deleted. Taivo (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass copyvio by User:Daniel Siqueira Carvalho

This user has been uploading so many copyright violations, apparently under the belief that fair use (“justified for non-commercial purposes with attribution”), as they put it on their talk page, is welcome in Commons. They have tagged these uploads with CC-BY-3.0, or sometimes CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Rather than me tagging all of the many copyvio uploads, can an administrator look at their uploads and delete all the instances that are obvious? Things like pictures of newspaper covers or pictures extracted from newspaper articles that are tagged with those copyright templates (there are some good uploads that have valid “public domain”-type templates). The source of the image is usually linked in the file description — or otherwise stated, like “redes sociais” (“social media”) — and usually makes it clear that it’s copyvio.

I don’t know if there’s a way to move files over as local ptwiki files (for those that are used in articles there). If there is, that could be a better solution, as they can indeed be hosted for fair use over there. Polomo (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I know nobody ever replies back when I write here, but I'll do it anyway. So, I don't know which images you're specifically referring to, but, In any case, I don't understand how the images I've published violate copyright. I only use the images to illustrate the articles, which I always choose to write without a defamatory tone, not being considered defamatory to mention negative events (e.g., criminal convictions, etc.). Furthermore, the images are always obtained from public sources, such as public archives and news articles. If copyright laws in the US are so strict that what I've done is considered illegal, then there's nothing I can do. The law isn't always reasonable Daniel Siqueira Carvalho (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:FAIRUSE. Polomo (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Siqueira Carvalho: do see the page Polomo linked; you are trying to do something difficult (adding third-party images to Commons), and you need either to take the time to learn how this can be done legally and in keeping with policy, or entirely stop doing it. You might want also to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for answering Daniel Siqueira Carvalho (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Promotional socks?

• Drgidikumar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (who just made a promotional / spammy edit on this board) appears to be a sock of
• Dr.Gidikumar.Actor (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (who got blocked on enwiki for the exact same promotional / spammy edits)

Both have only few edits (7 and 11, respectively) despite the accounts having been created in 2011, and all of their edits are about inserting information about themselves. Nakonana (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked both indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Info for patrollers on temporary accounts

I think we should send a short information to all active (one edit in the last year) patrollers and license reviewers and inform them that if they need to look at the IP behind temporary accounts they have to request the new Temporary account IP viewer right. We should make this some days before to not have so many requests at the same time. Here is a draft for the message:

Hello User,

On November 12, temporary accounts will be enabled on Commons. The IP of unregistered users will then be hidden for most users. You, as a patroller or license reviewer, are eligible to request the new temporary account IP viewer right, if you need it to continue fighting vandalism and abuse on Commons. If you want to request the right, please file the request here. Please be aware that you also have to accept the Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy in your preferences. For more information about temporary accounts, look at the project page.

Please make changes directly in the text above. I suggest to send this on Friday. GPSLeo (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Support, I made some minor changes to the message. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done message sent. GPSLeo (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Contact me off-wiki

Could an admin contact me off-wiki? I'd like to request deletion of a file in a way that's not publicly visible. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I'm available all day - just send me an email. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535, sorry for the late reply, but all I'd checked was my email inbox. I've just noticed someone else dealing with the situation, so I won't need to take more of your time. Thanks for offering to help! Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ticha Lapointe et Agnès Descamps.jpg

Can an admin please delete the original revision of this image? I've cropped out a 2022 monument (no FOP in France). Thank you. Geoffroi 19:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Attack images

Can an admin delete File:Medal-za-vziatie-zashcheku-foto-24.jpg (it says "faggot" in Russian) and the other uploads of User:Магистр Рудольф and block the account? Thanks. Geoffroi 20:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Are you still around? Geoffroi 20:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And that other file by the same uploader too: File:U-Ej u382aafq 6cEdPnGQ-BeHx-FxNSrK QZWusSAGe7BWh8TK35iUoGk618okdqpSucfKKRvlCb-i8dAhSAHoH.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Anke Brokstra.jpg

Please remove the other versions, replacing images is not allowed + the EXIF notes a different author. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I just got several notifications on Wikipedia in minutes within over half an hour here and on a talk page I did not start or wanted to start. This similar situation happened on Wikipedia several times and I've reported it along with other users. And now the same thing is happened all over again here. Also, there is one message sent saying that it's me when it's not. I responded saying that it's not me. And also, I never intended to start a talk page here and would like that removed if it's possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Please and thank you! Suite1408 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked 2600:4808:9C71:9900:1435:BC1E:8480:5846 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Noiamsanna 019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). No idea what they were trying to do, but all edits were disruptive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers! Suite1408 (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Cities of Morocco

This is not a complaint against a particular user, only a request for clarification regarding Commons policy concerning disputed regions, especially in regards to Western Sahara conflict. I created Template:Cities of Morocco with the inclusion of cities in Western Sahara, added a note as to their disputed nature, and proceeded to adding the template in the main categories of all cities (still underway as I write this comment) but @Koavf decided to remove references to cities located in Western Sahara (as well as the note) with the comment "Removing cities not in Morocco" (see diff), and also removed the template from categories of cities in Western Sahara where it was included. My question is: which format is more compliant with Commons policy, assuming it does address this issue in general or in particular? If it does not, how should we proceed? Since Western Sahara cities are administered by Morocco (and considered as urban communes of Morocco), it would be expected that they would show up in such a navigation box, and I think adding a note regarding their legal status seems fair, while excluding them completely seems not. Best regards! Ideophagous (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Since Western Sahara cities are administered by Morocco" This is true of most municipalities in Western Sahara, but not all of them. For those not familiar with the conflict, it is occupied territory, like parts of Palestine and Ukraine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"For those not familiar with the conflict, it is occupied territory" => That's just one viewpoint of the issue. Others would regard it as an integral part of Morocco, hence why it's a conflict. Ideophagous (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can view anything as anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Still waiting for an admin to comment on this issue.--Ideophagous (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the administrative issue here? Administrators do not set policy, we enforce it. I don't see any clear consensus as to how to policy here, so I don't see how an admin has any more to contribute to forming such a consensus than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jmabel. I'm asking if there's a policy concerning this issue, and if not, what to do next? E.g is there some appropriate page where I can open a discussion about this issue where others can weigh in with their opinion on this matter? Ideophagous (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ideophagous: Template talk:Cities of Morocco is currently a complete blank. You might start there. If I were doing this, I would state my own view and ping every user who has worked on the page. If there is no consensus in 10-14 days, you could link the discussion from COM:VP (describing the questions as neutrally as possible) and note at Template talk:Cities of Morocco that you have done so, so that it is clear you are not canvassing for one particular POV.

My own suggestion for a compromise (this is strictly off the top of my head) would be that the cities claimed by Western Sahara should be in the template but separated from the others, with a brief, clear statement that they are disputed territory. You might want to look at how this has been handled for other similar situations elsewhere in the world. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Bastique

• Bastique (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Buenas,necesito que remueva como administrator al Usuario Bastique porque Bastique no público o editó (volvió) en Wikimedia Commons ,la última publicación o edición fue el 24 de julio de 2025 (4 meses). AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Tenemos que atendar 6 meses y mandar un mensaje al usuario. Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok,tienes razón,pinging @Yann and @Jmabel: any opinion? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, Bastique can still come back. Please see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of inactivity. Yann (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, the inactivity period for de-adminship is 6 months. Also, we already have a process for this, see Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy:El estaba inactivo por 4 meses y cuando comenzará una petición en "De adminship"? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22 Per the inactivity section page, the next scheduled run is in February/March 2026. If any admins failed to meet the minimum requirements (5 admin actions in 6 months), then the bureaucrats will deal with the inactive admins accordingly, so you don't need to do anything here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22, it will be okay. I'm still around. I just got busy with life. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Appealing decisions that contravene a set of rules

Hello. Before writing further, I want to clarify that I have no ill intentions, that expressing myself here is not a reason to block me and that English is not my native language.

I wish to appeal decisions that contravene a set of rules, starting with this decision to keep my photos of artworks taken in Belgium in 2012. The discussion with @Jameslwoodward who closed the request only resulted in a threat of blocking if I renominated the files, while requesting deletion is not a reason for blocking either, so I have no other choice but to appeal here. Before the request was closed, those opposed to conservation were in the majority, which was not taken into account. Moreover, the only argument given for keeping is not valid because I have never denied that there is freedom of panorama in Belgium, on the contrary, my will to delete my files is motivated by what the laws for freedom of panorama say, invalidating @Yann's opinion and keeping the files.

I have identified 5 valid reasons for deletion :

1. Keeping my files is contrary to belgian Article XI.192/3 of the Code of Economic Law, which specifies that the reproduction and communication of artworks must not prejudice the normal exploitation of the work, nor cause unjustified harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder, which is incompatible with the commercial aspect of the licenses accepted on Commons.

2. The conservation also contradicts what this page states in the second note about freedom of panorama : « Before 15 July 2016, there was no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art could not be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. »

3. Conservation is also contrary to the precautionary principle which states that we should not prejudge the intentions of the rights holders, thinking they won't file a complaint.

4. Keeping these files is contrary to the F5 speedy deletion criterion (in File, Namespace-specific) since the authors of the photographed artworks have not given their permission for my photos of their work to be published under a license without commercial restrictions.

5. Keeping unused files unnecessarily clutters the site's servers.

For all these reasons I appeal the keeping by requesting the deletion of these files, which I would not have needed to do if these two administrators had fulfilled their community role of understanding and following Commons policy instead of finding @Andy Dingley and me wrong, when we were calling for respect of the precautionnary principle.

I also request the deletion of my other photos of artworks taken in Belgium in 2012 that fall under this case.

I again request the removal of this unused photo of an artwork taken in Spain, which keeping is contrary to Article 40 bis of the Spanish law of 1996 for intellectual property, to the precautionary principle and the speedy deletion criterion F5.

At last, I was blocked because I tried to remove categories from my photos taken in Belgium that have to be deleted. The administrator who blocked me decided, without evidence, that I was deliberately trying to harm the site, when I was trying to make my files less accessible in order to protect myself against potential legal action, to comply with the aforementioned laws and the precautionary principle. Contrary to this administrator's claims, I was not notified of his intention to block me in october regarding the categories. He announced a block in August 2025 without providing any link to what I supposedly did that could be considered vandalism, thus without any justification, which I consider an abuse of power. Then, in October, he blocked me without warning because I removed categories in response to decisions I am now appealing. Considering this block as preventive is difficult since it occurred after the categories were removed, when cancellations alone would have been sufficient to stop me. However, the administrator chose to punish me without considering my good faith, even though I tried to explain my intentions in french regarding my files back in August.

Therefore, I request the removal of this unjustified block from my block log, the resetting of my block counter and the cleaning of my abuse log and what is related to this block of which I would not have knowledge.

Awaiting your response, sincerely. Olga Rithme (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Since July 2025, this user wants to delete some pictures under the wrong pretext of a copyright violations where there is none. Olga Rithme doesn't understand that freedom of panorama in Belgium allows the publication of pictures of artworks in public places without the author's consent. She has done edit-warring, and argued ad nauseam despite explanations by several people in English and in French, and despite multiple warnings and a block. Yet she comes again with the same wrong arguments. Sadly I don't see any other solution than a longer block. Yann (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Olga for a year. Jim said in his talkpage, that if Olga nominates one of her files again for deletion, then she will be blocked. And that's exactly what happened: in this thread Olga nominated own uploads for deletion. She did not create formal deletion requests, but this technicality is not important, we are not wikilawyering here. Of course I accept position of Jim and Yann: Belgian artworks do not need permission from artist. Olga was multiple times explained our position in that matter, but she refused to hear that. English Wikipedia has policy en:Wikipedia:IDHT, Commons has Commons:Disruptive editing. I understand Olga's good faith, but competence is required as well. In addition: clogging the servers is not an argument, because almost all deleted files will remain in our servers anyway. Taivo (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the commons community should be more lenient (more ready) to fulfill users' wishes to delete their own uploads even after 7 days, when the uploads have not been widely used, especially when the requests were made quite soon after the uploads had been quite recently uploaded.

In this case, I checked https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maison_communale_de_La_Panne.jpg&action=history (uploaded 22 june, requested 12 july, 20 days) and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cloned_paardenvisser,_William_Sweetlove.jpg&action=history (uploaded 26 june, requested 12 july, 16 days). RoyZuo (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am fine to change the rules, but it should be a community consensus. If you think it is needed, please create a proposal. Yann (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion policy#Courtesy deletions Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7.

there is no compelling reason not to respect the user's wishes in this case. those files are still not used now, 4 months after upload and 3 months after user first requested deletion.

and simply fulfilling users' wishes is a respectful and kind way to treat fellow users than blocking them. what harm would it do to delete those images? what harm does it do now to block a contributor? RoyZuo (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: IMO the issue is how to request a deletion. Courtesy deletions may have been fine in July, but not inventing false pretexts and repeating them again and again. This is like good faith: admitting one's mistakes instead of construction of false stories. Yann (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

those files are still not used now, 4 months after upload and 3 months after user first requested deletion — not used now where? On wiki projects? On external non-wiki websites? In print media? They all rely on the irrevocable cc license they've seen on this page 4 months ago. I think that granting a one month period for courtesy deletions might be ok, but it might get tricky regarding protecting reusers the more time has passed since the upload.

The idea of making it clearer to uploaders that they can't delete their uploads seems like a more sensible approach here. Nakonana (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Everyone except User:Olga_Rithme has the same understanding of the Belgian FoP rules. The license is irrevocable. I see no reason to create a precedent by deleting images that can perfectly properly be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The user also is under the mistaken impression that deletion saves server space, they still are on the servers, they're just hidden from the public. I am also in agreement with Jim that these have no good reason to delete them. Abzeronow (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't see any mention of this law being retroactive, which could be a reason the user could use to request the removal of these photographs. (edit) Retroactivity in Belgian law is the exception. Please note that this comment does not constitute support for unblocking the user. Arflhn (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Olga requested unblock. I encourage you to close the request. As this is my block, I cannot do it myself. Taivo (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

File name swap

Can an admin do the renames requested on File:IE road sign RUS-059A.svg? Thanks. Geoffroi 21:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done; @Geoffroi: please check my work. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Check their uploads

Kindly check the uploads of Gamerheitor56 (talk · contribs). I have some suspicion over the licensing/copyright status of the files but I may request a third party user to conduct licensing review. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 you are supposed to inform the user of this thread at their TP. I have done it this time for you. Please take care the next time. Good day. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted one of them as copyrighted poster and kept the other as ineligible for copyright, educational value potentially exists. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Attack image

Can someone please delete File:GhwfZBuWIAADUm6.jpg? Thanks. Geoffroi 00:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Abzeronow (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Thegreatrebellion

• Thegreatrebellion (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-33735-82 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

This user has sometimes uploaded non-free images of unknown sources and tagging them as their own work.

Specifically, the images appear to be screenshots from social media. While a screenshot itself can be uploaded if the content is freely licensed (eg: CCBY), this is highly unlikely to be the case here, which suggests a copyright violation.

The examples provided below are not complete:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_Rafique_Rashid_Ali_pada_2022.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohamad_Salim_Iskandar_pada_2023.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khaleeda_Bustamam_pada_2020.jpg

~2025-33749-29 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-33749-29: the normal way to proceed here would be, above all, to identify the source (rather than just say "appear to be screenshots from social media") and to mark as a copyvio, indicating that source. The user does have quite a few past copyvios, so I'm inclined to believe you, but it takes a pretty overwhelming pattern before we start deleting just on the basis of who uploaded the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like HejTuWou (not active lately) nominated quite a few of Thegreatrebellion's photos for deletion, then withdrew his own nominations. Some admin with a bit of time on their hands may want to sort out what is going on here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Urgent Request for Review and Correction on a negative slur

Hi. I was redirected here by Trimtrent and believe this is the COM:AN noticeboard. I would like to raise a complaint about a negative slur attached to my uploaded file, which states the document was AI‑developed and/or partially developed. This is baseless and without evidence. I require this sub‑comment to be removed from my published file immediately, as it is hurtful and unfounded. I have only used AI tools in a limited editorial capacity — to check factual references and improve grammar and phrasing. All substantive intellectual work, sourcing, and analytical decisions were made and executed by me. Plus I have uploaded many other images I have worked on for the paper and shared it with the public on SA BY 4.0. Regarding whether the actual file is deleted or not, I am happy to wait for due process, but the AI slur on my work must be removed without delay.

Kind regards, Jeeva [Author of File:Dravidian Arc - Reframing Ancient India’s Civilisational Origins.pdf] Jeeva S Sk (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dravidian Arc - Reframing Ancient India’s Civilisational Origins.pdf? If yes, well, the mentioned statement by the nominator is just an opinion, which may or may not be true, but its not an insult/slur. Also, it does not say "the document was AI‑developed ", but "appears likely", which has a different weight. --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Its appears as a slur because its not clearly stated as this objection view is from an external user and most people including myself viewed this statement its coming from a WikiCommon adminstrator. Can you please help to remove the potential AI usage to create the paper as its not correct and gives the wrong impression to public users Jeeva S Sk (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeeva S Sk I think you, like very many people, misunderstand the role of administrators on Wikimedia Foundation sites. They have no special authority. They are delegated additional cleanup powers by consensus of the denizens of the different sites, but their role is to assist with cleaning up messes. They are truly the janitors here, not people with special authority. Their authority level is equal to yours, to mine and to everyone else's. Even their wielding of the janitorial mop and bucket is subject to the scrutiny of the community. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume that this request is now resolved, as the file has been deleted. @Jeeva, the (now deleted) file appears to me like a scientific paper. If it truely is, Commons is really the wrong place to publish it, and it can even be unwise to do so, because (real) scientific journals always ask whether a paper has previously been submitted elsewhere. So, you should find a suitable (scientific) journal and try to publish it there. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Túrelio I choose not to complain about the personal attack. It is insufficient to warrant action unless they persist, when a warning shot may be required over collegiality, though they doubled down on it elsewhere, too. From my perspective this can be closed and archived. @Jeeva S Sk may not check this board again so I have pinged them in order that they may comment if they wish to.. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you @Túrelio as it wasn't properly explained like you have done. I understand the research paper parts: abstract and overview (uploaded ) cant be posted on Commons - simiilar to WikiSource or WikiPedia- which I wasn't aware of before until last night. Jeeva S Sk (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Please take care in judging whether content is AI generated. I have not seen the deleted file, so I cannot speak to its appearance, but I am sympathetic to the harm of associating someone's research with AI content when that is not the case.

@Jeeva S Sk: As others here are saying, Wikimedia Commons is generally not a place for hosting preprints or academic files. However, if you are patient, and if you wish to try using a new service, and if you can collaborate with all the volunteer editors, then I invite you to try publishing your preprint at Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities. WikiJournal is a project within the Wikimedia platform, and it is a new option for publishing research. It is a place that can accept comments on preprints, and if you wish to advance your publication there, then it has an editorial board to provide peer review. This is an uncommon new service which is still being tested, and most reviewers for Wikimedia Commons are unfamiliar with it.

WikiJournal is a place where people are more accustomed to checking for AI submissions for academic research. I recognize that you have had some friction in editing Wikimedia so far, but if you want to give a try there, then editors can take your submission. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

However, judging by https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Project_scope&oldid=1114944379#WikiJournal_of_Humanities, probably not. - Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Jmabel ! talk 06:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Problema Blacklist durante caricamento file: progetto fontana Milano Centrale 1988

Buongiorno,

sto tentando di caricare un’immagine relativa a un progetto per la **Stazione Centrale di Milano** (proposta/bozzetto di fontana, anno 1988). Anche tentando nomi descrittivi e dettagliati, ricevo sempre l’errore di **“nome file inserito nella Blacklist perché troppo comune o non informativo”**.

Revdel request

File:Orc mask by GrimZombie.jpg

The uploader have on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orc mask by GrimZombie.jpg stated they wish for their user account to be hidden from the file Trade (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

VRT ticket #: 2016052210013951

@Trade: I believe that miscategorizes what is on that DR. The Commons uploader is not who asked for anonymization, it is the source/author information for which that was requested, and that has been done. I will hide the history where that is revealed. If they want their pseudonym also suppressed, that would require that we rename the file; I think it is too late for that to be a reasonable thing to do, but won't object if I am overruled on that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This file was uploaded in 2016 and is widely used. Geoffroi 22:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: what is it that you oppose? Are you saying I should not have hidden the actual name of the Flickr user who requested that the file be anonymized? - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I oppose renaming the file/supressing the nickname. I think what's been done is sufficient. Geoffroi 04:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been a few days, and no one has argued against Geoffroi's view that what I've already done is enough so: Already done. - Jmabel ! talk 06:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Request

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2022 Paskevich statue.jpg

Hello, dear administrations. Could someone summarize this unjustified nomination? The participants have expressed their opinions. Thank you Well-read MountainMan (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Well-read MountainMan: I commented in the DR and warned both.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done I'll close it. Looks like nominator was confused about what country's laws apply. - Jmabel ! talk 06:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Need admin help

• File:Grünaderweißling.jpg
• File:Eichhörnchen.jpg
• File:Cathédrale Notre Dame de Paris.jpg
• File:Mésange bleue.jpg

I request to delete these files and restore them without my edits and uploads. It has been UploadWizard bugs. Thank. Юрий Д.К. 10:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Revisions deleted. --Achim55 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Report of strange user

So I am even not sure what is it. There is user https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dnaieldanieldaniel if you look at contributions you will see the similar images uploaded with not categorization (one of the images is falsely categorized as animation of geometry) and no usage. They have (almost sure) meaningless description. I don't see vandalism or etc but it is clearly not normal imo. Please look DustDFG (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Files (there were only 2) deleted by colleague Yann. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

VisualChange fail

While using VisualChange, I inserted the following string as the title of the deletion nomination:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation" "https://www.macfound.org"

The creation of the relevant page was blocked for having "https" in the title, however the deletion notices were sent out regardless, and now the deletion request is incomplete. How to solve this issue? Thanks. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps an admin could rollback the deletion request edits and re-open the request with the same rationale? Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: please list the files on Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation" "https://www.macfound.org". The tool had only missed out creating the DR, which I have created. I don't know which and which file is to be listed there. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 13:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the affected files. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks resolved. Already done. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Excalibur

He's still attacking me on his talk page! Can you please take his talk away? He's abused his talk three times now! Will you please stop him from trolling Commons users? Please? Geoffroi 02:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Already done - Jmabel ! talk 06:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the user is upset due to the former description of A boy with Down syndrome using cordless drill to assemble a book case.jpg? Trade (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That had nothing to do with his block here, or the subsequent revocation of his TPA. Check the block message on his talk page. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could clue me in what causes him to become so upset in the first place? Trade (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the COVID denialism and other conspiratorial claims that seem to have led to his enwiki block, I wouldn't assume you're going to find any rational explanation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/71 shouldn't be triggered on importations

I was importing a file from English Wikibooks to Commons when I was hit with a message telling me to use the "Nominate for Deletion" gadget. This was weird, since I had not nominated anything for deletion. It turns out that an old version of the file's description page had the {{Delete}} tag on it. I was not the author of that revision. Is there any way to exclude file importations from this filter? JJP_Master (she/they) 01:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we never got a resolution to phab:T213409/phab:T253876. So the fact that you're importing isn't visible to the AbuseFilter. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Massive message request for WLE BR 2025 contributors

Hi all, I need to send a request for feedback to the participants of the WLE BR 25, can you guys help me?

Preferable via "wikimail", if not possible, via their talk pages

Olá tudo bem?!

Queríamos agradecer sua participação no Wiki Loves Earth 2025! Se possível, estamos realizando uma pesquisa sobre o concurso para podermos melhorar para o ano que vem! Ela pode ser respondida de forma completamente anônima nesse link: link para a pesquisa, se possível, responder até o dia 30 de novembro!

Caso tenham alguma dúvida, contatofoto.wiki.br

Muito obrigado novamente, equipe foto.wiki.br

• Source:https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/99174

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Science Photo Competition 2025 in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage

Hi! I have a quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Science Photo Competition 2025 – we'd like to invite people who participated in this context in the past to join this year's edition

• List of receivers

• Text of the message (first line is the subject, everything else is the body of the message; I've already accounted for having a correct signature & timestamp)

Thanks! AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Doing. Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Possible socks

• Angpradesh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (registered on 8 April 2010)
• Samyo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (registered on 5 March 2015)

I nominated some uploads by Angpradesh for SD (see notices on User talk:Angpradesh, if they remove, plz see revision history). One of which is File:Angika Language Region of India.jpg. AP removes it at Revision as of 19:42, 20 November 2025. I revert him/her and tell him/her at their TP that they are not allowed to do so. Suddenly Samyo pops out and reverts the nomination, marking their first contribution in 10+ years (i.e. since registration). I don't think there is much left to say here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Just in case more similarities are needed, Global account information can be of great help. Both the accounts contribute on anpwiki, enwiki, hiwiki, incubator.wikimedia, meta.wikimedia and some more. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• I had informed few of the community members, who are active in promoting offline activities of Wikimedia and working for Indic languages, of yours proposed speedy deletion of this file and also that I can not revert it back because I am the creator. It is this user @Samyo came to revert and inform that this is not a copyright violation and it is not a matter of Speedy deletion. What is wrong in it? Angpradesh (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Angpradesh noone other than an admin can remove the SD (or any deletion) tag, unless it is undisputed or comes from a vandal. At the same time, anyone can contest the nomination, not by removing the tag but by converting it to a DR, so that the community can discuss. Above all of this, what you said above means that you have, in some or the other form, indulged in off-wiki canvassing and metapuppetry. If this really was your own work, you would have rather sent proof to WMF (VRT) as I suggested but you chose to go the other way. I'll stop here (unless needed) and let admins decide. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Shaan Sengupta I have sent the proof to WMF(VRT) as well. And because of the part of an active community members, the matter was shared and discussed with each others to find the right method to do so. Discussing the matter with the community to learn correct methods cannot be termed as indulging in off-wiki convassing or metapupperty as you mentioned. There are numbers of wikimedian communities across the world and in India as well to discuss such matter offline and help each others for growing of the wikimedia movement. We should show kind gesture so that more newbie could come forward and learn the correct method. Labelling someone with wrong thing is not fruitful for the Wikimedia Movement. Angpradesh (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Angpradesh, there is a reason COM:HELP exists. And discussing something offline which the people involved don't have access to and then someone comes in and does what happened, it is bound to be called as such. In case you advocate for transparency and haven't done it the wrong way, you may use {{offsite discussion link|1=}} to provide us the discussion link. Anyways that ai'nt necessary. Also, you can go through my contribution history, it would tell you about how much I help others. Its just that when I spot these types of files, I try to do the obvious. Now rest and let things happen. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Timed Text Site - pls delete

Could anyone pls delete this Timed Text site? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/TimedText:Jsbach_triosonate_e-moll_bwv_528_christoph_prei%C3%9F_st._andreas_wei%C3%9Fenburg_live.mp3.de.srt I can't do that somehow ("forbidden'" or the like). I did not found any solution so far. Thanks so much! --Subbass1 (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 12:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! --Subbass1 (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Are there problems with the protection for the Picture of the day?

Whenever any image is used as today’s Picture of the day and appears on the Main page of Wikimedia Commons, ordinary users cannot edit it and will find the hint “This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators” at the top of the description page of the image. So far so good.

Today (2025-11-21) this photo is the Picture of the day, so I would assume that it is protected against any edits. But please take a look at the history of the description page: the description has been edited today (2025-11-21) by User:Drexcreatur203 (not an admin, but a vandal) at 02:42, 02:43, 02:44 and 02:48 UTC, by a temporary account (i.e., by an IP) at 05:21 UTC, and by User:Nylki (again not an admin) at 09:52 UTC.

I report this here because I fear that this could mean that there are technical problems with the protection for the Picture of the day. If not, i.e. if I just misunderstand something, please excuse this post! Then I just ask for a short explanation what “This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators” means if even temporary accounts can edit the page. Thank you, – Aristeas (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aristeas Per point 3 of Commons:Village pump/Technical/Archive/2025/03#Tech News: 2025-10, since March 2025, the cascading protection in this case only includes upload protection, and doesn't include edit protection. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Tvpuppy! This means that at least the notice template must be updated. Currently the notice which is shown on the current POTD and similar pages says (I have underlined the important parts):

This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators.

This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled: ...

and the “edited” and “from editing” is wrong, right? Best, – Aristeas (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for reporting this. As you have shown above, the previous situation (full protection) should be restored. Yann (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann – I agree 100% with you that it would be by far the best to restore the previous situation, i.e. to protect especially POTDs completely, because they attract vandalism. Only if that is not possible for technical reasons, at least the wording of the cited notice should be updated, to remove the contradiction. – Aristeas (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Update gadget

Wondering if an interface admin can update the OWID gadget

• https://mdwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.js
• https://mdwiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.css

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Trying almost at random (picked an arbitrary part of the alphabet) to get someone's attention to this: @Matrix, Magog the Ogre, Mdaniels5757, MGA73, and Mike Peel: .

Is there a better place Doc James should have asked this? I'm not aware of one. - Jmabel ! talk 06:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, will do —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Doc James:  Done —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful thanks Matrix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Am needing another update of MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.js from MDWiki:MediaWiki:Gadget-owidslider.js, User:Matrix thanks for your prior help on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Similar types of copyvios uploaded by multiple accounts

Fairly new to this so apologize if this isn't the correct venue here.

• Nyvelah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Jonyjaq (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Retutugyh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Seliti (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Cuqobo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Seemingly new accounts have uploaded copyvios from Flickr with the correct author name. However, the sources all link to random .ru websites. Seems bizarre and there may be some abuse of multiple accounts going on. HurricaneZeta (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I opened a checkuser case over at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyvelah to check if these accounts are related or not. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The SPI is Inconclusive (from a technical point of view), although the timing of their edits makes me frown. --Lymantria (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Guy give me a global locked

Guy give me a global blocked on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Common. Miss Dumb (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Miss Dumb: If you want to leave us definitely you can request for vanishing on m:Special:GlobalVanishRequest. --Achim55 (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course, Agent Achim55 Miss Dumb (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

They only joined 5h ago, as I'm writing this, so their account was only 3h old when they opened this thread. Nakonana (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. You can simply never use your account anymore. I closed your DR. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Student editing project about fish on enWP leading to mass copyvio uploads on Commons

See en:WP:EDUN#Apparent student project on fish articles, uploading tons of copyvios to Commons. It appears that there's some unofficial student editing project going on that has students uploading tons of images to Commons under false or no licenses. I've tagged the ones I've come across that have false licenses, and the ones without license tags have been bot-tagged, but I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg since I'm only looking at Wikipedia articles that have citation errors.

• Cicada'sbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• RoundSe404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Wildyackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Fortheloveoffish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Lfriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• NKM697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilovemycat333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Offishal fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Absentbowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• R.Stick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Twothreepeanutbutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Npomp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Guatemaltecos-Visibles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Benthicfeeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• StarfishPaperWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• DontDrinkTheTapWater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• GWsharklover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Jay8g (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I have noticed these users looking at Category:Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-11, and there are indeed more. Yann (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• Potatosac789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Setgiant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Sebssubmarine25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• OKTJGojiGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• DahriusB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Medharaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Oliveinmoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• M!nn0W17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Martialngaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Gho$t$hark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Sgfish98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ymoja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• AMANDi08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

One more:

• M.banana.dm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Honestly, I'm less concerned about the ones that are uploading images without licenses (since that's easy to notice) than the ones who are using obviously false licenses. Jay8g (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not the number of files, but the number of people. Each of them has only uploaded a few images, but the high number of people doing the same mistakes at the same time is a problem. Yann (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Two more:

• BrieSteele1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• ElCappu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Jay8g (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Have we been getting anywhere with determining who it was who aimed so many people at doing this wrong? - Jmabel ! talk 06:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't even know where to start. None of the accounts have replied to talk page messages here or on enWP, and so far no one has answered my post on en:WP:EDUN. There was another class doing work on fish-related articles around the same time last year (which didn't seem to have the image copyright issue, but I don't remember if I checked on that then) which was apparently from UC Davis, so maybe it's the same class again. Jay8g (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like y'all missed tagging File:Distribution map of Laphotidae family in Mediterranean Sea.jpg --Trade (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Another one: Leokoeh356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Jay8g (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

First user (User:Cicada'sbug)'s upload (File:Diagram of Zameus squamulosus (a) and Scymnodom ichiharai (b) teeth.png) appears to be somewhat fine? They tagged a ProQuest source but I was able to find the original document. The document did state CC-BY 4.0 and the data within is released as CC0. Perhaps the student simply made a mistake by reading the very last part of the rights and skipped the first part? If I upload this file and tag it with correct license, it would have stayed on Commons. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Why did you not correct the source and license? --Lymantria (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Because this is a volunteer project and I am not required to give any more time and effort than I wish to? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that you have already done the research, unlike anyone else you could do this and take responsibility for it without re-researching. No, you are not absolutely required to do this, but it is reasonable for others to expect a certain level of collegiality. I gather you are an admin on sister projects, so certainly you understand that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bob Ross Air Force photo.jpg

I believe I've established a case for speedy deletion here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Deleted as OOS (though as apparently free licensed, so no apparent requirement for speedy.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to upload new version of File:Charles_Dorange_2017.png

Hello, I would like to upload a new version of this file: File:Charles_Dorange_2017.png However, the page displays the message "You cannot overwrite this file" and the “Upload a new version” link does not appear. Could an administrator please either: allow overwriting, or upload the new version for me (I can provide the file)? Thank you! JackLondon22 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@JackLondon22 Please upload it as a new file. I have my doubts over the copyright status of this file. Is the new image you want to upload one you took yourself or has someone else published it with a free license? Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

DR have been open for 16 years

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. mugshot.jpg

Could we give the DR the peace it deserves? Trade (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

gone. thanks Bedivere (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! I presume that's a record for longest open deletion request... at least I *hope* it is. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This DR is old enough to apply for a driver's license in some places. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to @Trade, the nominator will finally have the peace of mind they deserve. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Question on admin being an "involved party"

I know that, in general, admins are not supposed to use their (our) admin rights in situations in which they are embroiled as a party, but sometimes it seems to me that this reaches the point of absurdity: you warn a user, they respond with a personal attack. Should this disqualify you from taking admin action yourself? Recently arose for me with Youmaywear (I warned, he responded by vandalizing the description of my self-portrait that I use on a subpage of my user page) and I see that after being blocked they Special:Diff/1121169240 used their talk page access to insult the admin who followed up and blocked them. Is that admin also now supposed to recuse, and then we need a third admin to decide whether to take away TPA? At a certain point, this becomes absurd. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

For a disruptive user like this with little/no productive contributions, I don't think it's an involved action to block (or reblock). Personally I would have blocked much sooner both for personal attacks and spam. In any case, I've revoked TPA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Pi.1415926535 here. The block is clearly justified. Regarding TPA being revoked by "an involved admin", I think admins should be allowed to deal with these types of cases. And just for transparency, they can put out a thread here for other admins to review, just like COM:AN/BP# Block review: Dronebogus and COM:AN/BP#Block review - RodRabelo7. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass deletion of User:LesMoodz

Violation of nudity images and copyright 0xEffaceCafe (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted and user blocked. GPSLeo (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Borderline Patients- Psychoanalytic Perspectives.jpg

I can't help but notice the coordinates are in the EXIF despite the file being tagged with Category:Location withheld. Maybe someone should remove them? --Trade (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

EXIF data removed. Could someone please revdel the original? Omphalographer (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Problematic uploads by User:Annaperfilova

Annaperfilova (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) has uploaded a number of photos, almost exclusively of sculptures in Russia (except for two photos). FoP issues aside, the uploads appear to not be their own work (as file sizes, lack of EXIF data, and file names like File:Изображение WhatsApp 2025-09-25 в 22.29.26 cd975e24.jpg indicate). They also have a noticeable focus on sculptures by Vadim Babak (who appears to be somewhat unknown, and makes — among others? — replicas of known sculptures, example) so that I'm wondering whether there's a conflict of interest going on. Their two uploads that are not depicting sculptures are photos of another also unknown artist. And maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but while I was trying to figure out the sculptor (Vadim Babak) to provide the information for this deletion request, I came across another user whose uploads are also all of sculptures by Vadim Babak (namely User:Willimbogo), however, this might be incidental because at least their uploaded files have files sizes in MB rather than kb (except for one), and they at least have some EXIF data. But I still wanted to mention it because it's a bit odd for two users to have a focus on a rather unknown sculptor. Nakonana (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I warned this user, deleted the WhatsApp files, and some files where I found copies on the Net. If you found more evidence, please tag the files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The other files would need to be deleted due to the Russian FoP restrictions for sculptures. The sculptor Vadim Babak was born in 1973 and is still alive. His works are protected for 70 years after his death. Nakonana (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See files in Category:Vadim Babak. Nakonana (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Please create a deletion request for files in this category with relevant information. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Sorry to bother you, but we have a user named Taichi (User talk:Taichi) who decided to delete half of the maps on Commons, out of nowhere. This person is proposing to remove plain maps with no data whatsoever that have been here since 2018, maps drawn in Paintbrush, claiming they have no sources or are derivative works, as if anyone would sue Commons for that kind of thing (it will never happen). Stop him. ~2025-36846-72 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I fixed your link, but your ping of User:Taichi will not have worked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

1. I sincerely doubt that he "decided to delete half of the maps on Commons".
2. It is not a matter of whether we could be sued. It is a matter of whether they conform to Commons' policies.
3. Little is more problematic than having a blank base map that violates copyright, because people will use them to make labeled maps, and then all of those derivative works are "poisoned" by the unclean copyright status.

Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this by any chance Rodowai, who I see already engaged Taichi about this? If so, it would be very helpful if you would be consistent about logging in while discussing this; while it is not necessarily sockpuppeting to address part of a matter while logged in and part while not, it's pretty close, and it makes it very hard to sort out exactly whom we should be discussing things with. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Rodowai is now blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Also FYI: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rodowai. Taichi (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't argue with the checkuser outcome, but I think the intimidation claim about is a misunderstanding. Looks to me like he was not making a legal threat himself, just accusing someone of copyright paranoia. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree: no legal threat there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Views for video and audio files

Per Commons:Village_pump#Video_and_audio_plays, I am hoping to collect audio and video plays on Commons. We have built the technical infrastructure and now just need a interface admin to install it.

One can see the output here for Basque WP https://commons-play-listener.toolforge.org/dashboard/?website=eu.wikipedia.org

If installed on Commons, it would basically collect data whenever the play button is activated for a video or an audio file and list how much of the file was played. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Help

There is someone who keeps adding permission not granted template in my images please check it out. And they mistook that i dont have permission. The permisson was granted at <redacted e-mail> Ternant 728228 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If and when permission is confirmed, a VRT member will add the permission template to files. You don't add those permission templates. Abzeronow (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The permission is confirmed at November 23 Ternant 728228 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Problem with the bot

The bot is trying to deletd my original picture because I don't have license which is lie File:Streets at Philippines.jpg Jaredryandloneria (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jaredryandloneria: Hi, It is not a problem. It is normal that if you forget to add a license to your files, you get a warning. Now since you added a license to File:Street cat at Philippines at cavite.jpg, I removed to the warning to the file description. Yann (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Please block the lock evasion and delete the attacks

Special:Contributions/~2025-37140-59 m:Special:Redirect/userid/43267643 -WikiBayer (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jörgin_die_Wikingin -WikiBayer (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of by some other admins. (Noting for other admins…) — regards, Revi 20:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Already done - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Google Gemini.jpg

This image, supposedly of Google Gemini, advocates for self harm. The uploader has been blocked with talk page access removed on en.wiki for edit warring and using the image as an attack. The uploader has now moved onto simple . The image is up for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Google Gemini.jpg, but really needs a COM:GCSD#G3 now. Further, the account needs a global lock (though, I don't know how to go about getting that). --Hammersoft (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: To request a global lock, go to Meta:Steward requests/Global, but you will need to be confirmed there to edit that page I think. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone already did. Very slow response on this both there, here, and elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Datasets about potential logos - November 2025 uploads

Hi all, we have released a new dataset of potential logos uploaded in November 2025, together with another one of those which have already been deleted as of 2025-12-02. We are sharing them with you for your consideration.

This is part of our current work with the logo detection tool. We hope it will be useful for your moderation activities.

If you encounter issues with the datasets or have comments/requests, please reach out to me or to Sannita (WMF).

Thanks for your attention! –-MFossati (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Re request Massive message request for WLE BR 2025 contributors

Hi all, this is the secound time that I requesting, I need to send a request for feedback to the participants of the WLE BR 25, can you guys help me?

Preferable via "wikimail", if not possible, via their talk pages

Olá tudo bem?!

Queríamos agradecer sua participação no Wiki Loves Earth 2025! Se possível, estamos realizando uma pesquisa sobre o concurso para podermos melhorar para o ano que vem! Ela pode ser respondida de forma completamente anônima nesse link: link para a pesquisa, se possível, responder até o dia 30 de novembro!

Caso tenham alguma dúvida, contatofoto.wiki.br

Muito obrigado novamente, equipe foto.wiki.br

{{Rodrigo.Argenton/test}}

• Source:https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/99174

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you please make a separate page with a plain bulleted list of users (no table), then it would be much easier to send a mass message (which would land on the talk pages, I do not know how to mass-send e-mails). Also I guess the subject of the message is missing. Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: here the list, the subject can be "Obrigado pela sua participação no Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2025!", thank you in advance. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 14:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The list also needs to be formatted in the format described here: mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage. To avoid accidental inclusion of parts not intended for the message text please put the the text and the subject on a separate page. GPSLeo (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The list of user talk pages is User:Rodrigo.Argenton/test. If you need that without " talk", please instead see User:Jeff G./list.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at it Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I sent the mass message to the queue, but it has not been delivered. I check in a few hours, and possibly send it again if needed, this happened in the past. Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. At the end, I had to reformat the list manually and spent about half an hour for that. Not sure it was a good investment of my time. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get what was the problem, can you better clarify to avoid problems in the future? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 09:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Please look how User:Rodrigo.Argenton/test is now formatted. The mass message tool did not recognize the old format (it thought I am sending a message to zero users). Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You actually didn't include the link to the research. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 17:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess this is your way of saying "thank you, you wasted a lot of your time because I did not care to read policies, and now you will waste more of your time". Sure, I will add it now by hand. Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ve already made the adjustments, so there is no need to worry about it anymore. Thank you.

That said, I felt the annoyance directed at me was unfair. I was criticized for not knowing a tool I don't use, and don't have access, yet it seems you aren't familiar with the proper tools either, which forced you to do the work manually.

Manual work that could have been avoided... I recommend using GSheets, OpenOffice Calc, or Excel to modify lists easily. I also suggest using volunteer-made scripts for mass editing, such as JS Wiki Browser. It took me 7 minutes to fix, and adapting the list to Meta’s recommendations would take about 5.

I didn't mean to cause any trouble; I only asked because I was offline and thought your access levels would make the job trivial.

Thanks for your time regardless. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 16:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 16:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Renatnom

Renatnom (talk · contribs) behaviour is strange. When I add an uncreated category by HotCat, the account immediately creates blank category pages (before I have a chance to create the category page properly). I don't know if it's automated, but definitely it's not desirable. I've posted on the account's talkpage, but it would be good to check the situation. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I've understand, don't worry. Thanks. Renatnom (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Honor Magic V5.jpg

Pls suppress the original image which contains copyrighted wallpaper. 0x0a (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 15:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of mass deletion of my user project pages

Hello,

I would kindly like to request a community review of several deletions performed by administrator The Squirrel Conspiracy, who used Nuke to mass-delete multiple pages in my user space under the criterion U3 (Inappropriate use of user pages).

These pages contained documented artistic and long-term photography projects, not drafts, vandalism, spam, nor external promotion. The pages were used to present my works, describe the concepts, show credits, and link to the projects as part of my artistic portfolio.

Examples:

• User:Nikasandler/The World of Hedonia
• User:Nikasandler/My Nonhuman Friends
• User:Nikasandler/Plant and Human Pain
• User:Nikasandler/The Black Sun
• User:Nikasandler/Mycophilia
• User:Nikasandler/A History of Teeth
• User:Nikasandler/The Ancient Depths
• User:Nikasandler/Commission for Issue 3 of Sensored Magazine''

No warning or discussion was provided before the mass deletion.

I kindly request:

1. a review of whether these deletions fall under U3,
2. consideration for restoring the deleted pages,
3. clarification on appropriate use of user space for artistic projects.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

— NikaSandler Nikasandler (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

These were entirely appropriate deletions. Personal artistic projects and portfolios are outside the scope of commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Nikasandler/The World of Hedonia appears to have consisted entirely of a gallery of deleted images and some text about the context in which they were taken. That's pretty obviously out of scope, and does not encourage me to look at all the others. Can you point at any of these that are something more than that? - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

My Nonhuman Friends seems to be a gallery of cat pictures, some should be in scope. AI paleoart was removed with request for deletions, but others were mass-deleted without any discussion? I think some cats could be undeleted if user stops presenting it as portfolio. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Rename request

Can an admin handle the rename request for File:GsgshsgafaD (1).png? The file is cascade protected. Thanks. Geoffroi 01:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Abzeronow (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for Lk1155

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User contributions for Lk1155 Nimbus227 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

BOKOBA veroly

BOKOBA veroly (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Is there anyone who might be willing to take over from me on the interaction with BOKOBA veroly? Preferably this would be someone who has more than my minimal French, and ideally someone from Africa, since he has written, "It is easy for you, from the West, to make decisions about anything that deviates from the ordinary and comes from real Africa." I do not believe I am biased against him as an African, and I believe I would have blocked anyone for this level of copyright violations and failure to engage, but I would like to recuse myself based on the possibility that I was acting with cultural bias. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you did block this user for 6 months. It seems a bit harsh as a first block, specially because there are useful uploads. But I agree that at least a strong warning is needed. Yann (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Uploads that infringe copyright are generally not useful, but rather very harmful. Stepro (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, this comment is not useful. Did you check their uploads? Yann (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is.

Of course, I checked his uploads, which is why I posted the matter on the administrators' noticeboard: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 126#User:BOKOBA veroly

And I'm still waiting for his response as to how he was able to take photos in Potsdam, Germany, from Africa: User talk:BOKOBA veroly#File:Présentation en.jpg and File:Excellent.jpg

I actually believe that the sheer number of his uploads deleted due to copyright infringements speaks for itself. Stepro (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand what I wrote. Yes, there are copyright violations, but there are also useful uploads. So we usually do not apply a 6-month block the first time when the user is not a vandalism-only account. Yann (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we can not trust any own work claims of this user. GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to communicate with them. I'm able to use French (I'm European, not African, though, but that shouldn't matter, I hope). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I would reduce the block to one week. Hopefully that's sufficient to send the message through. Yann (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: then will you take it upon yourself to do something about his continued effort to contact me outside of Commons (the last of which I am about to delete without reading, but this link will let you find out whatever it says)? There have also been emails. In response to one of the latter I told him (in English and French) that the only acceptable place for him to continue this during his block is his user talk page, to which he continues to have access. He ignored that.

I would strongly object to him being unblocked without being assigned a mentor, and I would strongly request a mutual no-contact with myself to be a condition of the unblock. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, fine. I will give him these requirements for unblocking. Yann (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest to change to partial block for uploads until the status of all files clarified. GPSLeo (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To whom it may concern but who's not able to understand French well: The linked EN-WP messages to @Jmabel are basically only a fact-centric defence (I didn't see things amounting to personal attacks) and explanation on how he (BOKOBA veroly) claimed to have produced (the second one: "Les photos signalées comme potentiellement en infraction sont mes propres créations, réalisées en partie avec mon téléphone personnel."; some apparently have been processed with Leonardo AI) some of the files in jeopardy. Additionally, he indeed asks for a mentoring guidance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I propose extending his ban indefinitely due to his continued lies today about the authorship of the photos he uploaded: User talk:BOKOBA veroly#File:Présentation en.jpg and File:Excellent.jpg

He is lying to us completely brazenly, claiming to have taken the photos himself, even though he was demonstrably 4,700 km away from the scene. In my opinion, shortening the ban would be tantamount to supporting further copyright infringements. His statements in the above-mentioned discussion section also mean that this can no longer be considered a mistake, lack of knowledge, or other perhaps excusable behavior, but only willful and malicious deception. Stepro (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stepro: in that response you linked, BV posted a text with a boilerplate feeling (he posted it 3 times: in your thread, on Joe's EN talk page and below my DR notice at the bottom of the page), without exact correlation to the Wikicon images. He said "Mes images constituent en grande partie mon propre travail, certaines ayant été créées à l’aide de Leonardo AI." which translates to My images [read:uploads] are mostly my own work, some having been created with the assistance of Leonardo AI.". That's not a claim about the authorship of the Wikicon copyvios, only a general statement. With the other messages he posted, I don't think that he has any intent to lie or to deceive, that's more an impression of him being overwhelmed and confused but also willing to learn, if given the chance and assistance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

images I have taken =!= my own own images (that I have worked on myself, created with AI on my phone, downloaded to my phone). I still don't see a clear statement that he has taken the images, but only worked on them. This still lacks an understanding of what we want on Commons: own works or freely licensed images, and therefore I cannot support unblocking them for file upload. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot support unblocking someone who contacted someone after being requested to stop, especially when they aren't indeffed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is this that "deviates from the ordinary and comes from real Africa"? Some context? Trade (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Potential possibility of doxxing image

Coud the image File:Bordello 38a.jpg fall under doxxing? Apologies, but I don't have the capacity to email about this and I'm unsure whether this would fall under doxxing or not. The reason why I think it might be is because it appears to be a private home/residence labelled "Well known venue for adult entertainment in the East Midlands" of which the user who uploaded it also appeared to categorise it under "Brothels in the United Kingdom". Obviously, we don't know how true it is and regardless of whether it is or not the resident/residents may not wish for it to be publicly known to be associated with such activities. If other users do think this falls under doxxing it would very much be appreciated if they could report it to reports@wikimedia.org. I would also like to know admins thoughts on whether this would fall under doxxing or not. Helper201 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In any case, I've blocked and deleted. No productive contributions from that user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I must say calling the file advertisement was an... interesting choice of deletion reason Trade (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you didn't just reported it to reports@wikimedia.org to start with Trade (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

The message on the page says it’s semi-protected, but it’s not anymore. It’s now autopatrol-protected. ~2025-39075-80 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

change "Allen Gilbert Cram" to "Allan Gilbert Cram"

I don't know how to change Allen Gilbert Cram to Allan Gilbert Cram' for commons and data

w:Mildred Cram is his sister

Creator:Allen Gilbert Cram should be Creator:Allan Gilbert Cram

Category:Allen Gilbert Cram should be Category:Allan Gilbert Cram

proof:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AOld_seaport_towns_of_the_South_(IA_oldseaporttownso00cramiala).pdf&page=7

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Allen%20Gilbert%20Cram&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Allan%20Gilbert%20Cram&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A83057

https://www.loc.gov/item/17028900/

https://archive.org/details/oldseaporttowns00cram

https://books.google.com/books?id=2-ZCAAAAIAAJ

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Cram%2C%20Allan%20Gilbert

Piñanana (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this on. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• All relevant changes should be complete but @Piñanana: please check. - Jmabel ! talk 23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

OathOn and full descriptions in filenames

Can someone take a look at the rename request for File:Pioneer Wharf, Chatham Waterfront.jpg? I hate to turn down uploader requested renames and requests from constructive editors, but this is starting to seem excessive to me. There are many more requests like this from OathOn and likely hundreds more after the current requests. I'm not sure how this should be handled. Thanks. Geoffroi 23:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems excessive. A file name is not intended to be a full description text. It's OK if you use names like that to begin with, but I think not appropriate to ask other people to take on the work of doing a bunch of moves if you don't initially upload under names that you yourself like. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

While I've asked this user to clean up their uploads - including nondescriptive filenames - before I lift their upload restriction, this rename seems unnecessary. It's much more important for them to focus on useless filenames like File:BIMG 2382 - Copy.jpg. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Picture of the Day 2025-12-06 description

Current English description for the Picture of the Day 2025-12-06 contains factual mistake. Should be "Glotovo, Vladimir Oblast" instead of "Glotovo, Vologda Oblast". Someone please correct protected Template:Potd/2025-12-06 (en). Nyuhn (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

AbuseFilter/292

Hi, doing a test I think there may be a little problem with this filter that should block users w/o patrol right to place {{Allow Overwriting}}. It seems to me that the filter does not cover the case in which the space is replaced with an underscore. Here, just for example, I was able to place the template from a temporary account. That should be fixed, thanks. Arrow303 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I especially ping @GPSLeo Arrow303 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I changed the filter now also hitting on this case. I was not aware that in templates an underscore is interpreted the same as a space. GPSLeo (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo Good, thanks! Arrow303 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Removal of photo

21:59, 15 November 2025 Jameslwoodward talk contribs deleted page File:Monument to Mykhailo Hrushevsky, sheltered from Russian shelling. Kyiv, 2023.jpg. The author explained that the photo does not depict the Monument to Mykhailo Hrushevsky, but the protective structure of this monument, so since it is not a work of art, the photo is not subject to removal. There was no answer. I think that the removal was illegal.Ввласенко (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The shelter had something drawn on it, if I remember correctly, it was a sketch of the monument. That drawing is also copyright protected, that's why the image was deleted. Nakonana (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Link for convenience: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument to Mykhailo Hrushevsky, sheltered from Russian shelling. Kyiv, 2023.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is/was a sketch. The file could be restored with the sketch blurred out, if people think it would still be of interest. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I could see it still being interesting even if the sketch was blurred, but I wonder if it might still go against Ukraine's lack of FoP even with the blur. Nakonana (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: what would be the issue? (I don't know much about Ukraininan FoP laws). - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine has no usable FoP-exception. Problem is that the drawing extends over almost the entire height of the building. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it could be considered a building, iirc, it was just a plain rectangular construction. One could say that it was too simple to be protected by copyright, but there are also countries (France?) where even such a simple rectangular construction like that might be copyrightable. I don't know where Ukraine stands regarding TOO. If we think that such a construction is too simple for copyright protection, then I'd be in favor of undeleting and blurring the sketch. Nakonana (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a completely regular box made of concrete panels. I cannot imagine any country considering that copyrightable, any more than a woodpile. I will blur and undelete; if someone still believes it is a problem, put it up for another DR. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Jmabel ! talk 01:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass rename requests with Criterion #4

I've just declined a mass rename request for Category:Diagrams of direction road signs of Iceland. This would've renamed all but 2 of the files in the category (which I've renamed to match the other 28 files). Filemoving criterion #4 (harmonizing) is being used to rename entire categories like this with no discussion or consensus. I declined several hundred rename requests for election maps a few weeks ago, but I see these arbitrary mass requests pretty often. It seems like abuse of criterion #4 without consensus or discussion. Geoffroi 21:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jmabel: who weighed in on the election map mass rename requests mentioned above. Geoffroi 21:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Harmonizing a file's name in one category might disharmonize its file name in another category (or it might break the file naming scheme of the uploader). I'm thinking of a case of a photo series on a fire (in Moscow, iirc) and the files in the category were all named something along the lines of "Fire at Y on xx.xx.xxxx ([photo number of the series])". One of the photos from the fire prominently depicted a trolley bus, and as a result someone requested a rename to harmonize the file name with other files in a trolley bus category. The rename was made. So, now there's a file named" trolley bus xx" in a category of files that are all named "Fire at Y on xx.xx.xxxx ([photo number of the series])", and the rename also created a gap in the photo numbers of the series. Nakonana (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The particular image I'm referring to is File:Moscow trolleybus 8964 2015-01.jpg, which was previously named File:Пожар в здании ИНИОН РАН (16411137992).jpg ("Fire in the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences") like a number of other images of that series in Category:Fire in the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences (31 January 2015). Here's the diff of the rename request, and here to my objection to the rename (not sure I did the objection correctly), but as one can see the file was renamed anyway. Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The policy page, for reference: COM:RENAME. I took Criterion #4 to mean files that are part of an image set, possibly being created or maintained by the same person, not all files within a category. If people are tagging entire categories with this then that certainly counts as abuse. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like the file names in Category:Diagrams of direction road signs of Iceland (things like F11.51.svg) either have a meaning that is not explained anywhere on the respective file pages (some official naming scheme in Iceland?) or are meaningless. If the former, then they should be left alone. If the latter, then these are good candidates for renaming under Commons:File renaming criterion 2. Gigillo83 uploaded many (all?) of these, is still at least semi-active, and might shed some light on this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The file names correspond to the official sign numbers contained in the Icelandic Regulation on traffic signs and their use. I had requested the renames, although possibly erroneously under criterion 4 instead of 2 (if there was a possibility to choose both, I would have done), and, as I've been informed, probably not in the right way. The rename would have clarified that these diagrams refer specifically to the ones laid out in this regulation. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 22:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Criterion #2 is for fixing errors. The numbers are correct for the Iceland roadsigns. What error would you be fixing? A problem you might create is noted above by Nakonana. Any thoughts or concerns on breaking other uploader's sets? Geoffroi 22:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Criterion 2 doesn't say anything about errors, it says correcting a meaningless or ambiguous file name. "F11.51" does not mean anything on its own. "Iceland road sign F11.51", however, tells you it is an Icelandic road sign that can be identified by the official sign number "F11.51".

I don't understand the "uploader sets" argument in this specific case. Gigillo has uploaded diagrams of several countries' signs over the years, none have ever originally been given a consistent file name, across the naming for these countries' signs, at the time of uploading. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 22:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It's an official referenced number, which isn't meaningless or ambiguous. Are you going to change all the rest of the roadsign images that only use the official number? Let's not resurrect The Roadsign Guy please. Geoffroi 23:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I appreciate my actions, which are well-intentioned, being compared to those of a long-time vandal of both Wikipedia and Commons. For the record, I don't intend on going on a mass rename spree, but rather I will continue to request file renames any time I should believe necessary. Should these be challenged, such as in this very case, I'm willing to have a discussion about it, and won't object if a decision is made that I disagree with.

Regarding the sign names, I would think that the having the number isn't exactly a sufficient description (criterion 2), nor makes it easily findable, and is an oddity considering that every other category for this country does not do this (criterion 4). But seemingly this is just my opinion and does not appear to be Commons policy. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 23:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have a good idea, why not do it with all roadsign files? Why are Iceland's roadsigns special? The Jermboy27 reference was toward people targeting lesser known/unattended categories to impose control on them. Geoffroi 23:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment If the numbers in the filenames are official sign numbers contained in the Icelandic Regulation on traffic signs and their use, that should certainly be mentioned within the wikitext of the file, probably in the description.

 Neutral on adding a prefix that would make these file names clearer. Certainly would have been a better choice in the first place, not strongly supported by our renaming criteria. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is a possible domino effect. If these mass renames are repeatedly requested and done, we'll probably end up doing thousands of renames in the end along with some disagreements. Better to have consensus beforehand than problems after. Also, if other users upload new roadsign files to a category with a set name scheme, will someone come within a short time and request a rename? I'm wary of imposing a strict naming scheme without any consensus that such a restriction is needed or wanted. As regards the numbers, all BSicon sets have an information template for each category. A simple template explaining that the numbers are official government designations might be a better idea than mass renames. Geoffroi 23:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I certainly hope it is just a "reference" and not something you are seriously thinking I am trying to do.

I can respect that certain categorisation of files might have their own naming conventions - in the case of road signs, for example, you have the UK's using "traffic sign" instead of "road sign", Germany's using German-language names, and Italy's using a mixture of English and Italian names, even within the same file name. However, these have (largely) been applied to all categories ("Diagrams of x road signs of [country]") that make up the whole ("Diagrams of road signs of [country]"). The two categories of Iceland's, Category:Diagrams of direction road signs of Iceland and Category:Diagrams of lane movement road signs of Iceland, are the exception to said whole for Iceland, so I was simply trying to rectify this. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 23:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Going to tag @Fry1989 into the conversation, although not so active these days he has been dealing with road signs for far longer than I have, including renaming files (including those uploaded by Gigillo, including the Icelandic ones). EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 00:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I certainly hope it is just a "reference" and not something you are seriously thinking I am trying to do. I of course cannot speak for Geoffroi but I think it's rather safe to say that they are not assuming bad faith on your end because if they did then this noticeboard report would have been introduced as a problem of user conduct, and the report would have mentioned you by name. But instead the report is a question for clarification regarding the renaming guidelines, and it clearly says that there were multiple similar instances (not necessarily by the same editors). So I don't think that you need to worry here. Nakonana (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of the election map rename requests, which totaled 500+ within half an hour. It made rename requests from other users harder to get to. Perhaps we should have some kind of policy and infrastructure for mass renames, rather than flooding the rename request category and getting different results from different filemovers? There aren't many filemovers here that will even do (or have time to do) a mass rename. Geoffroi 00:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the mass rename follows a pattern (as it certainly ought to!) it can be pretty quickly done with User:Legoktm/massrename. So, yes, there ought to be a better way to ask of this than tagging each file. And I agree with Geoffroi that a template explaining these official Icelandic sign numbers is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Going to disagree with your last point - although I agree that these files need a better description in the summary, which would eliminate the need for a template. Furthermore, would this template be applied uniquely to these 2 categories of Icelandic signs, or all? Will it later be applied to all countries', even where the description, or file name, already makes it clear? EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 08:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to summarise my thoughts here: I'm sure Geoffroi has legitimate concern regarding the abuse of the rename function. I can see how mass renaming of tens or hundreds of individual files could cause problems and disagreements further down the line, so therefore a discussion should be held and consensus reached before the renaming is carried out. My argument is not so much on this, but rather regarding the renaming of the Icelandic signs which led to the discussion in the first place.* I believed that the renames would not be controversial so therefore not worthy of discussion. Why should they be, when all other categories of Icelandic signs already follow this naming convention, as do road signs for several other countries? To be frank, the idea of creating a template rather than simply renaming the files in this case to me seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. I still fail to see how criterion 4, particularly the last line of its additional note, and criterion 2 to some degree, do not apply here - I still fail to see how these two specific categories of Icelandic road signs would need to have different naming than the others.

* Perhaps this specific discussion should have been held elsewhere, as it is not overly relevant to the issue raised by Geoffroi. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 12:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The absence of any process for mass renames was the main problem I had with your rename requests. If you were able to request a mass rename of these files, you could explain how many files were involved and perhaps how many might follow if other roadsign categories needed similar changes. My issue yesterday was that I didn't want to see another 500+ file mass rename job blocking other users who only need a few renames done. Having a set process where mass renames could be requested and then the mass rename tool could be used appropriately by an experienced filemover would be a much better way of handling mass renames for both filemovers and users requesting mass renames. I just want Commons to have a process for mass renames that avoids disagreements, misunderstandings, and confusion as much as possible. Geoffroi 20:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I have particular experience in this matter and expect that is why I was invited to comment. Whilst naming a file for a traffic sign something such as "F11.03" may be accurate within a narrow context, as that is it's designation by its regulating authority (a relevant government), it tells us very little about the file itself for categorization and use purposes. It doesn't tell us what country it is from, not even really what it is (in this case, a traffic sign). Over the years, I have attempted to implement some form of standardised naming format for traffic sign files that include the specific words "road sign" or "traffic sign" and the ISO internationally recognised country code which is language non-specific. I still believe that is best practice. In the case of Iceland, they recently redesigned and designated their traffic signs from top to bottom, so I believe it is best not to rename any more files until taking into consideration the new standard. I also am not 100% pleased with my naming scheme, and having been considering a revision. Anyone interested in discussing that with me is welcome to do so. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That's exactly why I brought this up. I'm just hoping we can figure out a decent process for requesting and doing mass renames, especially with a simple mass renaming tool available. Geoffroi 19:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

FishBase

There is something wrong with FishBase templates. It probably has to do with a change in capitalization. - Brya (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Brya, I create an edit request at Template talk:FishBase species#Edit request as the template is protected and only template editors and admins can edit it. Feel free to comment there about the changes requested. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be more than one FishBase template involved, but I did not check how many exactly. - Brya (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I didn't realise there's more FishBase templates, but it seems those aren't protected, so I will be able to edit them. I will go through them and try to update the links. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Flag of the state of Maine license

So this user named User:Kontributor 2K is listing the flag of the state of Maine file as in the Creative Commons license. The flag is actually in the public domain, and every single US flag is also in the public domain. Shark2272 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The flag is public domain, but if User:Kontributor 2K created the vectorization of the flag, they can claim copyright on the vectorization. (EDIT: it looks like Kontributor 2K is merely keeping the cc license for the vectorization that another user created in place.) Also some municipal and county flags are copyrighted in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and as previously discussed, if the source of the file is "own work", there is no reason to change the licence, contrary to if the source of the file is an url where the file is PD.

It should also be noted that the files have been patrolled.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

NO Shark2272 (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You may not like the explanation, but we can keep the cc license and explain under permission that the flag itself is public domain, that the CC license for the vectorization. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

We’ll just note that in the talk page Shark2272 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shark2272: File and DR subpage talk pages don't get enough attention for that, unless you link to them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The us government owns the rights and confirms it is under the public domain Shark2272 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Wrong, Maine's flag is public domain due to age. States can hold copyrights independent of the US government. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ill-informed reverts

Ardfern has been reverting my category moves from hyphens (1-9) to dashes (1–9) under Category:Boeing 757 by line number. I explained the distinction over at User talk:Sinigh the other week, apparently to no avail.

This exact type of edit has been made innumerable times. It's not controversial and should not be reverted.

Sinigh (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Per Commons:Categories#Category names, hyphens are preferred on Commons:

Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script. Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The apostrophe example is reasonable, but not comparable. The different types of apostrophes are interchangeable, whereas dashes and hyphens are different characters with different purposes and semantics.

The hyphen-minus of ISO/IEC 646 is a workaround addressing limitations that haven't existed for decades. Wikimedia projects are especially accommodating in this regard.

Sinigh (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible Slowking4 sock

User:Boatswake might be another Slowking4 sock. Any action necessary? --Rosenzweig τ 19:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: You may also add atop Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4 in future.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I mass deleted all uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Videotron Centre 6.jpg

Can an administrator please check the history of this file. The rename request has been declined by 3 filemovers including myself. I've explained my reason for declining on the requester's talk. I don't want this to become a long edit war via filemover shopping. Thanks. Geoffroi 23:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I requested the renaming of the arena's two file names, File:Videotron Centre 6.jpg to File:Centre Vidéotron 6.jpg as well as File:Videotron Centre 2019.jpg to File:Centre Vidéotron 2019.jpg, to its official name in French "Centre Vidéotron", because that is its actual original name and the French name is clearly labelled on the building (which is the case for virtually every non-governmental organisation and every governmental institution in officially and solely francophone Quebec). Why this insistence on anglicising every Quebec institutions' actual official French names? Kurcke (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Because we only override the uploader's choice in accord with Commons:File renaming, none of whose criteria apply here.

Feel more than free when you are uploading your files to use French titles whether they depict a French-speaking region or not. This is the same basis on which we have files with names like File:1992-12 Londen - Wilma Lippens bij Cyrano op West End.jpg or File:קו הרקיע של סיאטל.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Wilfredor as uploader and original namer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. There’s a lot of political drama here (in Quebec) that turns the defense of French in Quebec into a wedge issue, and it ends up dividing people. When I upload images to Commons, I usually use English because it’s the most widely used language here. That said, it was never my intention to disrespect anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings by using the wrong name. Wilfredor (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You didn't use the wrong name. I've linked the English version of their site on these files where the centre reverses the word order themselves. Geoffroi 18:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Master (BDSM)

I do not know if user WikiGrower1 simply expressed themselves poorly in this context; I certainly hope so. Nevertheless, I would like to ask an administrator to remove the sentence 'I can clearly see dolls and this is a good example how dolls can be used for play when young.' and to delete it from the edit history. I consider this sentence, in relation to this image, to be a clear violation of boundaries. Thank you. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. As this is quite a long text and the quoted sentence is only little part of it, let it be. I'm quite sure, this is only very unfortunate mistake. All the files in the DR (well, with 1 exception) are deleted anyway. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to get an exception to the URL filter?

It's preventing me from listing the correct source of a screenshot Trade (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Yes, at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. If you can't type it here feel free to email me or find me on the Discord. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Replied to your email —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: One can use <nowiki>URL</nowiki> as workaround (not clickable). --Achim55 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That won't work for this case. Trade wanted to add {{iwd|Q63206994}}, but that had a 4chan link which wouldn't work. The problem is if you want to whitelist a link, you have to whitelist it for all pages. I don't think it's a good idea to whitelist 4channel.org, for obvious reasons. Besides, the author of this link is technically still 4chan.org, not the board itself. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 22:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File was File:B random board 4chan.png —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 22:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I can archive it in https://megalodon.jp and copy the short link that did not get blocked by the filter  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Pro wrestling photos, Zeke Dane

Hi, I uploaded a couple of photos of pro wrestlers from Flickr which were posted as Public Domain by the account Zeke Dane. But reviewer @Leoboudv noted that the images metadata states "COPYRIGHT 2000&2001 FRED BRIGGS,ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." On their talk page I and Leoboudv discussed the situation. Personally I have a hard time believing that Dane would steal and take credit for images that he has not taken as he is a professional photographer of pro wrestling and has been for many years, it would be very odd for him to do that when he clearly takes photos of shows all the time himself (his photos have been used by several well known publications, including ESPN). I wonder if this is the result of borrowing (or buying) someone elses camera. Another possibility is that "Zeke Dane" is a pseudonym and the camera metadata is under his real name (or vise versa?), which in that case raises questions on if the Flickr posts have been marked "Public Domain" on accident by him (and in that case should we contact him to let him know?) StarTrekker (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@StarTrekker We couldn't guess what ZekeDane's intentions are, and it was him who published these photos with this metadata. Currently, these should be presumed to be copyrighted to "Fred Briggs" until further notice. As you have mentioned, I think the best way forward is to just contact him to clarify about this situation. His contact information can be found on his website here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I have sent him an email now. Hopefully he responds.StarTrekker (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It's the same camera on the Flickr account and on his website, at least. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That is interesting. Thank you for that information.StarTrekker (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE! Mr. Dane replied to my mail and confirmed that he did indeed buy the camera second hand from a Mr. Fred Briggs, and ensured me that all images on his feed are entirely his own work. I think we have good reason to believe him. He also stated that he will look into trying to change the settings on the camera.StarTrekker (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Great news, you should forward this information to the pending DRs (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raven 2025 5.jpg). Also, I noticed some of them has already been deleted, so you may want to file for an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will.StarTrekker (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:ID-PIB

Homophobic vandalism

Hi,

For the record, I just speedy kept Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rainbow Black Madonna of Częstochowa.png and reverted the comments made by the same account on the file File:Rainbow Black Madonna of Częstochowa.png (inluding this homophobic one Special:Diff/1134385139).

I'm not sure if we should block or not this person but I preferred to warn other admins about it.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked and nonsense DR deleted. Revisions are now hidden. GPSLeo (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Trouble reverting a batch edit

I am attempting to revert this batch, per the comments here. However, the revert function of EditGroups appears to be broken, something that I find extremely concerning given how much we rely on the ability to revert easily to maintain a balanced BRD process.

Would an admin who possesses mass rollback be able to assist me with completing the revert on my behalf? And are there any actions as a project that we ought to take given the ways this vital-but-broken functionality makes us vulnerable to abuse or just to deleterious edits? Sdkb ^talk 00:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I gave you rollback per Commons:Rollback#By_personal_request/at_administrator_discretion —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 21:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Matrix. To undo an entire batch I need to be able to mass rollback, not just rollback. The mass rollback script does not appear to work, though, at least for me. Sdkb ^talk 05:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I had a look at the batch, most of them seem to have been undoed by @999ofreal: already. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Foto su W:Niccolò Pisilli

Buongiorno, un utente ha caricato una foto - pare un selfie - su molte voci di diverse lingue di Wikipedia sulla voce del sopracitato calciatore. Mi pare che non esista alcuna somiglianza tra i due. LittleWhites (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@LittleWhites: Qual è il problema qui che richiede un amministratore dei Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

bitte oversight

Hallo, unbeabsichtigter Weise enthält dieses Foto in den Metadaten eine Privatadresse - bitte entfernt diese Daten. Vielen Dank! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Hochkuchler_Weihnachtskrippe.jpg Florkner (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Florkner: I don't see the problem item. Which metadata field is it in? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I see gps data published that are showing a private adress. Can you please remove this info so I can add the foto to my article? Florkner (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Du musst erst die neue Version mit geänderten Metadaten hochladen, sonst lässt sich die alte Version nicht löschen. GPSLeo (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis - erledigt Florkner (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Da ist irgendetwas schiefgelaufen. Die neue Datei hat die selben Metadaten. GPSLeo (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo, Auntof6 or whoever happens upon that thread: for the most recent version, I removed the location data (with EXIFTool). That should complete the request when the revision 13:58, 22 December 2025 is deleted. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done now hidden. GPSLeo (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests

Hi, there is a backlog at this category. It should be easy to clear, please help in doing so. Thanks, —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 12:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

COM:Ships by year and COM:Ships by shipyard are supposed to be maintained by a bot that, it appears, has not run in over a decade. Are these 12-year-outdated files worth keeping? If so, is someone interested in reviving/recreating a bot to populate them? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

please remove exif

Nevermind, seems I have been able to resolve it myself by uploading a new version --Wiki-observer (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment manipulation by Trade

Trade has been aggressively advocating for the deletion of files e.g. here, where they took another user stating that they don't want to go through a huge amount of files as support for their deletion. However, more importantly, Trade edited my Keep vote and changed it into a Delete vote (diff here) with no comment and independently from their other contributions to that discussion. I don't believe that is acceptable behaviour. Cortador (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cortador, wrt the alleged "manipulation": he corrected his mis-edit within 1 minute. This was rather clearly an unintended mis-edit, which can happen everybody. Don't forget Commons:AGF, please. I misread his 1:03-edit, sorry.--Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

No, they didn't. That edit was only corrected more than twelve hours later (see here), and my myself, note Trade. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• It's certainly not acceptable as a deliberate act. However it's so obvious an action that I'm happy to accept any claim by Trade that it was simply an accident. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Epstein_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1134805744

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Epstein_Files&diff=prev&oldid=1134813270

  I noticed i messed up my own vote and in my own haste i ended up getting confused between mine and Cortador's comment due to how close they were together. I remember feeling frustrated after seeing my vote was still not fixed not now i realize the reason it did not got fixed initially was because it wasn't even the correct comment template i changed. Terrible sorry to everyone! Especially Cortador! Trade (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass rollback request

Can somebody please revert my deletion tagging of a large batch of files listed here? I tagged them because the relevant page said that Egypt had no freedom of panorama, but shortly after, it was updated and now says that it does. Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Currently COM:FOP Egypt has been changed back to  Not OK, so I think it's best to just leave the DR tags in the files until the DR is closed. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jeffrey Epstein selling woman to Trump.jpg

The title of this photo possible runs afoul of Commons:PIP given that it explicitly accuses Trump of doing something very unsavory Trade (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done moved to File:Jeffrey Epstein allegedly selling woman to Trump.jpg, although this is probably going to get deleted anyway. Abzeronow (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Protection request for File:Rainbow Black Madonna of Częstochowa.png

The benefit in allowing IPs to leave comments at the file outweighs the positives--Trade (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Semiprotected for six months. Abzeronow (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Science Photo Competition 2025 in Ukraine: request for MassMessage

Hi! I have a quick request from organizers of the Ukrainian edition of Science Photo Competition 2025 – the contest has just ended, and we'd like to send an update/thank-you note to participants.

• List of receivers

• Text of the message (first line is the subject, everything else is the body of the message; I've already accounted for having a correct signature & timestamp)

Thanks! AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I would have done it but unfortunately I am on a mobile until next Monday, which makes it pretty much impossible for me. Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

In progress I've got some time now. Ciell (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Ciell (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Request: suppress indexing of legacy user talk page after global rename

Hello,

I recently completed a global account rename on Wikimedia projects. My account was renamed from User:PeterTepatti to User:QX492.

The legacy talk page at User talk:PeterTepatti now redirects to my current talk page, but it continues to surface in external search results associated with my real name.

This page is an administrative user talk page, not an article or biographical page, and it no longer reflects my current username. I am a private individual, and the continued external indexing of this legacy page is causing name-based misattribution in search engines.

I am not requesting deletion or removal of content. I am only requesting assistance with suppressing external indexing of the legacy talk page (for example via a noindex directive or equivalent administrative measure), so that it does not appear in search results.

Thank you for your time and assistance. QX492 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Redirect is now deleted. It will probably take a while to be removed from indexes, and of course we cannot force third parties to remove information they already have. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally replaced original with cropped version

I accidentally replaced the original version of File:A.A. Harwood, head-and-shoulders portrait, three-quarters to the left, in naval uniform.jpg with a cropped version. The cropped version also now exists at File:A.A. Harwood, head-and-shoulders portrait, three-quarters to the left, in naval uniform (cropped).jpg, so the original version of File:A.A. Harwood, head-and-shoulders portrait, three-quarters to the left, in naval uniform.jpg can safely be restored.  Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done - no admin rights are needed for this. Just click 'revert' at the correct version. Jcb (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Jcb for edit war

I was clearing my talkpage, however, @Jcb has done edit war on my talk page without any explanation, so I noted in an edit summary, "Rv as unexplained changes", since he didn't comment anything when he reverted my edits. However, he reverted it back, and saying "will explain". Actually, that revert was much unnecessary; it would be more rational and comprehensible to me if he had commented the explanation on my talk page or an edit summary, and then revert it.

In his explanation, he forced me not to clear the discussions until 6 months because it can cause confusions, and I understand this. However, that rule is not even able to be found on guidelines (it says, archiving is better, but it does not prohibit clearing), and these talks were almost 10 months ago, which means that I hadn't violated the rule over 6 months.

Per these reasons, I decided to report this user, as he has done unnecessary edit wars on my talk page (even though he was a former admin)^[a], and as he acted in a way that did not align with what he had explained to me, which was much difficult to be understood.

Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This is related to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Camilasdandelions. Camilasdandelions (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user removed several warnings for copyright violations from their talk page and then continued to upload copyright violations. Jcb (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Most of the violations on the past occured because I didn't recognize that the album covers were non-free contents. After those warnings, I didn't upload non-free licensed album covers or single covers on Commons. In these present case are new; copyvios related to YouTube license. As noted on my edit summary, there's no problem at clearing my talk page, and the guideline is also not talking about that. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

E.g. there was a final warning in January from 0x0a (which they removed), then a warning from me in June to which they responded with a personal attack and which they later removed. Later they received some explanation from Wutsje, but they still continued to upload copyright violation. So Jmabel was very mild by giving another last warning, but after that, the user removed the previous warnings again. Jcb (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Does the guidelines prohibit removing previous talk pages, even though they are almost a year ago? I asked for the related guideline on my talk page but you ignored, plus, your previous warning in June is talking about not to remove deletion tags, not previous warnings. I don't think your unnecessary and uncomprehensible actions on my talk page cannot be justified as you explain my previous actions. Furthermore, there's no even personal attacks between you and me.

Thank you for Jmabel for giving an opportunity to me. After this, I'll be cautious at uploding files from YouTube videos. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Info We do have a guideline regarding talk pages at COM:TALK, which doesn't prohibit users from removing old messages (including warnings) from their own user talk page. Furthermore, we had a long debate about this issue. 0x0a (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Boomerang block this serial copyright violator, who has been removing adverse posts from the user talk page allocated for communicating with them, sweeping those posts under the rug (as it were) without having addressed the substance of those posts (the copyright violations), allowing that user to fly under the radar for an extended period of time, as they are en:WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Perhaps that situation caused Jmabel to miss such posts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, I caught what was going on here, and I stand by what I have written on Camilasdandelions' talk page.

  As 0x0a notes, editing your talk page like that is not against the rules though, as I remarked on their talk page, it is certainly not widely seen as a good practice.

  @Camilasdandelions: : above you refer to Jcb as a "professional" user. Are you claiming that Jcb is somehow paid for his activity here? If so, that is something I was not aware of; if not, that is very out of line. Please either substantiate that or withdraw it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, the reason why I said he is a "professional" user is, at least he could have done rationally in commons, not causing unnecessary edit wars in my talk page. I didn't mean that he is paid user or smth. Camilasdandelions (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

  So actually you don't understand the meaning of the word 'professional', you are just trying to utter something that sounds convincing (which failed). Anyway, if the 3-revert-rule would have applied at Commons (which it does not), you would have been the one violating it, not me. Please be aware that people are now watching your every move. The purpose of the warnings at your user talk page is to stop the uploads of copyright violations. Most people get that after one warning. If you may chose to continue uploading copyright violations, you will find yourself blocked one day. Jcb (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Vandal IP edits

There are frequent vandal edits on this file: File:Board of Control for Cricket in India Logo (2024).svg. Request any admin to semi or autopatroller protect it.. --Gpkp (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 3 months. Yann (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

yarışma ödülü

Aylık olarak düzenlenen fotoğraf yarışmalarını kazananlara dair ödüller nelerdir? Bu konuyla ilgili bir link göremedim. Bilgi vermenizi rica ederim. Iyifoto (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(Via Google Translate) To the best of my knowledge, there is no prize beyond the honor of having won. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic religious comments in deletion requests

Are comments like this considered appropriate in a public deletion request discussion? Comments like this can be disturbing to LGBT people, non-religious people, and people of other religions. The user who made the comment I link above doubled down on it with another religious comment when I brought my concerns to his talkpage. I still feel that this could've been targeted harassment. I can't notify the user myself because the AN/U discussion ended with me being pushed into an unfair interaction ban.

Why are religious comments necessary or constructive in a public discussion like a deletion request? Can more than one administrator please comment on this and give the community guidance? I would also like to get an opinion from WMF staff on whether this is appropriate behavior, but I'm not sure how to contact them. Thank you for your time. Geoffroi 19:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you follow up the link in that last cited post? Apparently, this related to an Internet meme (one I was not familiar with, and probably not in the best taste to have used this way), making fun of Chick tracts. So it appears to have been more poking fun at fundamentalist Christianity than advocating it, but I read it differently at first, as well (hence the "not in the best taste to have used this way"). - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Meh. Geoffroi 19:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass upload of copyright violations

Not sure if this is the appropriate venue for this, but @Tanvirahmedgamers has uploaded a bunch of copyright violations. These should all be speedy deleted. Thank you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I've just been working my way through some but I agree with the comment. I think it's vanishingly unlikely any of the images are actually "own work". Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: I warned and notified the user of this discussion on their user talk page, as you should have done per the above. Pings are not enough.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Final warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

OK if Zeptain United sees a own work but copyright violation from someone and another website that they will inform me from my talk page i will inform the administrators to block User:Tanvirahmedgamers and i will nominate their violated files for deletion made by User:Tanvirahmedgamers Ternant 728228 (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Russian spam

Hi folks, while reverting cross-wiki spam I've come across the uploads of the following:

• Olegtyres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Okuznetsov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

They appear to be connected to Vladvoronov (blocked by Achim55 for spam the other day) and Grany29 (a cross-wiki spammer) if we follow the links from Spamcheck. It's very possible there are more. I'd recommend an admin and possibly a checkuser look into these accounts. Harry Mitchell (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Ooo spam, my favourite  thanks . Saw something similar the other day so will dig a bit. Appreciated Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add

• Alexzelikov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexivanoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Vsemenoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

--Achim55 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a 'stop upload warring' template?

I just sent a custom warning template to two users that were upload warring (diff), but I was wondering if there was an official one. It doesn't matter in this case because both users are English-speakers, but an official template would have translations, and mine doesn't. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Does {{Dont editwar}} apply? Interestingly, File talk:Flag of Nebraska.svg is empty.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Typo in POTD

There's a stray angle bracket at the end of today's English description of the POTD: Template:Potd/2025-12-31 (en). It's protected since it's currently on the main page – could an admin please fix it? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Streamline abuse filter actions

I'm here to ask that the following changes be made to our various abuse filters:

• 60, 206, 210, 217 - Due to phab:T377579, please disable blockautopromote.
• 4, 16, 31, 53, 56, 75, 77, 84, 88, 96, 103, 105, 113, 116, 117, 122, 130, 174, 188, 192, 195, 195, 199, 208, 246 - Disable warn while keeping disallow, and replace the disallow message (e.g., Abusefilter-disallowed) with the warn message (e.g., Abusefilter-warning-somewarning).

JJP_Master (she/they) 20:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The first part is done. Yes, these warning and blocking combination seems not to make sense. Does anyone know why they exist? GPSLeo (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: To the best of my understanding, it used to be the case that you couldn't add custom "disallow" messages, so admins would set the filter to both warn (to display the custom message) and disallow. See also: b:Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2025/January#Significant update requests to edit filters. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

User:GeographBot uploads of Commons:Derivative works from advertisements

@Multichill: I deleted more than 400 such files from Category:Aylesbury. It's likely that similar problem exists in categories about other UK locations (see Category:Advertising in Belfast as another example). Since file names contain advert, import of such files should be blacklisted by default by bot owner. Some of them are {{PD-text}}, but bot owner must review such files manually before allowing bot to proceed. Also bot owner should be responsible to at least for partial cleanup of existing uploads. Sure, this is holiday season and immediate reaction of bot owner could not be expected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

As well as PD-text, Category:Advertising in Belfast includes several images of adverts which are below TOO, PD-old, or de-minimis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like geograph user melodie is the source of these adverts around Aylesbury. I deleted the remaining advert photos by this user. Multichill (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Repeatedly overwriting deletion requests with speedy deletions

Counterfeit Purses has repeatedly reinserted speedy deletion templates on File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Original Photo.png and File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Photo 01.png, despite the fact that other editors are following the procedure to have a deletion discussion rather than a speedy deletion. (The speedy deletion template explicitly says, "If you think that the media file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request and remove this template."). Einsof (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I placed speedy deletion templates on the two images because they are copyright violations. I also started a regular deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Original Photo.pngso that people would have a chance to comment in the even that the speedy deletion was denied (one image is a crop of the other).

Luigi Mangione fanboys have since edit warred over the speedy deletion tags rather than letting an admin decide if the images are copyright violations. For some reason, I have also been threatened on my talk page by GPSLeo that I will be banned from speedy deletions. Copyright violations should be deleted as soon as possible, without having to wait for a deletion discussion to be closed. Perhaps some knowledgable admin could review the status of the images and end this silliness. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Einsof Please note that I also templated two other files for speedy deletion from the same uploader, File:Luigi Mangione Photo 01.png and File:Luigi Mangione Photo 02.png. All of these cases are simple copyright violations from an inexperienced user and can be quickly dealt with without the need for edit warring, posts aton this noticeboard or spurious arguments at a deletion discussion. The only thing that makes these images different is that the subject is Luigi Mangione. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

All of these cases are simple copyright violations from an inexperienced user and can be quickly dealt with Well then there should be no issue with opening up a deletion discussion, since everything is so simple to deal with. Einsof (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an issue. Obvious copyright violations like these Reuters images are eligible for speedy deletion under Com:CSD #F1. Converting an obvious copyright violation to a DR is inappropriate. The fake licenses on the other two images are a problem too. Geoffroi 21:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has touched the speedy deletion tag on the Reuters upload. Einsof (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I said that preemptively. These fake license rationales are pure nonsense. Please stop wasting people's time. Geoffroi 21:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• These are clearly not appropriate for speedy deletion. Firstly because they aren't, secondly because we're even having this debate.

Re-adding speedy deletions like this is deliberately disruptive and block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley Which images are you referring to? The one taken by the Pennsylvania State Police or the one taken by a pool photographer? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

For that purpose? Both. Speedy is narrow, else we can't do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The Reuters images are obvious copyvios. The other two have fake US gov licenses. What are you blathering about? Geoffroi 21:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The other two are explicitly stated to be in the public domain per a Pennsylvania police statement which is linked in the DR discussion. Nakonana (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana No, they aren't, but this isn't the place to debate that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As for the Reuters images, there's actually a discussion about their license on the enwiki article talk page on Luigi Mangione and it looks like some reliable sources (including Reuters itself?) had published them with a CC license tag somewhere at some point which might have caused the confusion regarding the images' license. Nakonana (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

"Some reliable sources (including Reuters itself?) had published them with a CC license tag somewhere at some point" What are you even talking about? Geoffroi 22:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion at w:en:Talk:Luigi Mangione#Current photograph is bad. Nakonana (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like wishful thinking. Geoffroi 22:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like a misinterpretation of a CC statement, but it might still be the source of the confusion regarding those images. Nakonana (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana Reuters seems to be willing to charge you money to use that image. Maybe you should tell them that's it's free? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no clue why you are making your question about me.

If you read what I wrote it should be quite clear that I was responding to the claim that the Reuters images are obvious copyvios by pointing to a discussion according to which it was not "obvious" that they are copyvios.

I was simply explaining where the confusion regarding the image license may have come from. At no point did I say that I was the confused one. Nor did I participate in the discussion regarding the Reuters images, as one can see by checking said discussion.

Please read carefully what others actually write and refrain from off-topic rhetorical questions that are aimed at editors rather than content. Nakonana (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As long as there's a deletion request on there, admins are more than capable of finding and deleting it. There is no reason any image shouldn't go through a DR if they're merely copyvios, as opposed to CSAM or other person-harming files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

What about our obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner? Deletions discussions can stay open for weeks or months. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this begging the question? - Jmabel ! talk 06:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. An admin reviewing the speedy deletion could decide that the image is not a copyright violation or that the case is not clear. I believe that the image is a clear copyright violation but I may be wrong about that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not just admins who can challenge a speedy deletion. That's what happened here, and the usual procedure once a speedy deletion has been challenged is to let it go through a regular deletion process. Nakonana (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Months is a time, and it usually only takes months if there's a genuine question of whether it really is a copyright violation. Most DRs are for copyvios.

I think it would be bad if we left up commercial software or videos or books one second longer than we had to, and we don't. But File:Luigi Mangione McDonald's Original Photo.png? On one hand, nobody is shaking down people for licensing fees or issuing DMCA notices or anything for mugshots; people generally treat them as public domain anyway. On the other, you wrote "Photos taken by Pennsylvavia State Police are not pubic domain"; that's hardly a well-known or established fact. It requires understanding Pennsylvanian law, and even if there was a previous case that established it to Commons satisfaction, it could have changed without anyone noticing. You're demanding we hurry up and act on a file that doesn't matter and isn't entirely clear in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We have an obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner because they are copyright violations not because we try to figure out who is more or less likely to "shake down people". State mugshots are regularly uploaded here and deleted because they are copyright violations. It has been established that they are public domain in Florida and California. Like any other image uploaded here, the onus is on the uploader to show that the image is freely licensed. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, despite your denial above: this is begging the question. "We have an obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner" only implies that we have an obligation to speedily delete the file if we have concluded that it is a copyright violation. There are also two other problems with the thinking here: (1) if (to stick to the specific case) Pennsylvania mug shots are copyrighted, it remains the case that publishing them is routine. For a well-known case, it would almost certainly be considered fair use. While hosting this is against Commons policy, it is almost certainly not a legal issue, so we don't have an obligation here to anything other than our own policies. (2) If we are reasonably sure the issues are the same, then it would be entirely appropriate to add this file to the existing DR. That should not override the normal practice that the only way we effectively turn a DR into a speedy deletion is to develop consensus in the DR that it should be handled as a speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree. We have an obligation (by our policies and WMF policies) to delete known copyright violations in a timely manner. If you think I have implied anything about legal issues, it was inadvertent, but I am mindful of the Precautionary Principle. By the way, please notice that the current deletion discussion was started by me. This whole thing started because another editor was attempting to remove all deletion templates from the files at issue. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is about tagging a file that has a DR on it for speedy deletion. Everything else is routine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

"We have an obligation to delete copyright violations in a timely manner because they are copyright violations" is meaningless. We should act with haste if we are actively hurting someone. There is no need to act with haste over the Precautionary Principle; we can take the time of a DR to discuss the issues and give time for users to reply.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)