This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The file [1] is my own work created by myself and also tagged as that, the source which I used for the information depicted in the file is from “ Military Report on Afghanistan" Published in 1906 by the British India. Army.” , however this doesn’t even play a role here, because one disruptive user, is persistently edit warring (more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours) on the image with a copyright violation deletion tag[2], despite me making clear more than one time that this image is not reused from anywhere in the internet, but my own work created with my two hands. I hope the issue can get resolved as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Xerxes1985 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the first example, it would be useful to add where the information has come from. There's nothing obvious in the pie chart that would be copyrightable, but this might be debated if it was an obvious derivative of a very similar pie chart in a copyrighted work, in some cases the arbitrary choices of words and colours might tip over the copyright threshold.
It's wrong to enter into a revert war, so if you have removed the template and it gets replaced, the next step is to deliberately escalate to a deletion request. In a case like this it would be highly unlikely to be deleted, but you can explain the own work claim and the potential of applying COM:TOO "on the record" rather than relying on edit comments in reverts. A keep result can then be used as firm evidence that repeated tagging is obvious disruption. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Jaweedkak (talk·contribs) is clearly edit-warring here. If this speedy deletion was contested, a better route would have been (using the convenient button on the template) to convert it to a regular DR. However the issue seems straightforward enough: you have created an infographic based on sourced data from 1906, which is now PD. So I can see no justfication to waste time on a DR and the edit-warring is a loss of AGF to do it regardless.
Please note though, you ought to notify editors raised here (there's a note at the top of this page). Also, graphics like this are often more useful in vector formts, such as SVG. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Although I have no idea why an admin has now decided here that you have no copyright as the author of this infographic. They should explain such an action. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Over at COM:DR, a user has requested (twice) revdel of old versions of File:RHPA submission.pdf due to the presence of personally-identifiable information. They are mainly concerned about spam so it doesn't appear all that urgent, but the request has been unprocessed since July 2020 so it would be good if someone with the necessary permissions could take care of it.
PS. Am I just being naïvé, or is the DR backlog extra gnarly right now? There's loads of discussions open going back to June last year, and at least at first blush most of them didn't look too too complicated. Xover (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
We really need more admins here, though from looking at past RfAs it seems like a lot of the community feels differently... Elli (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Krinklebot seems to have stopped working. This bot protects images at Commons that are used on the Main Page of en-Wiki (and no doubt other wikis). Yesterday, we needed to change the image in the "In the news" template. I had to ask for a Commons admin to protect the image manually. What has happened to Krinklebot, and is there any other bot approved to do the same task that could be run instead? Krinklebot being down is likely to cause some disruption across many Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I filed phab:T283477 for the underlying issue and manually started a new run of Krinklebot. It just updated the lists and will hopefully not get stuck again. Legoktm (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It is my opinion that this file violates COM:NCR#Personality_rights, as the person picutred is likely to be under duress, but I'm unable to start a deletion request for the image, as it is protected through a cascading editing block. Oliver.kamer (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason)
Hello, yesterday I nominated files for renaming and they were renamed by Elli: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. The reason of the renaming was: Criterion 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name) because these files have names such as "File:Kalumny. Калюмны (B. Starzyński, 1875-1900) (2).jpg". This word Калюмны (converts to Latin alphabet as Kalumny) translates from the Belarusian language directly as Column (use Google translate yourself for the word Калюмны in order to make sure), therefore such names clearly qualifies as meaningless because these are not just some kind of ordinary columns of a building/furniture and similar (like those located at the Category:Columns), but the Columns of Gediminas. After the renaming this meaningless phrase Kalumny (Калумны) was replaced with Columns of Gediminas (a dynastic sign of the Gediminids dynasty, founded by the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas), and this name was based on the Category:Columns of Gediminas (Commons category) name.
Nevertheless, over the night, Kazimier Lachnovič wrote lies to Elli on his talk page that Калюмны (Kalumny) does not translate as Columns, but it does (try yourself with the word Калюмны, as I already pointed out) and because of that Elli reverted his completely valid renaming performed after my motivated nominations without any valid reason. The renaming would have not been valid if these files used phrase Коломны Гедимина (Columns of Gediminas in the Belarusian language), but since these were already renamed into an English variant with a valid procedure – it should stay in English. Commons category name is fully valid, also Google search offers 59 300 results for Columns of Gediminas, so it is an internationally recognized, widely used and easily recognizable name. On the contrary, when using Google search for the word Kalumny (Калюмны), the only results displayed are these Commons files and a few others (SEE YOURSELF), but the name Коломны Гедимина (Belarusian variant) offers much more results (SEE YOURSELF), so these files were purposefully named in a disruptive way and now were rightfully renamed. As a result, such naming of these files clearly violates the "Files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons should have a proper name." (Commons:File naming) rule because these files names should directly refer to Gediminas and the Gediminids dynasty. See: Columns of Gediminas (English Wikipedia), Gediminaičių stulpai (Lithuanian Wikipedia), Gediminassäulen (German Wikipedia), Kolonoj de la Gediminidoj (Esperanto Wikipedia), Colonne di Gediminas (Italian Wikipedia), Ģediminaišu stabi (Latvian Wikipedia), Słupy Giedymina (Polish Wikipedia). All of them includes Gediminas's name in their titles (in their national languages forms). Yes, the stub-class article of the Belarusian Wikipedia, unlike the other projects, uses this bare phrase Калюмны (Columns), but it is a failure of this particular project that it uses a non-full name of this symbol and this Belarusian article should be renamed to Коломны Гедимина in order to clarify, but that is not my field of editing. Though, that's certainly not an example which should be followed and other projects of Wikipedia does not fail this way and uses proper names.
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Your statement as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion of renaming. So what if Belarusian is an endangered language? I wish all the best for the language, but following your argumentation, one should rename all the files concerning the Columns of Gediminas to the Yiddish instead of the Belarusian variant, because Yiddish was spoken by an important segment of the expansive Lithuanian state and that language is Definitely endangered on the en:List of endangered languages in Europe. Your argument is false and misleading.
So their real motivation is preventing me from contributing to the Wikimedia Commons in Belarusian First and foremost, Commons is not a Belarusian space only, it is for international use, with the English language reigning supreme in this site. Second, all that is being proposed by User:Pofka and I is that Proper English words be used in naming the files, in this case, 'Columns of Gediminas', so that these files are actually used and much easier to find, with no need to going to the use of the obscure Belarusian word when trying to find files about mainly Lithuanian history. The state of the Belarusian language is not going to drastically improve or worsen based on improper naming of Wikipedia files. In addition, there is no such word 'Lietuvan' in proper English vocabulary, with the correct word instead being 'Lithuanian'. This very word is an example of the typical Belarusian nationalist POV-pushing of User:Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Consequently, I request to yet again replace words Kalumny (Калюмны) with Columns of Gediminas in these files names because Калюмны (Kalumny) does not mean Columns of Gediminas, therefore it is a meaningless (non-full) Belarusian phrase, which is now used for 40 Commons files names (disruptive naming, which only creates confusion). But since all these files were named in a disruptive way by Kazimier Lachnovič himself, he clearly done that on purpose and systematically. Still, if he would have sought for an objective naming, he would have used a Belarusian language phrase Коломны Гедимина (=Columns of Gediminas). Must be fixed as it was done yesterday. -- Pofka (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I originally moved a single file uploaded by Pofka. They then went to my talkpage requesting I move the forty files linked above. After discussing with them for a while, I moved them to a name satisfactory to them.
Soon after, the original uploader of said files appeared on my talk page with convincing reasons not to move them, namely that the name was actually unambiguous in Belarusian. This made sense to me - and as we generally respect the naming of files authors preferred, I decided that I would revert back to the status quo awaiting discussion.
So for my comment here, I don't really care about what these files are named, but I'd like to express that I am very disappointed in Pofka for misleading me. I would appreciate being left out of further discussion here as I feel my actions, taken in good faith and now self-reverted, are no longer relevant to the outcome. Elli (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: You rushed to revert it without any valid reasons, but I nominated it for renaming with a valid reason as it was (and still is) a meaningless, non-full name. I noted that it is a non-full name and that's why I requested to rename them into a neutral form (taken from the Commons category's name). Kazimier Lachnovič is known for disruptive editing in Lithuanian topics and his Common account's edit history is full of random renaming acts which removes Latin/Lithuanian phrases from the titles (one of the examples). Such disruptive renaming is his fetish. He simply uploads other authors illustrations and uses them for his fetish with unknown, unpopular names (on purpose). I already mentioned multiple times that he uses such lexicon as rubbish to refer to the Lithuanians (1, 2, 3), so about what kind of objectivity we are talking when he edits Lithuanian topics? Why we should ask his permission for renaming meaningless titles? These illustrations are not created by him, but are historical and should be easily accessible, understandable for everybody. That's the goal of Commons and Wikipedia, not some kind of weird fetishes of disruptive editing. I created a nomination for renaming a meaningless title. I did not mislead you as I clearly explained on your talk page why it is necessary before you done that (see: User_talk:Elli#File names). -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You mislead me into a content dispute. I was under the premise that such a rename would be non-controversial - the fact that you know that the uploader opposed such a rename, and didn't tell me about it, is what I am unhappy about. I did not want to be involved in this dispute, hence my self-reverts. Elli (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: There is no dispute. Калюмны (Kalumny) means Columns (translated from the Belarusian language) and I informed you about that, which in fact means nothing specific, so it is a meaningless name. Just because for unknown reasons Kazimier is afraid of the name Gediminas, it does not mean that there are any disputes, especially when the Commons category for this symbol is named as Category:Columns of Gediminas, not Columns or Kalumny. Once more: use Google translate for word Калюмны (Kalumny) and make sure about that yourself. So do you have any thoughts about Gediminas when you hear a word Columns? However, I already also warned you that Kazimier is known for anti-Lithuanian hysteria when he uses such lexicon as rubbish to refer to the Lithuanians (1, 2, 3). This simply was one of his hysterias. But it does not change the fact that Columns is a completely meaningless name and these files were rightfully renamed, so there were no reasons to revert these. -- Pofka (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
All necessary information about the filenames and the real motives of user Pofka is provided on Elli's talkpage: User talk:Elli#Changing the Belarusian filenames to English. It's not the first time when Pofka has tried to harass me by starting a conflict with my contribution. This time it is a deliberately misleading of another user. In my opinion Pofka's behaviors is clearly disruptive and this user should be stopped. If any reasonable user has any question, please let me know. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Says a "non-disruptive" user who removes Latin phrases from file's titles (one of the examples) for absolutely no reason (only personal fetish). If I'm correct, it was already mentioned by Ymblanter in one of the discussions regarding your actions that your administrators rights on Commons were removed for disruptive editing. Quote: "Finally, that Nazism insult was very much to your discredit. And it's beyond bizarre to me that you actually complain about civility above, but still haven't offered no apology for... well, the most egregious thing in this entire dispute(!). I'm sorry, but that does no inspire confidence. Finally, as Ymblanter noted, you seem to have gotten your Commons admin/editor status reversed. El_C 21:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)" (source). So it is clear who is a disruptive user for a long-time on Commons. -- Pofka (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Criterion "At the original uploader's request" should be used for valid reasons. Removal of non-Belarusian text clearly is not one of these. Disruptive editing at its finest. Violates "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." (Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_not_be_renamed?). If the Commons administrators would dig into Kazimier's edit history, I'm sure there would be much, much more of these when he changes a few words just to make it a bit better (and suit his personal fetish), and every time violates Commons rule I just mentioned. All these renaming acts with comment "unification..." is a disruptive editing day after day and Kazimier just have admitted this himself. I hope the administrators will finally put an end to this disruptive file renaming. -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Criterion 2 of the Commons:File renaming#Which files should be renamed? states: To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image particularly displays. What does Kalumny mean to any English-reader? Searching for Kalumny in google.com only yields less than 2,000 results. In contrast, the Columns of Gediminas is far better known than Kalumny and gives more than 230,000 results! It is obvious that Kalumny as a name for files concerning the Columns to Gediminas is absolutely unreasonable. It is necessary to rename all files concerning the Columns of Gediminas to the proper name, which will have much wider recognition than some obscure and unknown foreign word. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with User:Pofka's point of renaming the Commons files of the Columns of Gediminas to their proper English name, i.e. Columns of Gediminas, and not keeping 'Kalumny' or any other foreign term. For the benefit of the Wikipedian community, it is best that the files concerning the Columns of Gediminas have the name "Columns of Gediminas" in them instead of any other, e.g. Kalumny or Stulpai or Słupy, as these files will not be found when searching the proper name. Hence, they should all have the proper and widely accepted English name for which Pofka is advocating. Furthermore, this bizarre renaming of files from accepted English names to Belarusian ones, especially those concerning the history of the various Lithuanian states (the capital was firmly in ethnographically Lithuanian lands) that extended into modern-day Belarusian territory in itself is the pushing of a Belarusian nationalist POV, which goes directly against Wikipedia's guidelines. Plus, this isn't the first time User:Kazimier Lachnovič has been repeatedly doing this sort of nationalist POV-pushing, so I recommend such behaviour should be restrained. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Sidetracking the discussion is hardly a reasonable thing. As for my contributions, they are sourced and useful, covering many fields, not solely limited to Lithuanian or just the wider Eastern European region, but concerning Europe at large and also military uniforms, which is in contrast to Kazimier Lachnovič's contributions, which are solely concerned with Belarus. In addition, nothing you said addressed what I had stated prior and as such is suspicious and very unreasonable. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kazimier Lachnovič: What does it have to do that both of us are Lithuanians? Wanna call us rubbish again? I will not go into off-topic, but Pahonia is a Lithuanian CoA name. Belarus is a 20th century state with no statehood tradition, quote: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent." (Britannica). Kazimier is clearly jealous of Lithuania's glorious history and edits the Lithuanian topics, illustrations in a disruptive way. Now explain why you change a few words in all your files day after day and continuously trample the Commons rules? Personal anti-Lithuanian fetish, nothing else. I heard that there is a possiblity to ban certain topics, so Kazimier definitely should be banned from the Lithuanian topics because he fails to edit in a neutral way. -- Pofka (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Now it's pretty clear that this request is actually a fourth attempt to attack me by the same user (first, second, third). All the previous their attempts failed miserably, but took some time from me. So their real motivation is preventing me from contributing to the Wikimedia Commons in Belarusian, the language recognized by UNESCO as "Vulnerable" in the en:List of endangered languages in Europe. For the record (which is actually not even required by any guideline or rule), I also have files uploaded in Ukrainian [3], [4], [5] etc., Polish [6], [7], [8] etc. and even Lietuvan[9], which is the native language of the abuser. I'm really fed up with these miserable and dirty attempts to attack me and have no time for these individuals. So if any reasonable user would like to really figure out the whole situation in order to take an action, please let me know. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kazimier Lachnovič: I will report you every time you violate the rules. That's my right and duty. Your typical style: without explaining why you violate the Commons rules by disruptive renaming files day after day, you simply begin to blame others that they report you, and start twisting the discussion to various off-topics. By the way, as always: personal attacks on the Lithuanians: "Lietuvan [7], which is the native language of the abuser. I'm really fed up with these miserable and dirty attempts to attack me and have no time for these individuals" (ref). Consider looking at the mirror, comrade. -- Pofka (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Your statement as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion of renaming. So what if Belarusian is an endangered language? I wish all the best for the language, but following your argumentation, one should rename all the files concerning the Columns of Gediminas to the Yiddish instead of the Belarusian variant, because Yiddish was spoken by an important segment of the expansive Lithuanian state and that language is Definitely endangered on the en:List of endangered languages in Europe. Your argument is false and misleading.
"So their real motivation is preventing me from contributing to the Wikimedia Commons in Belarusian" First and foremost, Commons is not a Belarusian space only, it is for international use, with the English language reigning supreme in this site. Second, all that is being proposed by User:Pofka and I is that Proper English words be used in naming the files, in this case, Columns of Gediminas, so that these files are actually used and much easier to find, with no to use an obscure Belarusian word when trying to find files about mainly Lithuanian history. The state of the Belarusian language is not going to drastically improve or worsen based on improper naming of Wikipedia files. In addition, there is no such word Lietuvan in proper English vocabulary, with the correct word instead being Lithuanian. This very word is an example of the typical Belarusian nationalist POV-pushing of User:Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The malicious activity of Kazimier Lachnovič is just a disruptive push of nationalistic POV based on fictitious and fringe idea that Belarus was a state and nation in the Middle Ages. This reaching too far since it leads to Belarusization of Wikipedia, attack and vandalism on pages of the countries bordering Belarus. File renaming was reasonable, since in contained false and misleading name and was replace by easily searchable and recognisible pattern Columns of Gediminas. The only reason to revert it was Kazimier Lachnovič nationalistic preference to write everything and keep everything in Cyrillic script -- Ke an (talk)
Some think the names are meaningless and some think they make sense. If they make sense to some users then they are not meaningless. Renaming files is generally a waste of time because the files are usable no matter what name they have. The important is that the files have good categories and good file descriptions. So in my opinion don't rename files if someone disagree.
Disruptive names are names like "Fat bitch!" or "Asshole murder" or names that causes troube for the software. Such files should of course be renaed. --MGA73 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@MGA73: For the meaningless name part: term Kalumny (translates from the Belarusian language to the English language as Columns - try yourself using the Google translate) clearly is a meaningless (not disruptive in this case) name because it does not state what type of Columns are these. An equivalent of this in the Lithuanian language would be Kolonos, and I think in most of the languages it is a similar word. For example, the Italians use Colonne, etc. Consequently, these files were rightfully renamed by including the Grand Duke Gediminas's name picked up from the Commons category name Category:Columns of Gediminas. So there was absolutely no reason to revert the rightful renaming which was only a clarification.
For the disruptive renaming (editing) part: user Kazimier Lachnovič constantly day after day renames files by changing a few words in them and this way almost everyday violates the "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." (see: Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed?) rule. Just check Kazimier Lachnovič's edit history and by using search on your browser insert "name unification". You will find hundreds or even thousands of disruptive renaming performed by him and so the violations of Commons rules everyday. Such amount of disruptive renaming is harmful to Commons and all the other Wikipedia's projects because it causes stability problems, and he performs such activity consciously and systematically everyday. Commons and Wikipedia is not a personal blog. -- Pofka (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
If you can find examples where Kazimier Lachnovič rename files that are not own uploads "just to make it look prettier" or where not leaving a redirect breaks something then I agree file mover right should be revoked. --MGA73 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@MGA73: These renaming acts are performed everyday without any valid reasons and are purely cosmetic in order "just to make it look prettier", and causes stability problems for Wikipedia's articles, etc. Just because he uploaded hundreds of illustrations about Lithuania (which he did not photographed himself, but found somewhere online), it does not mean that he has any control over all these historical images and has the right to perform such renaming as this one just to remove the Latin text. This is not a personal blog, but a one of the most popular websites in the world, so stability is a value.
On the contrary, the renaming performed following my request was well motivated and should be restored. I see no reasons why it should not be clarified from a meaningless name. -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: One of the reports recently was archived without any words from the administrators. This one is a serious one and requires actions because Kazimier Lachnovič not only supports meaningless names, but also constantly violates the "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." (Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed?) rule. The removal of his admin rights only proves his strange/disruptive editing behaviour. -- Pofka (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This is not a rationale for mass messaging so many sysops, nor did you try to get a consensus before doing it. Some might call this spamming. --Fæ (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: I, as always, created a request to rename and it was done. I know Kazimier Lachnovič from the previous discussions where he called the Lithuanians as rubbish (1, 2, 3). With all due respect but his hate for Lithuania and Lithuanians clearly is pathological. He rejects any offers from the Lithuanians and seeks for very strange goals which are known to him only. It is not about the Belarusian or Lithuanian languages as I would have renamed it straight away if it was named as Kolonos (Columns) in Lithuanian as well. It is about mass violations of Commons rules and creation of instability. -- Pofka (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is no real good reason for renaming the files. It may be personal or political reasons to do so. The method of pinging a lot of administrators to achieve his personal idea should activate us to check whether his contributions on commons are not motivated by "curious" reasons. --Jörgens.MiTalk18:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Joergens.mi: Recently a report was archived without any word from an administrator (this one). Back then, Kazimier and his friend censored my edits straight away and probably this one would have ended up without any decision as well because I waited patiently till the final days of the archiving term. That's why I informed administrators this time. Well, if word Columns in foreign language is easily connectible with the Columns of Gediminas, then let's keep it like that, but I had doubts and requested renaming. I noticed political reasons in Kazmier's actions previously when he called the Lithuanians as rubbish (1, 2, 3), so maybe that's why he hates such Lithuanian names as Gediminas. His strange behavior was noted by other participants (Ke an ; Itzhak Rosenberg) in this discussion as well. I never edited anything for political reasons and have nothing to hide. I do not remove foreign languages texts (one of the examples) for no reasons. One of the finest examples of Kazimier's anti-Lithuanian activity is the one when he attempted to prove that the coat of arms of Lithuania is not a Lithuanian symbol, but Belarusian (see this edit). -- Pofka (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The foregoing is basically way too many words for something that is pretty much utterly meaningless. (A) The search engines search the descriptions, not the names (B) We have categories (C) We have a lot more useful things to do with our time than waste 20 minutes reading the foregoing (D) Resist the urge to continue contributing to ongoing drama and get back to doing something useful. That's for both of you Kazimier Lachnovič & Pofka meaning - if you have this much time to waste writing about hurt feelings, imaginary fetishes, endangered languages, obscure interpretations of Middle Ages history and Commons policy - then would you be so kind as to use that time doing things which advance the project rather than those which tear each other down and really don't matter in the big picture? Thanking you all in advance most profusely. This is the sort of behavior up with which we don't usually put, so please just contribute effectively. I am in 100% agreement with @Fæ: that it was not a good idea to spam allegedly 40 administrators and at least one bureaucrat. Formerly (as noted) this drama played out without action. You probably would prefer it to continue to be without action, truthfully. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Unconstructive and baseless edit-warring by User:Tm
I am closing this discussion as out of scope to this page. We do not need history lessons on the Administrators Noticeboard. We keep images which are considered out of date (it's called history) and which may not appeal to all of us (e.g. pornography or coal mining) but we remain acting in good faith as we work together on this project. Those who cannot work together can find plenty of useful things to do in corners of the project where they will not force themselves into negative interactions with others. In other words, please get back to constructive activities here. Do not continue this on my talk page for you might be crunchy and taste good with ketchup. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was editing the categories of multiple files which both had the Category:Lithuanian Army (1918-1940) and Category:Lithuanian establishment of control of the Vilnius region (1939–1940) and I put the latter as a sub-category of the former, so it would be neater in the page Category:Lithuanian Army (1918-1940). Everything was going smooth and I was cleaning things up until User:Tm came along and started
1. renaming the category from the neutral "establishment of control" to "occupation", which is baseless considering the history of Vilnius;
2. gave no reason for the renaming ;
3. is consequently making material harder to navigate by reducing the number of categories and in some cases, duplicating categories, so that there is a redundancy of files.
Kind Administrators, please do something about this edit-warring person who is hampering Wikipedia's improvement. Best regards -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
In addition, I shortened the name Category:Lithuanian establishment of control of the Vilnius region (1939–1940) to Category:Lithuanian Army in Vilnius (1939-1940), for convenience's sake. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tm: There is no category:Occupation of Klaipėda/Memel. The article in Polish Wikipedia is irrelevant because there is a Russian article, called Освобождение Варшавы which means 'Liberation of Warsaw', yet the Polish article is just called 'Battle of Warsaw' (in Polish, of course). Moreover, stop hampering the refining of Wikipedia. Your manner of behaviour by only explaining now your position after pointless edit-warring shows a lack of good faith. What difference does it make if a person is in the thread above? Makes no sense what you are saying. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
en:Invasion of Poland is pretty clear in "Territorial changes" that "Vilnius granted to Lithuania" and that "Lithuania received the city of Vilnius and its environs on 28 October 1939 from the Soviet Union". Or now Memel and Lithuania were not occupied as that events occurred outside of WW2? Tm (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
According to proper and typical English language usage, there is no mention of occupation when Vilnius becomes part of Lithuania in 1939 (searched "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius" on google and only 7 results show up), whereas there is such a thing as the occupation of Klaipėda (3,900 on google) and later occupation of the Baltic states (136,000 on google). Whatever you are saying, it adds little to the discussion. Plus, by 28 October, the Polish Defensive War of 1939 had already finished (it finished on 6 October). -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If it "adds little to the discussion" the why did you brought the question of google searches? In english do you now how many results do you know when you look for "lithuanian control of Vilnius" 1939' or "lithuanian establshment of control of Vilnius" 1939 or "establshment of control of Vilnius by lithuania" 1939? You get "zero, nothing, zilch, nada". So your word is worst. Tm (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, of course, if you search "establshment", you will not have any results. I am bringing the google searches up because you keep pointing to those topics. I am only reacting to your baseless and time-wasting actions. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The fact that exist an article in the "Polish Wikipedia is irrelevant", but the fact that there is not an category:Occupation of Klaipėda/Memel is relevant??????. using the same logic of you Itzhak Rosenberg, Memel was not occupied by Germany because it was pre-WW2 and there was the "Treaty of the Cession of the Memel Territory to Germany". Or the same could be said about what happened with Lithuania in 1940, as nor Lithuania nor USRR were then belligerents and had mutual assistance treaties that granted acess of soviet troops to Lithuania or the polish occupations of czech territory in 1938. Tm (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tm: You yourself are bringing up these topics and so I gave you an answer to each of your points, an action which you are not reciprocating. I did not claim that Polish Wikipedia as a whole is irrelevant, but I am saying that a single article called "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius" is not a sufficient reason to rename an entire category on English Commons based on a Polish article (Google searches for "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius" give a grand total of 7 (!) results). Usage of obscure terminology is not the way to go for Wikimedia Commons. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the whole category of Lithuanian establishment of control of the Vilnius Region (1939-1940) or as you call it Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius is pointless, and as the pictures mainly show the Lithuanian Army in Vilnius (1939-1940), let's leave it at that. The category of Lithuanian Army in Vilnius (1939-1940) should be part of Lithuanian Army (1918-1940), Vilnius in 1939, Vilnius in 1940, and other adequate categories but in no way Polish Defensive War of 1939 or Military occupation. Let's leave it at that and cease this pointless talk. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
In addition, if you search precisely "lithuanian control of Vilnius" 1939 on google, you get 202,000 results. Try it out yourself -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you know how google search works, right? In the very top is pretty clear that says that "No results were found for "lithuanian control of Vilnius" 1939", not 202 000!!! , and those 202 000 results are the results of any page that have the words "control" or "vilnius" or "of" or "1939" or "lithuanian", not the results of the full sentence "lithuanian control of Vilnius" plus "1939". For your kind of "resuts" if you search lithuanian invasion of the moon, you get more then 3 million results. Tm (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I do know how google search works, so it is even more astounding that the Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius 1939 got only 7 results. Pretty shocking. -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You really do not know how google search works and how making a advanced serach and things like domaain, localization, tailored results, etc, afect those results. And it will not me that will tell continue to show how to make proper searchs and those results. As i said zero results for control so, using your logic, pretty shocking. Tm (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't verify anything you are saying about what google results you are getting, but if you are getting no results, maybe you should change something. In addition, my mention of google searches was only pointing out the obscurity of the category renaming you are engaging in. What is even more shocking is how you are not engaging in meaningful dialogue and ignoring the essential topics, instead going off on tangents on somewhat related topics and in general, being uncooperative. To settle the matter, it was no occupation, because, as Britannica puts it "Vilnius was restored to Lithuania on October 10, 1939." (https://www.britannica.com/event/Vilnius-dispute) -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Clear vandalism and original research. The Lithuanians did not occupied THEIR OWN CAPITAL CITY. It was the Poles who invaded Lithuania's capital in 1919 and later annexed this region (Lithuania was restored in 1918 and its government resided in the capital city Vilnius) when Lithuania refused to join Poland and to recreate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This is the internationally recognized interpretation. I request taking actions against this user if he will continue to perform anti-Lithuanian edit war. I would like to see categories named: "French occupation of Paris" (e.g. in WW2) and "Poles occupation of Warsaw", etc. The attempts to prove otherwise is a clear pseudoscience. See: article in Britannica which has a text: "In the summer of 1920, however, the Red Army reoccupied Vilnius, and on July 12 Soviet Russia ceded the city to Lithuania. Subsequently, violence broke out between Lithuania and Poland." (the Żeligowski's Mutiny and "The League of Nations arranged a partial armistice (October 7, 1920) that put Vilnius under Lithuanian control" (the |Suwałki Agreement "and called for negotiations to settle all the border disputes". Establishment of control is a very, very neutral term (which I used due to this dispute) because it was more like a liberation from an occupation as the League of Nations clearly stated that Vilnius belongs to Lithuania before the Polish invasion in 1920. Just due to this dispute I suggest to avoid using terms as occupation or liberation. -- Pofka (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Administrator Túrelio intervened and solved this dispute by deleting the occupation category and kept the establishment of control. Consequently, any attempts to prove otherwise will clearly qualify as vandalism. -- Pofka (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Establishment of control is a neutral term. It does not state nor liberation, nor occupation. So both sides should be completely satisfied. -- Pofka (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
At Pofka. Funny that you quote the Encyclopædia Britannica, but you quote only some passages that suits you and go to say things like "Vilnius belongs to Lithuania before the Polish invasion in 1920" , when Vilnius was part of the Russian Empire since 1795 until 1915, when the German Army occupied it until 1918 and only for a few months was a lithuanian government in Vilnius, until it, its nascent army and remmants of the german army had to withdraw on January 5 1919 do to the advance of the soviet army, and that a "few months later Polish forces drove the Red Army out of Vilnius and occupied it themselves (April 20, 1919) The Lithuanians rejected the demands of the Polish chief of state, Józef Piłsudski, for union with Poland, and hostilities were avoided only by the Allies’ creation of a demarcation line (the Foch Line) to separate the armies of the two countries. Vilnius was left on the Polish side of the line".
Or that you say "that "The Lithuanians did not occupied THEIR OWN CAPITAL CITY. (...). This is the internationally recognized interpretation" when there was not an "internationally recognized interpretation" that Vilnius was part of Lithuania as in the summer of 1920, do to the Polish-Soviet War, soviet army occupied Vilnius per the quote above by Pofka, that says that "Establishment of control is a very, very neutral term (which I used due to this dispute) because it was more like a liberation from an occupation as the League of Nations clearly stated that Vilnius belongs to Lithuania before the Polish invasion in 1920", when the Brittanica clearly says that in 1918/1919 "hostilities were avoided only by the Allies’ creation of a demarcation line (the Foch Line) to separate the armies of the two countries. Vilnius was left on the Polish side of the line" and that after the Soviet Union ceded Vilnius to Lithuania in 1920, " The League of Nations arranged a partial armistice (October 7, 1920) that put Vilnius under Lithuanian control and called for negotiations to settle all the border disputes."(the Żeligowski's Mutiny and |Suwałki Agreement), but after "Negotiations between Poland and Lithuania continued under the aegis of the League of Nations, which finally abandoned its role as mediator on January 13, 1922. On January 8, 1922, however, General Żeligowski, again prompted by Piłsudski, called for elections for a regional Diet, which on February 20 voted to incorporate central Lithuania into Poland. That arrangement was later accepted by the League’s council, which set the border almost along the Foch Line (February 3, 1923)—a decision that was confirmed on March 15 by the conference of ambassadors of the Allied powers.". So, the Brittanica article that you quote clearly says that, after several occupations, withdraws and cedences, the "arrangement" of Vilnius being incorporated in Poland was "accepted by the League’s council which set the border almost along the Foch Line" (line that put Vilnius under polish territory). So, given what happened in 1939, after Vilnius was invaded by the Soviet Army and it being ceded it to Lithuania by the occupier, what is not what happened but a occupation by Lithuania of what was "internationally recognized interpretation" as being polish territory? Tm (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Tm should be blocked for vandalism and spreading national hatred. Vilnius is Lithuanian capital at least since 1323. It was occupied by Poland, Russia and Germany. -- Ke an (talk)
Vandalism??? Merely readding the images to the original category???? National hatred by merely pointing that between 1918\1919 and 1939\1940 and in the territory east of Germany and west of the Soviet Union there were several military occupations, like the german ocupations of Austria, Czecheslovakia, Poland and Memel or the Polish Silesian Uprisings and occupations of Vilnius in 1920 and Czechoslavkia in 1939 and others by Hungary, Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Romenia So, per your own standards, given that Memel was lithuania in 1923 after the Klaipėda Revolt and that Lithuania had recognized as being teutonic and german since 1422, the German merely reestablished control, not occupied Memel. Given that most probably the most likely users to create a category about this fact is one of you three, i will wait and see what name you will be given and then we will see were is the nationalism. Tm (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The dispute was solved by an administrator for a second-third time and your national hatred, propaganda will not be tolerated. Currently used term is completely neutral and does not call it nor occupation, nor liberation, but simply provides a fact that the Lithuanians established control in Vilnius. As I already mentioned, based on the statement released by the League of Nations, this event was far closer to a liberation than to an occupation, however neutral term is perfectly fine to avoid any further disputes and national hatred in this topic. -- Pofka (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New single purpouse account
A new user keep editing and tagging my uploads for no valid reason and seem to try to get them deleted. I am not sure what I should do. I have reverted his edits. Please see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Domicwilkins . The account seems to have been created today (25. May 2021) and instantly started to edit my uploads. This does not seem good faith to me. I am happy for any advice and for action against this possible vandalism-only account. Thank you very much.HunanZH (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that it is a sock account, because shortly after my revet, another account started to threat me (see my talk page). It seems the main problem is a picture "Afroasiatic language tree", which is based on an picture from Ezyclopedia Britannica. I am not sure if the claims of the user are true, however, if, I agree to delet the picture. However, the accusations and threats as well as the use of sock accounts is rather strange and misleading. I hope a agreement can be reached without using threats and accusations.HunanZH (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The sock account keeps vandalizing. There is no good faith about this actions, especially using sock accounts and threats. The sources/references are either published academic studies, and in two cases, I made the map myself. It can simply be confirmed by looking at the reference/source given. The accusations by the sock is thus a bold lie and vandalism. I want to report both accounts for harrasing me and violating Wikimedia policy. HunanZH (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I blocked Domicwilkins for a week due to edit warring and demanding permission from files, which already had permission. I blocked him only for a week, because sometimes he demanded permission from files, which really had no permission. I am not checkuser and cannot confirm sockpuppetry, but I started to feel, that here is no sockpuppetry, but three different users. Also I nominated two suspicious files for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have included the published paper websites (Cambridge University Press) and included this information on the discussion page. If there is a copyright problem I agree to delete them immediately. Thank you for your help.HunanZH (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
ich habe modifizierte Fassungen der 3 Dateien hochgeladen, aus denen ich sämtliche Metadaten entfernen musste, weil der Name an allen möglichen Stellen hinterlegt war. Sollen wir die alten Fassungen (mit Metadaten) so lassen oder verstecken (admin-only) oder ganz löschen? --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Ganz löschen wäre ideal, zumal mir die Metadaten eher überflüssig erscheinen. Falls das viel Aufwand ist, wäre auch admin-only okay. Stilfehler (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Es geht nicht um den Erhalt der Metadaten, sondern der Upload-Log (der Kasten Dateiversionen) verschwindet bei einer Versionslöschung dann auch. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done. 3RR is not a Commons policy. You both have edit warred and must stop immediately. I must protect the category for a week. You must talk to each other outside AN. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Could an admin block LilBroomStik~Enwiki who's Not here to contribute to Commons, They'd removed someones talkpage contents as well as created a sandbox. I'm usually more lenient with people but you can just tell this person isn't here and warnings will only be a waste of time. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk
Hello, Just wanted to ask but when a user is blocked for some months (not indefinite) is emailing automatically disabled or can blocked users still email?,
I only ask as Kai3952 who has been blocked for 3 months is apparently emailing people. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk12:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Email block is one of the options that can be applied. In this case emails weren’t blocked for the user as I see rubin16 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi rubin16, Thanks for your reply - I had a feeling it wasn't applied here as I assumed it would've otherwise shown in the block log too. Many thanks for your help anyway much appreciated :), Take care, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrator attention required to sort out the out of process deletion of 700 of John Schaunlaub's flickr images
Approximately 700 properly licensed flickr images seem to have been deleted, without any public record.
I made a request here on April 7, 2021, the tenth anniversary of John Schaunlaub trying to delete about 700 flickr images he released under a free license. Perhaps my note didn't clearly explain that an administrator would be required to get to the bottom of these deletions.
WMF projects have policies, or have conventions, under which images, or articles, which are properly licensed, may nevertheless be deleted, as a courtesy. En.wiki's policy is clear. An administrator is allowed to take an individual's request for courtesy deletion into account, and delete properly licensed material -- when reaching a conclusion in a deletion discussion. Courtesy deletion is not a speedy deletion criteria. A discussion is required.
I looked here. I see two failed proposals, but no actual policy. However courtesy deletion is not listed at Commons:CSD. I think this means the convention here also requires a discussion before an administrator is authorized to delete properly licensed material, as a courtesy.
What I think happened to those 700 properly licensed images is that when John Schaunlaub failed to get the properly licensed images deleted at a proper discussion he contacted an overly helpful administrator some other way, off-wiki. I think the overly helpful administrator decided, on their sole authority, to delete all the flickr images, except the 13 which were in use on other projects.
I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the edits John Schaunlaub made on on April 7, 2011. They should find hundreds of edits like these [10][11][12][13][14][15][16].
Note: all these attempts to claw back the IP rights they released were vandalism. Note: Hardworking volunteers wnt to considerable effort to revert all those vandal edits.
Once they have found the properly licensed images that John Schaunlaub vandalized, I'd appreciate that administrator reporting back here as to how those properly licensed images ended up being deleted.
I am guessing that a single administrator made the decision to speedily delete the images, in the face of the decision not to honor Schaunlaub's public request for deletion.
Personally, I'd like to see that administrator, if they are still active here, do the work of restoring these properly licensed images.
But, if no-one wants to go to the effort of tracing all 700 images, could we please have some kind of public report here, anyhow? What entry did the deleting administrator put in the deletion log? Is that administrator still acting as an administrator? Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
CptViraj, while they were uploaded by a variety of contributors, over a period of five to ten years, I very strongly suspect that they were deleted all at the same time, by one single overly helpful, misguided administrator.
Since John Schaunlaub vandalized the description pages of hundreds of those files, on a single day, April 7, 2011, what is required is, first, for an administrator looks at his contribution history for April 7, 2011. If they are prepared to do so, they could restore those hundreds of images. If they consider that too much work I would appreciate them looking at the revision history of half a dozen or a dozen of the deleted images, and confirming whether they were all deleted by the same administrator. I'd appreciate being informed if that administrator used the same or similar deletion justifications for the deletions. Unless there is a compelling reason for discretion, I'd appreciate that administrator being named, here. If that administrator is still active I suggest they revert all their deletions, unless they can offer a convincing explanation for them, here.
As for when they were deleted, 99of9closed the related discussion on April 14, 2011. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:X14.jpg concerned the images Schaunlaub uploaded himself, not his flickr images.) I visited Schaunlaub's flickr profile a few times, after that discussion closed. I saw him delete all his thousands of very fine images. I saw him convert his flickr profile page into a very bitter rant against the Wikimedia Commons. I saw his flickr account disappear - possibly because his bitter rant violated flickr's terms of service. My guess would be his off-wiki request for deletion was made in April of May of 2011, and before April 2014, when he returned to the wikimedia commons, and began uploading images here.
But, as I wrote, above, the deletions were almost certainly made all at the same time. So, looking at Schaunlaub's contributions on April 7, 2011, for pages he vandalized that day, which were subsequently deleted, would provide access to the revision history, including the name of the adminstrator who deleted that image. If the deletions were all made by a single administrator, at the same time, a full list of the improperly deleted images can be compiled by looking at the deletion log for that administrator, just before and just after he deleted that image. Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Thanks. There is nothing in John Schanlaub's deleted contributions, so as you said above if the files were really deleted then John Schanlaub must have contacted the admin off-wiki. I'll look at the logs of that timeframe in my free time, I'll be notice only if all of them were at the same time. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
(I'll be looking for over 600 deletions by a single admin in a single day using XTools. You can join too.) -- CptViraj (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Fenerbahce1994 has been uploading files with copyvios for a long time, for over 2 years. All those deletions and warnings on his/her user page don't seem like working. It's time to consider to block the user...--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't do any copying over the internet. I always find the Sources of the photos and add this information and copyrights to the info boxes. You may be obsessed with all my actions and uploads on Wikimedia, but that doesn't mean I made a mistake. I guess an example of this is that you attribute problems even to the photos I took. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenerbahce1994 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine: Requests for MassMessage + Protection
Hi! I have two quick requests from the Ukrainian Wiki Loves Earth team.
As usual, we'd like to send reminders about the contest to previous years' participants via MassMessage (text of the message • list of receivers)
Partially done. MassMessage sent, landing page semi-protected for 3 months, Ukrainian translation page protection not done as it's not possible to directly protect a translation page, though it can be achieved by protecting individual translation units but it's not recommended, see this more for info. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Could an admin please way on what Davey2010 said? Does this guy think he has the right to block me for uploading my own photos? File:Iloveyoulive.jpg is my own work and it's going to be deleted because they say it's not my own? I can show proof right now that it belongs to my sister and I. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A. What the hell does "Could an admin please way on what Davey2010 said" mean?.
Done. Uploader's request, the file really violates copyright. Next time please click "Nominate for deletion" on bottom of left-side toolbar. Taivo (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
~119 copyvios to be deleted
Not sure what the best method is to deal with this. @Languageseeker: has in good faith uploaded 121 images of EH Shepard illustrations (UK artist - died 1976 - under life+70 images become PD in 2046; Commons:Copyright rules specifies that Commons respects country-of-origin copyright).
The images are:
File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0000.png to
@Tagishsimon: In fairness, part of the issue here is that the images are for use on English Wikisource, and the enWS licensing policy only requires images to be PD in the US (which these images are). From their perspective they are just trying to find a practical way of preserving the effort put into extracting and uploading these images, typically by getting them transwiki'ed to enWS. Sadly, pywikibot's imagetransfer script is currently broken for transfers from Commons to other wikis so there's no fast and easy way to get that done just now. --Xover (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, the two images that were deleted had been significantly worked on and I ask for them to be transferred rather simply deleted. Languageseeker (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The quality of the images appears to be quite poor (low resolution and uncropped). Reviewing and undeleting one such when someone requests it seems fine, but I don't really see that the gain would be commensurate with the effort in preemptively looking at all of them. The holding institution also seems to be amenable to upload high quality versions of paintings in their holdings on request, so simply requesting upload for any image that we're missing as needed would seem the better option. --Xover (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, most of these files are technically PD. However, reasons for deletion were well explained in the original DR. I don't think that we should host files from a hacked database. That's just not ethical and we should just do the right thing which is to keep the files deleted. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The undeleted one is presumably representative. It contains info on artist, title of work in Czech, date, accession number, and specific collection within the gallery's holdings. These are obviously useful to have when making a request to them.But the thing is, I don't really see the use case where we would ever start from there to make a request. You'd typically start from an article on enwp about the artist or artwork (or the sitter for a portrait, or… etc.), search the gallery's online catalog, and then make a request based on what you find there. We don't need to host a stolen copy of their internal catalogue, in file description page form, in order to be able to make requests for high quality scans. --Xover (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cmppp should all be reviewed again, as they are all adult, low-quality, and lacking sources as well as valid Exif metadata. Moreover, some pictures can be directly presumed to be stolen images from the internet e.g. Erected clitoris.jpg, since Google Images can easily check if they are already in some websites. I sincerely request for the review of all of this person’s uploaded images, or Wikimedia Commons will become a low-quality porn website that collects stolen images. 🐱💬12:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Meow please nominate all of their files for DR with proof of 2-3 being copyvios. You can nominate them all with the Perform batch task which will bundle them in to 1 DR. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk16:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I have marked the other files with {{Speedy|[[Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion|G3. Content intended as vandalism, threat, or attack]]}}. Recommend the attack account Chrisleicht (talk·contribs) be indef. Bidgee (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
User:KrinkleBot has not updated since 04:41, 8 June 2021, and the bot owner has not responded. Can anyone here get the bot going again, so main page images will be protected? And are there instructions for what happens if this bot owner is no longer with Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Commons? Maile66 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66: Hi. It's not in our (admins') hands, only the bot operaters have access to it's interface. Krinkle isn't the only operator, but Legoktm and Steinsplitter are too. Pinging Legoktm as I think he might be around. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
What's the hurry? It's in the queue over there. Someone who knows the code needs to make the change. You yourself said you don't know how. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Good day. May I request an admin or admins to close accordingly the following CfD's that I opened from February 2021 backwards? Majority of them involve empty or unused categories:
What's the hurry? It's in the queue over there. Someone who knows the code needs to make the change. You yourself said you don't know how. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
because mediasearch has been released for over a month and my suggestion has been reported for 16 days.--RZuo (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
First I need a reason not to delete everything they've uploaded based on an assessment of their most recent uploads. GMGtalk21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Sorry for the sarcasm, given the lack of talk page responses to my queries my bet is they're just uploading images from content they stole. —Locke Cole • t • c21:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It's probably best if @Rishav2014: could respond. It's a little difficult to be surgical unless I assume they own a half dozen cameras. One last chance before batch delete. GMGtalk21:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I've nominated nearly all their images for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rishav2014, and they need to drop by and help sort all this out. Some of them pretty clearly should be deleted, and if all of them shouldn't out of an abundance of precaution, then they need to justify which and why. I fully intended to issue a block, but they were issued a final warning after this thread was opened, and they've not uploaded anything new. So I guess let's respect the integrity of the final warning, which generally means an opportunity for a final chance to straighten up or screw up. GMGtalk11:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(copied my input from another location) "Ignoring the content, which is rather tasteless from the porn shots (and available on any good porn site), the uploads which are claimed as their own work will bring Commons into disrepute. I recommend deletion of many/most/all under Commons:PCP and threat of or implementation of sanctions against the uploader. This uploading and claiming as own work cannot be done by accident"
I view them and their uploads, genuine or not, to be harmful to the project and recommend deletion of all. The world can do without dubiously licenced content. Timtrent (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems much of this may be more appropriate for the deletion discussion. Though if they continue to upload copyright violations despite warnings, doesn't seem to be an alternative to a block. GMGtalk11:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Are admins able to access for instance category information from a deleted file?, If so I don't suppose I could have the categories for File:Таранець М.С.jpg and File:Таранець Микола Сергійович.jpg please?,
Both files were deleted but wanted to check back from time to time to make sure these files haven't been reuploaded under new accounts, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk13:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Earth in Ukraine: Request for MassMessage
Hi! I have a quick request from the Ukrainian Wiki Loves Earth team. We'd like to send a reminder about the contest to those who've participated in a similar one (Wiki Loves Monuments) but haven't taken part in this one. Here's text of the message, and here's the list of receivers. Thanks! --AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The user was warned and images were tagged. I don't think any other action required till the user continues such uploads rubin16 (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
blocked highly disruptive actions which continued after warnings. If it occurs again, please let us know... I'd recommend we indef at that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete description?
See here and also the next version where the user reverted it. Should this be deleted? On NL-Wikipedia things like this got deleted, so I do this request, because I think it's not good this text is in the history of a file. Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
For whatever reason the rename tool isn't working well with these and I don't know if it's related to my laptop or whether it's related to the files theselves but the files now include duplicate names so would need an admin to rename anyway, Many thanks, Kindest Regarsa, –Davey2010Talk23:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi rubin16, Sorry forgot to check back on this - Someone has since renamed them all not sure if it was an admin or not but yep all was done, The rename tool just kept freezing for me and I know on one file after I reloaded the page it then said one name already existed, Anyway yep all done sorry to have interrupted you so I know there were more important things than this request, Have a great day, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk15:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Open proxies
122.155.174.75 is an IP address for an open VPN. So is 122.155.174.76.
I have used the second to edit Wikipedia, but I did so to do good. Other people might not.
Please keep my contributions, but please ban these two IP addresses from making any further changes.
Sorry. I thought all open proxies are always banned. I suppose I misread. [17]
Isn't it a problem that if an open proxy is permitted for editing, you have no clue who is the author of any particular edit?--192.145.117.6220:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
192.145.117.62 - Having been on EN for 7-8 years I've never ever known a time where a proxy hasn't been blocked and IMHO you were right to report it although it might be better to ask for blocking at Meta (Sorry don't know where specifically as never edit there),
This is untrue. If it were true, then nobody could ever edit from libraries or cafes. Keep in mind this is an IP address asking that other IP addresses should be blocked. There's a system for addresses that are misused, that's different from allegations. --Fæ (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Admittedly my knowledge with proxies is very small and I've only just remembered that my phone internet provider's also blocked so guess you are correct, That being said I do agree with your last sentiments but I'm sure someone at Meta could somehow find this out anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk21:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. If there is a local Commons policy about blocking proxies that haven't been abused, then I'm unaware of it, but would be happy to stand corrected. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is much to be done here. GMGtalk21:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
COM:BP says open or anonymizing proxies are blocked "upon detection", which does not require any abuse. m:NOP also applies here by default, as it is a global policy. I have verified the existence of proxies and have blocked the range in accordance with those policies. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
BTW, Portuguese Wikipedia voted and finally banned IP editing there. IMO it's great idea and it should be considered on Commons. --jdxRe:12:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
That had caused great controversy. And the ban isn't "official", WMF and system administrators declined it, so they have implemented it using abuse filters. While I'm personally neutral on the idea of "mandatory registration to edit Wikimedia", I don't think we have an uncontrollable excessive IP vandalism problem like the Portuguese Wikipedia has to implement this. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
These points are muddying the waters. "Sus" is still not how things should work, even the NOP meta policy explains "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked", it specifically does not encourage going on open proxy expeditions when no issue has arisen for those ranges.
Mass blocking IP ranges causes many knock-on issues, like our users finding they can't edit from their Universities or work place.
Let's not go creating unnecessary work for volunteers, or unnecessary barriers for good faith contributors. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary work for volunteers you say? What about patrollers? We have constant, 30 days long/old backlog, i.e. maximum possible. Some "anonymous" editors (BTW, some of them can be rather easy connected with existing accounts) do huge amounts of good edits. Unfortunately, for some stupid, logically unexplainable causes they choose to edit "anonymously". This creates a lot of unnecessary work for patrollers what could be avoided if "anonymous" editing was banned because their accounts could be granted autopatrolled right. Next, morons, not even vandals, just ordinary morons, people who do not know how to spent their free time (example). Banning "anonymous" editing would eliminate them almost completely, just like semi-protection does. They do not edit a lot, but there are a lot of them and they create a lot of unnecessary work for patrollers. Next, long term, "devoted" vandals/abusers. Ban would make their lives a bit harder and save some work for patrollers and people who abusers choose for their targets (example). Also if such ban was implemented globally, WMF could avoid nonsense like IP masking – IMO pure waste of man-hours, i.e. money. Regarding "unnecessary barriers". How many accounts do you have? Was creating them really a barrier? I have one, created 9 years ago, and I do not find creating it was a barrier. I strongly believe that WMF's projects do not need to attract every Internet user (read it: a moron flying around the Internet), we need a little bit committed people, at least to create an account. --jdxRe:10:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Save a file
Since File:La_battaglia_di_Algeri_screen.png, which is used on many projects, has been nominated for speedy deletion (no comment on the merit of the nomination), I have uploaded a similar one (screenshot from a movie that is in the public domain) and was wondering if there is any way to replace the file that is nominated for deletion with the one that I uploaded, even if that means renaming it. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
These images are - apart from a little cropping - the same, although taken from another source, eg the original film or another more recent film. Imho it would be preferred to discuss the nomination then adding the same image to Commons. Elly (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Indeed, they are near identical as they come from the same brief scene. As far as I can tell, there is no way to discuss the speedy deletion. If I update the nominated file with my own screenshot and appropriate licence (assuming I'm allowed to do so), will I be able to remove the speedy deletion tag and nominate the newly uploaded file for quick deletion instead? M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of all uploaded files for Weerasil
Hello, since May, Weerasil (talk·contribs) has uploaded multiple files with no metadata, and often times the files are attributed to external website and social media with no indication of free license. I nominated all of the user's uploaded files for deletion. (There are some grayscale pictures, but the dates can't be verified.) --Horus (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Did you raise this with them for discussion? Did you even notify Weerasil of this discussion, as you're required to? As a Thai speaker, you're much better placed to do this than most editors on Commons.
They appear to be a plausible set of images related to musicians, with authorship from people connected to the subjects. It's likely that OTRS is needed to record this, but that's a problem that can be resolved, rather than the extreme step of deleting all of a user's uploads without discussion, or without notifying them. Why would you want to do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, the image was deleted and I can't get why tho, link , I've got a confirmation from Metalist Kharkiv and they allow to share this photo on Wiki, can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goddz (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. There are open discussions regarding whether we should count MediaWiki namespace edits and edits to fully-protected pages as admin actions in admin inactivity runs. Posting this because of unclear consensus, please participate in the discussion, so we can have clear policy at the time of next run. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Previously blocked user returned just for two absurd revenge deletionrequests on my photos (FYI, I have been one of the users who found out that he used socks to manipulate discussions). It seems that it's about time to increase the previous block length to stop this troll or ban him from interactions with me or my photos, thanks in advance. // @Krd and AFBorchert: —DerHexer(Talk)18:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I would support a indefinite block of this user on Commons. Such a destructive behaviour over a long time, such thirst for revenge, ghost driving and lagging behind others is a big problem. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, I agree with that block. Xxlfussel got a second chance after their disruption with their abusive sockpuppet. Instead of moving on constructively, Xxlfussel chose to revive their conflict through clearly disrupting deletion requests. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Fictional flags - are they in scope?
I would like clarification on whether self-generated, Wikimedia-only fantasy flags are acceptable content on Commons. Older discussions on the subject have not produced a clear consensus, but it is my reading of Commons:Project scope that images "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", and that therefore images of purported flags that have no existence outside Commons are out-of-scope. I would say that this doubly true for flags of entities that themselves have no existence independent of Wikimedians' private fantasies. Numerous purportedly "proposed" or "special" flags have been deleted with this rationale. I have nominated File:Inglaterra_del_norte.svg for deletion as an out-of-scope fantasy flag: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inglaterra_del_norte.svg. This file appears to have developed into a hoax, and has been adopted into use. This is a systemic issue with fantasy flags. I have noted several in use on Wikipedias in various languages, masquerading as real flags, even while having the {{fictitious flag}} template attached. Some salient previous discussions are below.
Some previous discussions on the topic on these noticeboards
I was referred to these discussions by AnonMoos in relation to the now-used-as-genuine-but-is-hoax flag of northern England on the deletion nomination page (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inglaterra_del_norte.svg) I made for the file when nominating it for deletion. In one of the older discussions, AnonMoos took a similar position as Fry1989:
It is my view that these arguments are not in accordance with: Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host and Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use and the criterion of "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". Is it true that such a customary exception to policy (COM:WEBHOST, COM:OOS) for fantasy flags and the like? Is it really the case that "ANY admin that goes along with such nominations are not following previous consensus" and are administrators that interpret policy this way just part of a mass of "enough ignorant admins willing to go along" as alleged? It is not evident to me that this is the case at all. I would welcome clarification on the scope of COM:SCOPE in this area. GPinkerton (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
First off, I don't know if GPinkerton is trying to blame me personally, but I did not refer the above links to GPinkerton, I did not participate in all of the discussions above, and most of the quotes are not by me. (I also find GPinkerton's refusal to leave a valid deletion notification on my user talk page for Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inglaterra_del_norte.svg to be rude and obnoxious, but that's a separate issue.)
Second, for ten years or more there has been a de facto policy (not just "ignorant admins"[sic]) that "special or fictional flags" (of which there are many hundreds on Commons) are not usually deleted just for being special or fictional, unless there's an additional aggravating factor, such as being hoaxing or hatemongering, or based on an alternative reality which has no discernible relationship to our reality ("Flag of the Tanzanian-Peruvian Empire" or whatever). If a non-official flag is misleadingly presented as a real flag, or is constantly being inappropriately added to Wikipedia articles, then it can certainly be deleted (I nominated Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abbasid_flag.png for exactly that reason), but honestly-labelled ordinary inoffensive informal or personal flag proposals are not usually deleted (and of course, users are also allowed to have limited personal images on their user pages). If GPinkerton wants to try to change this, then he should start a properly-notified discussion in the proper place (which is not here). This can't be changed by a flood of individual deletion nominations, as was determined when User:Kephir got himself banned for refusing to listen to anything anyone told him about special or fictional flags (see User talk:Kephir). There was an attempt at a general discussion at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue, but this collapsed due to many flaws in the way it was started... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't "concluded" because there were several big problems with how it started, so no matter how it concluded, it would not have had any influence on policy. AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The policy is already in place and needs no influencing. The discussion here is to establish to what extent a pre-existing consensus exists to ignore the Project:Scope policy for user-generated fantasy flags. GPinkerton (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Whatever -- there's been a de-facto practice for well over ten years. Since rigidly applying your interpretation of policy would require purging many hundreds of files (many of which have been in place for 5 or 10 years or more), it seems reasonable to ask for a properly notified discussion in a proper place (which is not here) before this drastic change is implemented. AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
There wouldn't be a drastic change; plenty of fantasy flags have been deleted before. A "Flag of Svalbard" has been deleted on more than one occasion, having crept into numerous Wikis. GPinkerton (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
A lot of individual files have been deleted (especially if they had pernicious features), but you're asking for a mass-deletion of hundreds or thousands of images at once, which is a rather different proposition.. AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I have nowhere asked for anything of the kind, though if that is what adhering to the purpose of Commons entails, then that would only be appropriate. Is there some reason why mass-deletion of out-of-scope images would be undesirable? GPinkerton (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
If you're not asking for that, then I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. If the banning of User:Kephir established anything, it established that existing practices cannot be changed by numerous individual sniping file deletion nominations; let's not go down that route again. In any case, since what you're asking for would result in the purging (by whatever method) of hundreds or thousands of files which have often been on Commons for 5 or 10 years or more, it seems extremely reasonable to me to ask for a properly notified discussion in a proper place (which is not here) before this drastic change is implemented. AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I will clarify my position. Not all fictional or proposed flags are inherently within scope, but they are also not inherently out of scope either. In regards to entirely fictional flags, standard notability requirements apply. Was it just an image some random user has uploaded with no reference of any sort, or was it actually used/referenced in a TV show or a published book? In the case of proposed flags, there is a similar but not entirely identical requirement. Is it just a random flag some random user has uploaded without any rhyme or reason? Then I would suggest it is out of scope. But if there has been an actual movement or call to change a country's flag, or even a competition (government-sanctioned or by a newspaper or by an organisation of some sort), I believe that Commons users have a right to include their personal proposals alongside those of any non-users. For example, there was the New Zealand Flag Competition, and I don't think any Kiwi users who submitted designs to that competition should have their designs excluded simply because they also happen to be Commons users. In regards to the file which initiated this debate, there was a genuine movement to change the Iraqi flag, and therefore I believe that image is within scope. Fry1989eh?16:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe that fake flags (e.g. not based on illustrations in reliable sources) should not be allowed in Commons because it create confusion for other users and some users begin to insert these fake flags into articles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia and Wikimedia should be reliable sources. -- Pofka (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Pofka -- Wikimedia Commons does not have a policy forbidding original research, and in many cases ordinary photo uploading involves an unavoidable element of original research (if you upload a photo labelled "Stallion outside Nashville", then it can be your personal word that it was a stallion, not a mare, and that it was indeed located outside Nashville). Also, in some cases when a real controversy exists in the real world (Crimea etc), then Wikimedia Commons provides two sets of maps, reflecting each side's positions, and the individual language Wikipedias can each decide which maps they want to use. In other words, Wikimedia Commons should certainly exclude worthless garbage, but the idea that each individual image should be reliably-sourced and objectively neutral is not realistic (or in some cases even desirable). A Commons image is not a Wikipedia article. AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Pofka. Certainly there can be "fictional flags" that are within project scope - for example if used in some public domain famous novel. Newsworthy and verifiable discussed unofficial or proposed flags may be within scope, but IMO those should not be called "fictional flags". Flags simply made up by some user for personal amusement or online vanity project are out of scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Infrogmation has done a good job of summarizing my position before I stated it. Flags described in works of fiction (Narnia and Lord of the Rings come immediately to mind) are certainly in scope. Even flags for places in novels that are not described probably have a place here. However, beyond that, flags for places that are not known from such works have no place -- they are simply "personal art from non-notable artists" which we do not keep.
I do not agree entirely with "used in some public domain famous novel" -- if the flag is merely described and not actually illustrated in the book, then while the description of the flag may be copyrighted, any instance of it created by someone else has its own copyright but is not a DW of the novel. We have various flags of Narnia even though Lewis died in 1963 and the novels will be in copyright for another 12 years. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with both the above comments; flags actually described in actual fiction that has an existence outside Wikimedia are not copyrighted. (images of the flags from book illustrations, films, merchandise and the like are maybe rather different) I think that kind of content meets the realistically educational criterion. I don't see how self-generated fictional flags can meet it. GPinkerton (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I would keep all of these, unless there are specific reasons per image.
There is absolutely no reason why fictional flags (or arms) should be deleted for being fictional. Absolutely none.
It is not Commons' place to present itself as some authority deciding whether things are "serious fiction" or "trivial invention".
Commons is not Wikipedia and not en:WP. Many wikipedias will have stricter policies on fiction than Commons does: but that's a matter for them to not use such content, not for Commons to not host it.
We should avoid pejorative descriptions such as "fake". I've seen an awful lot of deletions in this area where they're really just a bad, and inexplicable, case of IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
If there are particular images that fail SCOPE, then DR them. But to delete whole categories on that basis, you would have to extend it to "the category of fictional flags cannot ever, by fundamental definition, contain anything educational". That's implausible. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Andy Dingley No-one has suggested that. This discussion was prompted by the suggestion that individual fantasy flags were within scope or that as a matter of course, the rules on being within sccope were ignored for them. GPinkerton (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
It may be helpful to run a RFC in order to refine policy. "Fictional" flags which illustrate works of fiction are in scope, but user-created "fantasy" flags which are anti-educational because they are being actively mistaken for real state flags or real flags for political parties where they are either demonstrably wrong or there is no verifiable evidence that they are 'official' should be removed as specifically out of scope.
I would like to see policy go a step further, in that anti-educational material, that is to say, media that actively harm the preservation or accuracy of human knowledge should also be considered to fail to meet the intent of COM:INUSE and may be subject to deletion even if (demonstrably wrongly) in use on other Wikimedia projects. If sister projects choose to host anti-educational media locally, that's their business to defend, but Wikimedia Commons should not be misused for anti-educational purposes and we should not keep on requiring that Deletion Requesters must do the impossible and pursue changes in hundreds of languages for media that they have 100% proved harms our project or our shared mission. --Fæ (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm really not too sure what this word "anti-educational" adds to the already existing discussion, and I strongly doubt whether it's been included as part of any Commons policy. In most discussions going back 5 or more years ago, all sides have freely admitted that hoaxing or hatemongering images should quickly get the boot, and I started up Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbasid flag.png nine years ago in the case of an image that was aggressively inappropriately being added to articles. But that's not the case with the great majority of "special or fictional flag" images. If a flag honestly labelled as fictional is inappropriately added to an article, then the problem is with the article editor, not the image. I don't think that purging hundreds or thousands of images, many of which have been on Commons for 5 or 10 years or more, is a proportional answer to any valid problem... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I agree. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbasid flag.png made me wonder so I checked the deleted file and the text say "Identified as "Abbasid flag" by uploader, but this is unreferenced (speculative reconstruction). The Abbasids did not really have a national flag in the modern sense, but a much more historically-based alternative would be a plain black banner, since black was the dynastic color of the Abbasids." Since neither of the claims are sourced it is hard (at least for me) to say who is right. I think that usually we leave it up to the editors on Wikipedia to discuss and decide what is correct. --MGA73 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Fæ about the disinformation value of user-invented flags. I wholly agree that "Wikimedia Commons should not be misused for anti-educational purposes and we should not keep on requiring that Deletion Requesters must do the impossible and pursue changes in hundreds of languages for media that they have 100% proved harms our project or our shared mission". The File:Flag of North West England.svg is all over English Wikipedia, but File:Flag of the Highlands of Scotland.svg is in use over multiple languages. Neither has any basis in a relaity independent of Wikimedia and are in effect anti-eductional, teaching people something we known not to be true. GPinkerton (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Gpinkerton -- if "Flag of North West England.svg" were being presented as an official flag, that would certainly be undesirable, but as far as I can tell, it's only being used in templates, such as en:Template:NW England. The rules for such template icons are a little different... AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC) 16:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
AnonMoos it seems rather non-neutral to pick this proposal over others, especially as it was created as part of some kind of movement years ago. Presumably competitors exist(ed). Anyhow, a fuller description and less ambiguous name are probably in order, but it turns out the NW England does have a life of its own beyond Commons, so that deletion nomination has been withdrawn. In any case the use on Wikipedia is not an issue for here; I only referred that as an example where usage on other projects shouldn't stand in the way of deleting fantasy or misleading material, per Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use. GPinkerton (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton If you do not believe that it is correct to use a flag on Wikipedia you can go to the talk page where it used and make your arguments there. If you provide reliable sources for your arguments then I'm sure that it should be possible to have the flags removed. But if user A says its a flag and user B says it not a flag then how are we to know who is right? --MGA73 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Apply the principle that exists in COM:Scope of "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained..." for files which have been legitimately challenged as having (real) educational value as opposed to literally the opposite.
When challenged, we should just ask what the reliable sources are. If a national, state, or political flag is claimed to have official recognition, the uploader must be able to find official sources to demonstrate it.
I suggested a RFC because this is a minor change to policy, but one that completely makes sense and benefits this project and all others. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Fæ I think that you manipulate in your struggle to delete content you do not like. The text about proof of burden is related to copyright. Not scope. Commons is not Wikipedia so we do not judge if something is correct or not or if it is NPOV or not. We store files and all we care about is if it is legal and if it is usable. If someone upload a Flag and say "This is the flag of Mars" then I'm sure it will be easy to delete. But if a flag is used on Wikipedia then we should keep it. --MGA73 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to see such a negative and personal characterization. I have mentioned no example in this discussion.
There is a proven issue of Wikimedia Commons being misused to host fake materials for the purposes of propaganda and deliberate disruption on other projects. Asking for reliable sources for such cases is not excessive, nor manipulative by anyone.
If there is a RFC it will need careful presentation in plain English to avoid being misunderstood or being dismissed for arbitrary reasons of perception rather than fact. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
What is propaganda can be discussed. Some think the rainbow flag is propaganda and an attempt to teach children to be gay (Hungary). Iran and China can probably also find a lot of stuff on Commons they want to have deleted as propaganda. Commons is not censored so we should be careful what we delete. The discussion started with a discussion of fictional flags. I think it is hard to see most of the flags in question as propaganda. Even the rainbow flag. --MGA73 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in scope. In my opinion it would harm our mission if we delete content in use just because some users on Commons do not like it. If a wiki project uses files then we should not delete them.
If someone think that content is wrong they can add {{Fact disputed}} or any of the other relevant templates. That should eliminate the risk that someone thinks that a fictional flag is a real flag.
Commons allow personal files so the use on a userpage is acceptable. At least for "a small numbers of images". What a small number is depends. Users with a million edits should in my opinion be allowed to upload more files than a new user with only 5 edits.
The intro on Commons:Project scope say: "It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose... The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning... " So we should not be restrictive.
Files not in use can however be deleted if someone provide a reason why the file would never be usable and noone provide a reason why file could be used. --MGA73 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I find it increasingly hard to track what your point is here, made difficult by your flexible use of language and description. Just what is a "fictional" flag?
You describe File:Flag of North West England.svg as "[having] no basis in reality", which is simply untrue. AIUI, this has been put forward as a proposal for a flag for NW England, as an issue of regional government in England, and as a design produced by Peter Saville, probably the most prominent graphic designer in NW England. As such, that is a flag which most likely meets WP:N as a concept or design competition, is nearly as likely to do so for just this one instance of a design, and certainly passes COM:SCOPE.
All flags are fictional. They are all creative works, pretty much ab initio (some are derivative or substantially representational). As such, the call to "delete all fiction" inevitably becomes a judgement call. There is no way that Commons should be deleting any of these just "for being fictional"!
Andy Dingley although the section heading is "fictional flags" I did qualify this quite specifically as: "self-generated, Wikimedia-only fantasy flags" and "purported flags that have no existence outside Commons" ... "doubly true for flags of entities that themselves have no existence independent of Wikimedians' private fantasies". Anything to do with illustrating actual proposals by real humans beyond Wikimedia (including fiction) is surely fine. I couldn't find anything on the NW England flag design on a quick search, but if it really exists as a non-adopted proposal then fine. (If that's the case let's please adjust the file description to make this sort of thing plain, and I still think using it is inappropriate, but that's a separate issue.) Of the other examples, I think all should be deleted: there is an infinite variety of possible changes to existing flags, I don't think it's within scope to cater to every parallel universe. It's educational to have a 51-star US flag to illustrate potential accessions, the status of Puerto Rico, etc.; it's not worthwhile to have a fantasy US flag in every colour of the rainbow and every conceivable proportion and design just on the off chance they radically change the flag code, annexe a few islands, unify with Canada, or whatever other fantasy might please the whim. I don't see how that can be justified. GPinkerton (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Well if it is in use then someone must disagree with you about the relevance. Commons is not Wikipedia so the normal rules for Wikipedia does not apply for Commons. Whatever is true or not have to be decided on Wikipedia. We just provide the media.
The earth was once believed to be flat and today most think that is round. That does not mean that we have to delete all the old maps as fictional. So fictional or not is not a relevant reason to delete.
MGA73 No-one is suggesting deleting flags because they are old. Following on from the same example, I would argue that maps of planets that do not exist are a closer analogy than maps that are old. After all, all maps depict a flat planet; nothing about that has changed since maps were invented by people who knew perfectly well that earth is round. Maps of fantasy planets made up one afternoon on Commons, are, I maintain, out of scope. Flags that accompany such fantasies ditto. GPinkerton (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Good planets might be a better example. Then lets discusse fantasy planets. Star Wars and Star Trek are notable so I would say that maps of their universes could be in scope even if it is fiction. Same with a map of Warcraft and Super Mario. If you wanted to make a map of GPinkerton World to use on your talk page then it would be fine with me too. Planets are probably easy to classify as existing or non-existing. Historical things may be harder to classify. For example. Did Noah have a flag on his Ark? And how did it look? And are we really sure that the Ark it really looked like File:Edward Hicks, American - Noah's Ark - Google Art Project.jpg? And if a wiki wants to use File:Illustration of Noah's Ark.png instead I really do not think that we should decide. But are we really sure that Noah and his Ark really existed? I think Commons should provid media and try the best to add a relevant description to the files. If everyone agree that a flag is fiction and not usable then we should delete. But if some think it is usable then I think we should keep it. Un use = in scope. --MGA73 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 the examples you mentioned are beside the point. No-one is questioning the reality of Star Wars or Noah's Ark. Neither of those things was invented on Commons and their being fiction has nothing to with the question I'm asking, which is about fiction that exists only on Commons. The points you are making do not appear to have any bearing on this subject. To repeat, historical things are all in scope. My questions are not about old things but about non-existing, not-existable things. GPinkerton (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is this causing confusion? I never suggested any image uploaded under a name relating to real events somehow becomes authentic thereby; I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Fictional flags of real entities are as bad as fictional flags of fictional entities. Why would exceptions be made for any image wrongly purporting to any caliphate's flag? GPinkerton (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I would delete File:Abbasid flag.png, but on the basis that it's WP:OR. The caliphate was real, it probably had a flag of some sort. But was it this flag? It appears that this version of the flag was pure creation by a Commons editor - it has no greater scope than that. Is it educationally appropriate (per COM:SCOPE) to present it as if it were a real Abassid flag?
Andy Dingley You refer to en:WP:OR. Please notice that Commons does not have COM:OR. That is for a reason. Lets say that I explore Amazonas and take a photo of a species never seen before and I upload this amazing discovery to Commons. Would you really delete the photo with the reason that it is Original research? I hope not :-)
About the flag. I do not know if the flag was real or not. Do you? If a user put it in the article and manage to persuade other users on Wikipedia that the flag is okay then I do not see a problem. Unless ofcourse that wiki is dead and only have 2 edits per week. I think some of the flags in question are used on English Wikipedia. I'm sure that if we declare on Commons that we know better than English Wikipedia then it will make even more users dislike Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I did not type "Phrasing such a deletion in terms of WP:OR though would indeed be a strange logic on Commons." above, just because I thought my keyboard needed the exercise. Amazingly enough, I have some familiarity with WP:OR and why that's not a Commons policy. Yet where in COM:SCOPE do we have to start excluding content because it is either incorrect or not demonstrably correct? If our scope is broadly "educational", that still doesn't go to "miseducation". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Exercise is heathy so you never know ;-) What is "miseducation"? Propaganda is in my opinion in scope. So is a screenshot of a spam mail. Even if both things may have incorrect content. In my opinion we should not be strict about requiring proof that a file is correct. They can battle on that on Wikipedia. And if it is only one user that thinks that a file is usable then we can delete. But if it is used in Wikipedia and it is accepted by other editors then I would keep it. Even if I personally do not agree. It seems to me that you agree that we should not be too trigger happy. --MGA73 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"Star Wars and Star Trek are notable" and thus we should permit maps of them. And yet en:WP has been on a purge of "TOLKIENCRUFT", driven by a tiny handful of editors (Gondor? Wizards?). This is what happens when we adopt a rule of "fictional is an excuse for deletion, but not if it's our particular fandom". It's exactly the sort of subjective bias that Wikipedia used to be against, but is now favouring more and more as the project loses editors from reality and shrinks to merely the established clique. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, Star Wars, Tolkien, and Star Trek were all invented off-wiki and are therefore well outside what might be relevant to this discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Okay I can see that you really try hard to understand what I mean and explain your point of view. Thank you for that. I think the problem is that perhaps we do not agree on what fiction is.
If I create a flag with a penis and claim that it is the flag of the US used when Reagan was president then I really hope that it will not be added to any article on Wikipedia. And I trust that the file can be deleted without too many complaints.
If I upload a flag and claim that this the flag of "King Michael of Earth" then I think we can probably all agree that it is fiction and that it can be deleted too. Unless of course it is meant to be used only on my user page. Then I think it should be kept.
If I upload a flag and claim that it is the flag used on en:Noah's Ark then it is more tricky. I think that we can all agree that I did not just make up the story and since there is an article it is in scope. The question is however if there is any basis for my claim that it is the flag he used or not. And perhaps that is not relevant. Since we have no photos from that time noone can tell for sure how the flag looked. So if a Wiki is happy to use my flag on their article to illustrate the article then why should we say "No that is forbidden!"?
If 2 users disagree on if the "flag of Zamunda" (I know Zamunda is not a real country but trying not to offend anyone I picked a non-existing country as example) have a Zebra or an Elephant on it and they can both find good arguments why their version is correct then I think we should leave it up to Wikipedia to decide which flag to use. Perhaps Wikipedia wants to use both flags and tell a story about that historians argue if the flag of Zamunda had a Zebra or an Elephant and that would be fine with me.
MGA73 A non-existing country has no flag, and hosting any image purporting to be fictional country is in my view out of scope if that fictional country was invented by a Commons user on Commons. If no-onw outside Commons thinks Noah flew a flag from the ark, no Noah flag is acceptable. For an example of the damage such fantasy has on projects, see the Chinese Wikipedia article for "British Isles". About half of that short article [[18] is a buffet of entirely invented flags that have no place on any Wikipedia, let alone on Commons. You will not find any historians that suggest any of these designs is real, but the "fictional flag" template has been blithely ignored anyway. This sort of thing happens a lot. The British Isles exists, but no flags purporting to represent them exist off-Wiki. Some per se harmless speculation and fantasy has evolved into active disinformation. The images are described as "proposed" in the article, but who proposed them when? Just a random Wikimedian. This does not meet the "realistically educational" criterion. GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
About the shoe I do not know what that is good for. Perhaps if the color of the shoe was used to illustrate the color of the beach. But that does not seem to be the case. I would probably have deleted it. But on the other hand it does no harm.
About the flags why is the LGBT flag more useful than the Canadian flag? Neither are in use. Is it because noone want to delete an LGBT symbol because they are afraid to be seen as anti LGBT? --MGA73 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
" why is the LGBT flag more useful than the Canadian flag?" Well, as Anarchyte said just there, it has "the possibility of educational commentary". But note that is a WP:CRYSTAL ball question! What has "the possibility of", as opposed to "Some RS (or anyone) has already made some commentary upon it". So we're back to subjective opinions: maybe I think that Canada annexing the USA has more possibiity of it than LGBT rights reaching the Bible Belt. Who's to say? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This tangent is completely off topic as far as I can see. Rainbow flags have existed for decades if not centuries and there is no way such things can be described as fiction. The Canadian flag has been around for almost as long. These are straw-man arguments with irrelevant hypotheticals. From my perspective File:Basically Canadian.svg has got nothing to do with reality and would fall under the "user-generated fantasy flags", which I argue are out of scope. GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
As can be seen from the links in the file description, the design has existed in the real world. {{Fictitious flag}} also applies to those with are unofficial, proposed but not adopted, etc. No-one is suggesting that every file with that template on is out-of-scope. GPinkerton (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The link was added after I wrote my first comment about the flag. Anyway the heading ask if fictional flags are in scope and I say yes. At least as someone can think of a good reason why it is in scope. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The very first comment in this discussion asks a far more nuanced question, as I have now explained many times. Please do not misunderstand. GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
My participation in this thread stops due to the hypothetical and unnecessary discussion about LGBTQ. There are no related deletion discussions about LGBTQ flags. It is well known that I represent the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, it's on my user page, long-term contributors and anyone who has ever written on my user talk page will be aware of it. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I strongly identify with the position that these flags should be kept unless they can be shown, individually, to be outside of the project scope. And, yes, usage on user pages should qualify for inclusion because we allow contributors to upload a small number of personal files for their user pages. This especially applies to flags of identity (e.g. pan-African Chile, uncommon LGBT flags) or belief (e.g. flag of globalism) which may be personally expressive for some users. Another argument I'm hearing is that fictitious flags are anti-educational. I don't see how fictitious flags are any more misleading than a novel or a painting, especially considering how we have a template to deal with fictional flags and it is widely used. Yes, sometimes Commons files are misused, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted, and that doesn't mean we should change anything about what we keep here. Cases of misuse can be very easily remedied by removing the offending images from the projects where they are in use. Mysterymanblue 08:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I think this discussion might be clearer if it didn't use the word "fictional flags", because that can either mean "flags used by works of fiction" such as the Narnia examples or "made up flags that look like but aren't actually used" like File:Fictitious Ottoman flag 2.svg. I think the former can be kept, the latter ought to be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I did try to disabuse anyone of that notion in the opening comment, but apparently I should have been clearer. GPinkerton (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add that Category:Fake coats of arms was also mentioned above so I see this in a wider context that usercreated stuff should be deleted. I do not agree to that. For example File:Watchduck.svg created by User:Watchduck. It is used on the userpage and at the uploaded files for example File:Sheet weaver spider web.jpg in the author field. I think that is cool. I do not see a problem with that. There is of course no guarantee that the file will not be added to an article somewhere claiming that it is an official COA of the Prince of Zamunda.
I do not think the right place for this discussion is here. It should be a wider discussion on Village Pump for example because this will affect hundreds of wikis if we decide to delete userpage images because we think they are not useful. --MGA73 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Potential test cases for deletion - are they in scope?
Speedy close. There is no consensus on how this issue should be addressed, and this is just an attempt to bypass that and get things deleted first to make precedents. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Andy Dingley The purpose of this discussion was to ascertain whether claims that fictional flags were universally acceptable, as had been claimed, and that this was long-standing consensus and the result of detailed discussion. This has now proved beyond doubt that no such consensus exists, and there is therefore no blanket reason to keep such files. As such, they must be considered for deletion on their own merits. Are you perhaps disagreeing? Are you arguing that all flags made up by Commons users should be kept in all circumstances? Your responses in the above discussion strongly implies so. GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Many DR's are not noticed by more than a few users. So the best way to find concensus is to start a discussion on Village Pump for example and announce it widely. Perhaps even globally because a change would affect many wikis. --MGA73 (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 consensus is only required to change things. We have established that there is no blanket opt-out of policy for user-generated fantasy flags, because no consensus exists that such an opt-out exists. So we have the status quo, which is that files must be considered on their own merits, and blanket rules like: "all must be kept" and counter-to-policy statements like "they don't need to be educational" are not justifications for treating Commons as a permanent webhost for its users as a rule, as some had argued and appear still to be arguing. The discussion can really now be closed. GPinkerton (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh have we? I think the reason that this discussion started was because someone wanted to challenge “the in use = in scope => do not delete”-practice. For many years users could trust that we did not delete their userpage images and wikis could trust that they could decide for themselves which files they would like to use. All files can be used for bad purposes but that is not a reason to delete all files. --MGA73 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason that this discussion started was because someone wanted to challenge “the in use - in scope - do not delete” practice. This thought is wrong and no-one has suggested any such thing, just as no-one has anywhere suggested a reason to delete all files. Again with the doom-laden prophesying: For many years users could trust that we did not delete their userpage images and wikis could trust that they could decide for themselves which files they would like to use ... suggesting of course that all trust will be eroded now if any file is deleted ever and such an event would be the death of Commons ... all that's needed is recognition that COM:SCOPE applies, which apparently all agree. GPinkerton (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
"all must be kept" and "they don't need to be educational" – but no-one has said such a thing. You're just (yet again) inventing false bogeymen to misrepresent other editors commenting here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Andy DingleyHere is you apparently arguing that our current test of "realistically useful for" is not a test that should be considered necessary to apply with the rigour applied to potentially copyrighted files. This suggests you recommend that a laxer interpretation of policy (COM:SCOPE) be applied for user-generated flags. Here is you arguing to keep all the files nominated because There is no valid way to judge them all as a group and also [19]each flag here requires separate study. GPinkerton (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the sort of persistent misrepresentation of other editors that has made your participation in this thread so counterproductive. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
TWIMC: I would respond to the angry nonsense above, but I fear it would only provoke more insults and misplaced whataboutery. I'm afraid the irony of the previous offering was simply too much ... GPinkerton (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
One issue with user-generated fiction is that it gets into categories it should never be in. Why on earth is that file in Category:Historical national coats of arms of Lithuania? How can such a fantasy be "historical"? Fantasy flags are routinely miscategorizd like this, gathered up ready for unsuspecting Wikimedians to put them to unwitting use as though genuine. If I make a file purporting to be "American passport of Joseph Stalin", does that get to be categorized in Category:Joseph Stalin the way that thing is categorized under Category:Vytautas the Great? This sort of thing is just cultivating error ... GPinkerton (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to request an administrator please perform a close on this DR, as it has been outstanding for 5 months. I would also like to request revision deletion on a few files.
Hoang42006 was indef'ed 26 April 2019 at 15:51. But their contributions include a few dozen uploads and other edits in May and June 2021. How? DMacks (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if the user uploads something into other projects locally and this is transferred into Commons, then it is shown like it was uploaded into Commons. Taivo (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see thesethreereports for more information, I say in all this reports the reason why I have to make socks to post a report (That in a moment I'm going to tell you, please do not revert this report because it is not spurious and what happened is true) and it was reverted when I said clearly don't revert. And it was reverted 1, 2, 3, now in Commons, instead on Wikipedia I will tell my story about the unfair things that happened to me by parts: (Possibly you listen to me, that's why I say to you)
2.- I used 2 templates to clarify that IP is not me. There's a signal that I'am innocent, there was one edit like this, seems that he have good command of English (which at that time I did not have on Wikipedia, but at that time I could also speak English fluently, I am Ecuadorian with a high level of English even before I came to Wikipedia), other signal that I'm innocent: Look his first contributions, he starts to edit "British" "English" even before that I returned from my wiki vacation on May 7, just in case, I don't come back from my wikivacations just because I found out that that IP changed that, I didn't know anything about that IP, IT'S AN INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE. In the first template I explained desperate that I am not that IP, but Josh Gordon told me that I'am not being truthful, he just blocked six more of my accounts. I didn't know which one those six accounts because I was feeling anxious, desperate and needed to be unblocked in an instant. In the second template I was even more desperate, I explained again that I don't know what those six accounts are because I was desperate and couldn't see them, later Acroterion didn't respond me, he put this message at the bottom. After that I just made a little comment that maybe it will be robots, but the problem arises when Graham Pearcereverts my message unfairly and he immediatly changed my block settings unfairly and without authorization, meanwhile he tried to put the decline reason "see below" I consider it unfair. The worst thing that Josh Gordon was also involved in that injustice and he fixes the decline reason. In other words, these users were totally right to block me, but reverting my comments, and blocking me for a few small comments is already UNFAIR. If Graham Pearce hadn't changed my blocking settings and also if Josh Gordon hadn't been involved in putting "see below" none of this would be happening. After that I had to use sock puppetry and post a non-spurious report because they were unfair in changing my block settings and they had to know for me to tell them to unlock my original account (Lil Pablo 2007, that is globally blocked, that's why I demand my unblocking).
3.- When I made my first report with the account Lil Pablo 2007 2 was reverted and I use {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} and Graham reverts my message knowing who is the one denounced in this report, I made my third report with the account Lil Pablo 2007 3 and after I was blocked by Ymblanter I clearly say on the unblock template: Graham, do not block my talk page, and he did knowing again that is the one denounced in my second report. In the decline reason Yamla told me that I'm abusive because I did other accounts to do sockpuppetry. Yamla, I got a message for you: If Graham Pearce hadn't changed my blocking settings and also if Josh Gordon hadn't been involved in putting "see below" none of this would be happening.
4.- Some time later I requested my unblock via IP (157.100.76.240), In the decline reason Yamla told me that I have to request my unblock via UTRS for this reason that seems invalid to me: I can't request my unblock here because I was abusive for using sockpuppets, when I am not abusive for the reason I said that I create those two accounts. I said it 2 times, it is already more than understood. Obviously I did not heed this notice because as I said, for me it was an invalid reason and I requested again my unblock and in the decline reason Daniel Case told me two things in this message that I consider a taunt: He told me You went back, Jack, and did it again ... wheel turnin' round and round; you went back, Jack and did it again and when he revoked my talk page and the other thing that tolds me like a taunt: He told me Have a nice day, ay Daniel you are a mocker. Anyway, I requested my unblock via UTRS and Yamla rejected me, In the first request he told me that I can't use UTRS without explanation and I have to send an e-mail to arbcom, I requested again because he didn't tell me any explanation and he told me again that UTRS is not available for me.
5.- I took a month off, have to rest and reflect on how I can be unblocked without using sockpuppetry and during my break I take the opportunity to investigate what the six accounts are, and then I saw what they are: Lil Pablo 2007 (the principal account that is me), Paul Miranda 2021 (Wikipedia), Paul Miranda 2007 (Wikipedia), Lil Pablo23 (Wikipedia), and KG Julio FF (Wikipedia). When I saw those six accounts I realized that without realizing it I was using sockpuppetry and I was not taking so many wikivacations but I repeat, I did not return to my original account just because of that IP that changed "British" to "English". Anyway, my IP was changed to 157.100.74.34 for an unknown reason I took the opportunity to apologize, I said that I finally understood when to use "British" and "English". Look at this edit, there I am saying I still have the concern of building an encyclopedia. But I made a mistake, in Deep Roy I edit putting only British And I said that if he was born in Kenya and went to England at a young age, for example, Gordon Ramsay was born in Scotland and he went to England. Other example, Freddie Mercury was born in Zanzibar and he went to England. But Notfrompedro explained me that I was editing in a disruptive way, that British applies when if was born in another part of the UK and goes to England, and Freddie Mercury was born in the Sultanate of Zanzibar (In that time was a British protectorate. There is another sign that if I learned my lesson, I said okay, I'm going to edit in a better way. And Notfrompedro Saw I admitted to being Lil Pablo and I explained what happened, I was blocked for admitting that I am Lil Pablo 2007, just for committing to edit better and I used a template explained that I understood better when use "British" to "English", and the same, Josh Gordon told me that I have to use UTRS and he disabled talk page access because he only thinks about him.
6.- I used UTRS one more time to explain about that, I told Yamla that he will not be the one to answer me. That did happen, but JBW (the decline admin.) He didn't believe me, I think he didn't believe me on purpose, he told me this that I consider unfair: it's one of the most ridiculous unlock requests I've ever seen, saying that you are going to edit in a better way means that you are going to continue with the same attitude, I recommend doing better things instead of damaging Wikipedia. The injustices led me again to use sockpuppetry and make the third report, and RickinBaltimore insulted me, when he put the reason why I'm blocked he put: blatant admitted sockpuppetry. That means in Spanish Admitio descaradamente ser sockpuppet that for Spanish-speaking people like me it is a terrible offense.
Well, I already told you why I want to be unlocked, I hope you understand what happened to me and I promise not to edit in a disruptive way anymore and I promise to build an encyclopedia. Another thing, tell the one who blocked me globally to remove my block because I am already tired of using UTRS and I already understood how to use those demonyms that I was blocked for using wrong demonyms, please I beg you. Lil Pablo 2007 Vol. 3 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
TL;DR
Tell us why Commons might be a better place with you in it, rather than outside it.
Explain why you persistently went against all consensus with your British -> English changes, and seemed particularly resistant to stopping, to discussing why, or even to stopping while you discussed why.
@Andy, I use English when that person is from England that means is 100% English, and British applies when I'm from another country and I'm inmigrant to UK (example:Ecuadorian-British) and if I'm from another country, I gained the UK citizenship but I lose my original nationality) And if I was born in another part of the UK and I went to England as a child. Lil Pablo 2007 Vol. 3 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
"I use English when that person is from England that means is 100% English, and British applies when I'm from another country and I'm inmigrant to UK"
That's nonsense. The difference between "English" and "British" is not based on immigration
Arguing, "But I'm still right really" is why you were blocked. We don't care. We have decided to do it one way (because eventually we just have to, or we're churning forever) and you're pushing something else. Even if you were right (and you're not), that would be disruptive in itself.
No Andy, I'm saying that I really did understand when to use those names, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I want to be unlocked because I promise not to edit disruptively. Lil Pablo 2007 Vol. 3 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Lil Pablo 2007 Vol. 3, I looked up your username globally and you are only registered on Commons, login.Wikimedia and meta Wikimedia. Also you were blocked on English Wikipedia for not building a Wikipedia. This account must be a sock, of User:Lil Pablo 2007 as it appears they are evading their block with numerous alternative accounts. Oh, and also Wikimedia does not have direct involvement with the English Wikipedia, so if you want to sort your blocking issues, I would advise you contact Arbcom, considering your access to UTRS has been withheld due to your constant trolling. I think this account should be blocked IMHO as this user is just unacceptable with his behaviour --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should hybrids be included in pages devoted to particular species?
Should hybrids be included in pages devoted to particular species?
An example is the page for images of Sarracenia minor; there are many photos of HYBRIDS with S. minor as a parent, but I wonder if it is appropriate to include these photos on this page. Perhaps other pages--e.g., "Sarracenia minor hybrids"--would be more appropriate for these images.
Thanks! Just not that familiar with Wikimedia discussion protocols. Will post in the place you suggested! Thanks again! Philiptdotcom (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Bonjour à tous, j'ai malencontreusement perdu dans un déménagement le mot de passe de mon ancien compte User:Bohème et suis maintenant actif comme User:Bohème21. J'ai par conséquent perdu les statuts d'autopatrouilleur et de renommeur. Pourriez-vous s'il vous plaît me les réattribuer ? Merci d'avance. Bien à vous. --Bohème21 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The past week or two, the category of files tagged for speedy-deletion as copyvio has consistently hovered in the 400–800 file range, with files often sitting over a week after being tagged before someone deletes (or other action). Usually it's <200 with occasional transient spikes, and files not usually persisting more than a day or so. Would be great to get some assistance there. DMacks (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
After couple of days we will get a new administrator, who promised to work in speedy deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Tm is claimed to have breached some DR. But you didn't link the DR, so we're in the dark. And you expect people to support an allegation of vandalism (we really don't call people vandals here just because we disagree).
Tm "edit warred" by repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag. What the hell was a speedy tag doing being repeated in the first place? If a speedy is removed, it doesn't go back – you would have to DR if you had to. Speedies are only if a deletion is presumably "unquestionable", not because you're just very keen or in a hurry to get rid of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The cat was empty and therefor eligable for speedy deletion. The DR was malformed and wasnt linked to any daily DR page, so no admin will normaly ever notice it. But there was a discussion running on it. So this was my bad. I restored the DR page now and transcluded it to the current daily DR page. I restored all deleted versions of the recreated cats as well. (There were some bad editwars going on btw.) --JuTa01:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This DR has been open for close to 9 months without any comments or action. And as there is a concern about the sharing of accounts, @BevinKacon: nominated these files as COM:PCP. I'm inclined to delete it but it'll create a big mess at UDR if the copyright holder can be determined (in some way). Would like to have some feedback from other admins before deleting close to 2000 files. --Minoraxtalk09:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I think it is, and not just because of the portrait (I do think the portrait is a problem, too; it's most likely still copyrighted). The banner (especially the flowers used in its design) is, in my opinion, likely to be non-free. I nominated it for deletion here. Ahmadtalk21:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have resources to do the blanking without compromising its metadata. I hope someone will do the blurring of the infringing objects. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) I don't see the point of blurring the screen+billboards; the Pope's image(s) is the primary subject of the photo and the photo would be essentially useless without it. IMO it should be deleted. -M.nelson (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Done. I closed the request. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Funny, but when it was Lithuania about Vilnius it was an "stablishment of control", but when it was Memel or the all of Lithuania it is an "occupation"? Also there is pl:Okupacja_litewska_Wileńszczyzny. And it was user Pofka that moved from the original Category:Lithuanian occupation of the Vilnius region (1939–1940) to Category:Lithuanian establishment of control of the Vilnius region (1939–1940), the same user involved in the previous thread. Tm (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done. 3RR is not a Commons policy. You both have edit warred and must stop immediately. I must protect the category for a week. You must talk to each other outside AN. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Doing… -- CptViraj (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like a duck to me. Blocked, file deleted. I'll note for the record that they use various license reviewers' names, so it's not just you :). --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
