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.
This user is uploading what appear to be scans of postcards and claiming them as their own work. Just became aware of this on en.wp like two minutes ago, will commence taking them all out of use over there, but they will almost certainly need to be deleted and what a free image is needs to be made clear to this person. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. I deleted some copyvios. There are only 6 uploads left. You can examine them one by one, 6 files is not too much. And you know now correct source for Mona Lisa file, you can simply upload correct version on top of incorrect version, using the same filename. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Taivo, I'm not sure how this is "done"—and I don't know why I'm all of a sudden responsible for going through and replacing the edits of this user. This is clearly trolling; it's unreasonable to assume that this user "accidentally" completely altered the faces of people in their images. I mean seriously? No one is talking to this user (or warning them) and the files just get to stay on the site? Aza24 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
No, you are not responsible for that. I simply deleted 3 his uploads. I thought, that maybe you are able to understand, are the remaining photos original or photoshopped – I'm not. Except Mona Lisa file – tomorrow I try to re-upload it. (Also I striked "done" mark.) Taivo (talk) 20:39, 5 March 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.
Done File protected for 3 months due to counter-productive edit warring. @StuffedDance: Firstly, you did not inform Des Vallee of this thread as required by the instructions above. I have done so for you. Secondly, this is not the appropriate first step when seeking dispute resolution. You had the option of contacting Des Vallee directly on their talk page or starting a discussion on File talk:Regions of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.png. You did not do so. Thirdly, both you and Des Vallee were engaged in counter-productive edit warring. You are both advise to discontinue. Further edit warring would be considered disruptive and may result in further administrative action to prevent further disruption. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat.Redd mìt mìr.🥨17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
StuffedDance You didn't look at the source or didn't notice, both sources, clearly support the border of Kobani being completely different other borders like this support it, clearly align with AANES control. Map of current Syrian civil war and turkish occupation also supports this border, and the SOHR also supports this border. So change all other maps that have Kobani more towards the east, or you are defending an outdated border. Syria live-map which keeps up to date borders in Syria and is considered reliable also states the borders as such.
Nat can you please review the maps and sources and change back to the version I added all sources do support the change? If you would like you can also mediate a discussion because the sources do absolutely keep up with the current border, and he clearly hasn't reviewed the sources correctly, so I don't know what. The current map is outdated, and needs to be updated. Des Vallee (talk) 18:42, 9 March 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.
Reasons for reporting: Continuous practice of persistently removing license tags from uploaded media. Other users have warned him on his talk page, but he has ignored them.--Araisyohei(talk)01:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
According to the Youtube/Google FAQ, it's eligible for me to move these documents under a Creative Commons license. Again, YouTube allows users (i.e. China News) to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. For these particular documents, they are allowed to be reused under CC license. Meanwhile, I did not move other documents without CC License (on Youtube) to Commmons. Walter Grassroot (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This report is nonsense. I urge Zhxy519 to stop trolling immediately. Along with this post, Zhxy519 wrongfully nominated several files for speedy deletion - which is against relevant criteria and has been reverted by me. I'm citing this previous DR case regarding contents from Chinanews.com. --Techyan（Talk） 09:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Chinanews.com itself is claiming rights in the link I provided. It could be contradiction, but it will cause troubles.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done The works are offered on YouTube under an accepted free licence. As long as the copyright holder offers their work under an accepted free licence at one source and it has been licence reviewed, it can be hosted on Commons. No action necessary here. --Ìch heiss Nat.Redd mìt mìr.🥨23:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Not necessarily, it is just not enough (at least for me) evidence to block. May be you can convince checkusers to look at this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 10 March 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.
The user is massively uploading articles from Jstor. The initial pages of his uploads contain information (that may be PD-simple) and Jstor logo which is unlikely to be free. The declared license {{PD-old-100-expired}} does not seem to apply to the logo. Moreover, the source pages (example) contain information that the logo is trademarked. I asked Fæ to explain what does he intend to do with this and to stop uploading until this is resolved. But he continues uploads. I suggest blocking the user write access to the File namespace until the issue is resolved. In my opinion, the initial pages should be removed; but this may be hard to do this en masse using free software. Any comments? Ankry (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Refer to COM:IA books#JSTOR where an explanation for removing cover pages of "JSTOR Early Journal Content" was written several days ago. The cover pages are being removed, ref Category:Internet Archive (JSTOR cover page removed). As is mentioned the copyright status of the JSTOR logo has not been determined. This collection is described by JSTOR as journal materials published prior to 1923 in the United States and prior to 1870 elsewhere. It is worth noting that it was JSTOR that released these files to the Internet Archive, some of that collection with no cover pages.
Ankry, the post to my talk page was at 8am my time. I was writing a response at 10am my time, when I saw that my reply had been preempted by escalating to ANU. Two hours for a response?
Your summary as "continues uploads" is an unfair characterization. The suggestion of blocking access to file namespace for the most active uploader to Commons would be an extreme and inflammatory action, especially considering that these uploads have been going on for several months without objection. A little more good faith, and recognition in my decade-plus of experience with these projects, please.
JSTOR's logo is a trademark, but the JSTOR page about it here, makes no specific claim of copyright but does make it clear that You can use the JSTOR logo on your website.
Well, I came here due to lack of response on talk page. After the explanation, I think this can be closed. My doubt is still why to make the double upload: PDFs with and without the cover; especially as the original ones likely need to be deleted.
Firstly, I think that this could have been resolved outside of COM:AN/U. Secondly, I agree that the logos are a problem as they appear to be eligible for copyright and while Jstor permits users to reuse this logo under some restrictions this does not conform to COM:L. I think it would be helpful if those uploads which still display the cover page in violation of COM:L should be in a special maintenance category to make sure that we do not miss any of them. I would not object to a continued upload of original files including a cover page (keeping originals is a good practice) as long as we have an established process where we do not just upload a file with the cover page removed but where we also revision delete the original upload. We just need to make sure that this process is finished for each file in a reasonable time frame. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
As of this moment, there are probably 4,116 IA documents with relevant cover pages from this collection, there is some ambiguity depending on whether the Commons search engine is returning reliable results. 9,790 documents have already had the cover pages removed, as can be seen in the maintenance category above. The housekeeping is running faster than the upload rate.
FYI the methods used are unique, I don't know of any other project that has been detecting and amending PDFs in this way. Honestly, I doubt anyone else would invest the time needed to make this work. --Fæ (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
(Note that the user did not care to notify me about this thread). Indeed, w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі says Русіфікацыя (w:en:Russification) is the same as маскаліза́цыя (moskalization, from w:en:Moskal, which is an offensive ethnic slur). However, be-tarask is a project usurped by a group of ultra-nationalists, who are in particular notorious for trying to push the Belarusian Latin alphabeth everywhere in Wikiverse. The Belarusian Wikipedia, which is a healthy project, contains this article as well, w:be:Русіфікацыя Беларусі, but does not mention any moskalization. May I please also note that this element in the name of the file is completely unneeded, and was only added to make the title sound offensive. If I saw this on the English Wikipedia, where I am administrator, this would likely result, after a discussion, in a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The filename is in Belarusian, not in English. So the provided reference to English language conventions where «moskal» is offensive name isn't related to the case. For example, Russian word ru:Жид (Zhyd, Žyd) is offensive slur but at the same time similar Polish :pl:Żydzi/Żyd is the only recognized name for English en:Jews. I also believe that insulting of another language project is totally unacceptable for a Commons administrator. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I should also notice that Belarusian "maskal" and derivative terms are widely used in Belarusian (not russificated) dictionaries. They are still used in Belarusian reliable scientific sources, which is shown in w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі. So the attempts of User:Ymblanter to restrict the usage of this term here are totally against the policies and can be considered as usurpation of this project by Russian ultra-nationalists. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hope, there are reasonable administrators who understand the simple true that English Wikipedia has nothing to do with internal questions of other languages. Belarusian name "maskal" and derivatives are widely used (scan)] as the only possible alternative for concepts related to Russification in the Belarusian-Russian dictionary of Dr. en:Jan Stankievič (NY). The access to this dictionary is provided by the en:Library of Congress[4]. The derivative of the word "maskal" is also claimed (scan) as the first alternative to the English word "Russian" in the textbook Fundamental Belarusian, published with assistance of the Canadian Federal Government. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
If I am allowed to use an analogy which is closer to English speakers, let me try. A user uploads a file with the name "Barack Obama is the first nigger (African American) president.jpg". I rename the file into "Barack Obama is the first African American president.jpg". The user shows up at my talk page and argues that "nigger" is a Papuan version of English is fully synonymous to an African American. As a proof, the user shows that indeed in the Papuan English alt spelling Wikipedia there is an article on African American which starts as "African Americans, also known as Niggers, are ...", cited to three offline books, two books written in the 19th century, the script of the movie "Pulp Fiction", and a couple of article written by known KKK members. There is also the Papuan English common spelling Wikipedia, which has the same article but does not use the word. The user says that they "demand" to move the article back, and that the word nigger in the Papuan English is not offensive, it is normal usage. I refuse, and, having in the past dealt with the user, warn them again unilaterally moving this back. The user goes to the VPU. Here we are.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The analogy given by the opponent is ridiculous, totally irrelevant and can be regarded as an insult and provocation. It looks like the user with admin powers is still trying to insult one of the local Wikipedia communities — the Belarusian Wikipedia. First of all, Belarusian language is not a version of English. So English has nothing to do with the assessment of Belarusian words. And there are still no proofs (no references to reliable sources related to the Belarusian language) that the removed word is "offensive slur". Moreover, I've provided references to contemporary (published less than 50 years ago, not in the 19th century) totally reliable sources associated with the US and Canadian governments that deny the claim of "offensive slur". In the mentioned article w:be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі the references are provided to the modern publications (both from 2009) of Dr. Prof. Nina Barščeŭskaja (en:University of Warsaw) and Dr. Prof. Lidzija Savik (en:Belarusian State University of Culture and Arts). Is it OK to compare them with "known KKK members"? Is such an insult and provocation comparable to "emotional demand", which makes me (without admin powers) don't "look particularly good"? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to ask other admins, is the comparison of the Belarusian language with the Pidgin version of another language (by the way according to the Russian Nazis, Belarusian is the Pidgin version of Russian) an acceptable format of discussion? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You may substitute it for Scottish if you wish. This is not the central point of my argument. I am actually surpriszed that we are having this discussion at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
So you believe that English speakers should impose the English language conventions (e.g. meaning of the word "nigger") to Scottish filenames containing Scottish words which look similar to "nigger"? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Let us see what English speakers have to say. It is pretty clear to me that you perfectly know that the name of the file would look offensive to every Russian speaker, and on purpose defend this name because you want it to be offensive to every Russian speaker. If this were not your intention, you would have apologized for oversight and certainly not demand to move the file back.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
No, you are totally wrong about my intentions. Like I said before "Маскалізацыя" (that is accepted by Belarusian Wikipedia community, which you've already compared with KKK members) is a more traditional and precise Belarusian name for Russification. That's the only reason why I use this word along with the more common for russified version of Belarusian language word "Русіфікацыя". I should also notice that only a really sick mind can conclude, that a word in one language should be banned here just because it looks offensive for some users who speak another language. With such sick logic the Spanish word "negro" (black) should be banned just because it has the same origins with "nigger". I've already provided the example with Russian ru:Жид and Polish pl:Żyd, that actually have the same origin but the first one is an offensive ethnic slur and the second one is a totally legal name. And there is no evidence that the Belarusian word "маскалізацыя" shouldn't be used in Belarusian language filenames. It's not offensive in Belarusian language. Your attempts to restrict usage of Belarusian language (in our case not russificated version of Belarusian language) here just because it can offence Russian speakers is a clear manifestation of Russian chauvinism. Wikimedia Commons is multilingual project and media files can be uploaded with names in any language in any script + Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view. So based on this guidelines I'm going to revert your illegal edits based on offensive statement about Belarusian language and Belarusian Wikipedia by any legal means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I hope after this revert, an administrator will uphold the general Wikimedia policies, prohibiting ethnic slurs. Which means, well, a block of an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
In our case, a fictional so called "ethnic slur", because you didn't provide any evidence that your statements are true for the Belarusian language (not English or Russian). Insulting Belarusian Wikipedia and Belarusian scientists (comparing them with KKK) has nothing in common with such evidence. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You consistently ignore my argument that the Belarusian Wikipedia actually is not using this ethnic slur. What is using this ethnic slur is the Belarusian Taraskevitsa Wikipedia, which is run by a clique of ultra-nationalists. We still remember very well how you guys canvassed people trying to impose your own version of Belarusian riomanisation on the English Wikipedia - and failed miserably.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
First, you must and you will answer for the repeated accusations of the Belarusian Wikipedia community of "ultra-nationalism" (without any evidence of this). Second, Belarusian (Taraškievica) is one of recognized Wikipedia communities, so like I said according to the current guideline media files can be uploaded with names in any language in any script including Belarusian (Taraškievica). Third, the absence of the name in the Wikipedia doesn't mean that this name is not used in Belarusian language and it definitely has nothing to do with the requested evidence of belonging to an ethnic slur. Fourth, the romanization problem is totally unrelated to this discussion and just for the record the majority of mentioned users were from "healthy" (like you said) other Belarusian Wikipedia. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not emotional about image name and file description. These edits are against the Commons:File naming and Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. To maintain order here, they should be reverted or the guidelines changed. But I'm not sure if this is the only problem now, because I'm really concerned about repeated insult of the Belarusian Wikipedia (calling "clique of ultra-nationalists" and comparing with KKK members) by the particular administrator of multilingual project. I don't understand why I have to tolerate such behavior. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
In case of possible archiving the request without any reaction (like it has already happened before with a quite similar case here and here) I've opened a discussion on the Village pump (it looks like I had to mention this discussion here). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
having the same origin doesn't mean the same definition and I agree that it sounds offensive in Russian language. As Commons is an international project I would find a better neutral name: why not use it in English? rubin16 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kazimier Lachnovič: To be preceise, in Polish Żyd of course means "a Jew", Żydzi means "a nation or group of Jews". Although there is also żyd (written with a small letter) which first of all means "a follower of judaism" but also means "someone mean/cheap". The second meaning is pejorative, it is rarely used and is rather considered old fashioned. See https://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/%C5%BCyd.html. Attention must be paid to the first letter – in Polish a Żyd not necessarily must be a żyd (A Jew not necessarily must be a follower of judaism or a cheap person). --jdxRe:10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jdx: Thank you for the clarification. Each language has its own features, some of which can only be known (and fully understandable) by native speakers. That is why I consistently follow the opinion that in case of ambiguous situations concerning some linguistic issues, the practice of corresponding local Wikipedia community should be considered first. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Russian-Belarusian dictionary (scientific terminology of literary work) by w:en:Yanka Kupala, the greatest Belarusian-language writer of the 20th century (5. "maskalizm")
Russian-Belarusian dictionary by w:be-tarask:Сьцяпан Некрашэвіч (Minsk, 1928, republished in 2014), the biggest and the most fundamental Belarusian dictionary before w:en:Russification (gives "maskal" as Belarusian translation of "Russian", "abmaskalvać" — "to russificate", "abmaskalvańnie" — "Russification")
+1 to Kazimier Lachnovič. There are lots of pundits' we shall rely on works brought up. There are sources from back then, like Yanka Kupala, to modern publications in historic journals like ARCHE Пачатак. For admins like Ymblanter, it would be useful to visit these pages (assuming good faith and without taking advantage of an admin status (which can be revoked for its abuse) and refresh what type of language are gonna be used.
It is now becoming more and more obvious that there are no administrators who actually carry about the guidelines (maybe apart from the ones concerned copyright). Just in case if someone realizes the shame of this situation, I give my last argument as addition to the earlier provided list of using the censored here Belarusian words. According to the publication of Dr. w:be:Уладзімір Уладзіміравіч Агіевіч (w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus) a Belarusian term "maskalizacyja" (censored in here just because some Russian admins doesn't like it, that is very close to w:en:Nazism) is even more correct than an alternative "rusifikacyja" for w:en:Russification (Albaruthenica. Nr. 13, 2000, p. 72, which are the proceedings of the scientific center related to the Belarusian Ministry of education). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
May be if you are right and everybody else here is consistently wrong, you should look in the mirror rather than to resort to personal attacks. I have already mentioned a few times that I am not Russian, I am Dutch. And accusations of me in nazizm is something you should get a block for. I am unfortunately can not do it myself, but normally users accusing others in nazism have no place on the Wikimedia projects, and my role as administrator is to make sure these users get removed asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Don't see a big difference, but it's not a problem for me to reformulate. The admin with the native Russian who just admitted to being involved in deliberate discrimination of the Belarusian language. + was previously seen in spread of pro-Russian propaganda (e.g. Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus[6]). And I have all rights to compare obvious aggressive linguistic chauvinism with similar type of discriminations including Nazism, especially during the rise of modern Russian Nazism. And you are the one who should has been blocked for calling the whole local Wikipedia community a a clique of ultra-nationalists and comparing with the the terrorists. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I invite you to come to the English Wikipedia and accuse me in Nazism there. I promise that this would earn you a block of an indefinite duration, possibly a community ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It is obvious that a reasonable person will never follows such inadequate suggestion (to accuse some user in Nazism) in any Wikipedia project including the Wikimedia Commons. But it doesn't mean that obvious national discrimination (from what Nazism has been started) should be tolerated, which I've already stated in the English Wikipedia [7]. And it was accepted because, as now, there is nothing to object. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, you tried to come up similar bullshit (without accusing me in Nazism however) on the English Wikipedia a year ago, and were not really successful in convincing anyone over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not have time and energy to follow your around and disprove every bullshit you write about me. Even here, I only concentrate on the most offensive ones. I do not feel like I should disprove your accusation for example that I do not respect Belarusian language. This is offensive bullshit as well, but I am not going to collect diffs proving the opposite.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Your latest recognition of censorship Belarusian language based on Russian one is quite enough for your accusation in not respecting Belarusian language. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure. And it is enough for you to issue a bunch of personal attacks here against me, even though I did not personally attack you at any instance. I started assuming good faith, you have consistently proven you are acting in bad faith. This is why I believe that you should not be editing Wikimedia projects. This is my last response in this thread. You can of course continue posting a personal attack every week, hoping it stays on top forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The absence of personal attacks on me is another example of lie from you. Any reasonable person can just read the first your message in this thread to find it out (be-tarask is a project usurped by a group of ultra-nationalists). And such behavior is a sound reason that you are the user who should not be editing Wikimedia projects. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
And yes, I'm going to remind local administrators regularly (to prevent archiving this thread without any action like it has already happen with the similar case) about the lack of reverting the edits which were obviously against guidelines until these edits will be reverted or until the deceptive (for the users without admin rights) guidelines will be changed. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Kazimier Lachnovič, you have repeated your point many times. The general opinion of uninvolved users who have commented is that no one's behavior here was admirable, but that there is not admin action that is needed in this case. Threatening to keep this thread open, when it is clear that a consensus for admin intervention is not going to suddenly emerge, is extremely poor behavior. Threatening to continue a discussion indefinitely until someone caves in to appease them is harassment, and a particularly noxious way of making it miserable for another editor. If there is a need for further discussion, either in regards to user behavior or details of file names, then a new thread without three weeks of accusations can be opened (preferrably by an uninvolved user).
Note: my original close stated If you do not stop your harassment, you will be swiftly blocked. While I will block if necessary to stop harassment or threats, this was overly hasty and too grouchy on my part. I hope this edit clarifies my close. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Kazimier Lachnovič has chosen a different route and just reverted my change. Very smart - there is absolutely nothing I can do about this. In the meanwhile, I was called an abusive admin supported by my Russian friends (not sure what friends, but fine). Who cares that I have never misused my tools. Great. I am going back to low activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Upload deleted. But I'm inclined to wonder if it may be more productive in the long run if someone like maybe @Yasu: could help us out in trying to explain things in ja. GMGtalk11:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Al.Massira is changing the maps relating to the Morocco-SADR conflict to suit their obvious political POV, ignoring COM:OVERWRITE and edit warring (just like EdDakhla and their plethora of socks tend to do). Could someone please make them stop? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Al.Massira , and I would like to make a few brief clarifications, regarding this report. This isn't about a point of view, let alone a political one, it's about the borders. Regarding the SADR/RASD diplomatic relations map and locator maps, no source remotely supports that they are/control the entire territory of Western Sahara, although they do claim it. The maps are there to indicate the location of the SADR, which controls roughly 1/5 of the territory, with the rest being administered by Morocco. The maps however, are not there to indicate the entirety of Western Sahara, so it is important not to get the the territory of Western Sahara and the self proclaimed nation of the SADR mixed up. One is an entire territory, the other is a mostly unrecognized state (only about 35 UN members continue to recognize the SADR as of 2021). Now as for the Portugal Morocco Locator, M.Bitton is absolutely not in the right to site COM:OVERWRITE as the reasoning to revert, when they had a chance to do that when that new version was first uploaded, that very much violated COM:OVERWRITE back in the end of December. Bear in mind that the file they kept restoring, is barely two months old, while the original long-standing version is nearly 9 years old. I took a look at that file history and I will also point out they reverted this file back to this version not one year ago when someone colored Western Sahara the same color as Morocco, so now I'm a bit confused. Anyways, I reverted it back to the original version how it was pre-December, and it should probably stay that way, being as its the long standing version and there is a clear disagreement with the other maps. Just wanted to clarify because I'm not sure if the editor who opened this report was showing the context as a whole or being completely truthful. It's not just "Al.Massira persistently changing stable maps". Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Massira (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I reverted this file and this other file back to the version @M.Bitton wanted, now that a more adequate description for the maps has been provided, as suggested by another editor (IP) on my talk page. Personally, I am not a fan of how the SADR is shown on those maps as the whole Western Sahara because the land they actually control (primarily in a de-facto status) is barely any of that, however this really isn't that big of a deal and turning this into a giant issue does not seem worth it over a couple of maps. I hope that could be a good enough compromise, but we'll see if we can get some admin insight on this overall situation anyway. Best. Al.Massira (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Nope, they need to revert all of them; though that's only part of the issue. Having dealt with many of EdDakhla's socks, my concerns remain the same. When a "new" editor starts by uploading this map before moving on to mess around with politically charged maps, then there isn't a shred of doubt about what their intentions are. Their This isn't about a point of view, let alone a political one, it's about the borders confirms it.
The reason why we are even here in the first place is because they support keeping problematic pro-SADR maps and I've made them more neutral and now they reporting me and taking it several steps too far. This isn't my way or the highway, this is Wikimedia Commons. There is nothing "politically motived" when there is a map showing SADR-controlled territory, rather than the whole Western Sahara territory, which wasn't, isn't and will never be theirs. When they said before moving on to mess around with politically charged maps, then there isn't a shred of doubt about what their intentions are., I know very well what my intentions are, wish is to push a neutral standpoint, so with all due respect, I do not need them to vouch or tell me what my intentions are. I am starting to lose my temper with M.Bitton given his seemingly aggressive nature, his goal possibly to even get me blocked. But cool, if they would rather go the personal attack route, we can also do that too, although nothing coming from my behalf. Al.Massira (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no excuse for overwriting all these stable maps and if this user isn't an actual sockpuppet, he's clearly doing the same inappropriate behaviors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf, Sure thing, and the link there is not "malformed" it's perfectly fine. I'm just saying in that WP article about yourself, respectfully, under "Activism" it states In 2005, at the United Nations Sixtieth General Assembly, Knapp advocated for the Sahrawi people and spoke about the situation in Western Sahara. He has also been involved in community organizing for a Restore the Fourth rally in 2013, which now clarifies and helps us give a perfect understanding as to why you agree with M.Bitton regarding some changes I may have made to Moroccan maps (I'm sure they were aware of that). If you are going to "advocate for the Sahrawi people" and speak about the "situation in Western Sahara", we have a pretty good idea of how you would want Western Sahara to appear on maps and now everything has become clear as crystal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Massira (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Al.Massira edit warring continues unabated and given the above personal attack, I am now convinced that they are a sock of Taha Khattabi (a.k.a. EdDakhla and many more, and whose latest known IP 71.232.135.186 is already blocked for 3 months on en.wp). M.Bitton (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll be damned if what I said here qualifies as any sort of personal attack. But even in the slimmest chance that what said there were personal attacks aimed towards Koavf, then apologies as it certainly wasn't meant in that way. I simply came across their stance (found available on the WP article about them) and made the very clear connection here as to why they agree with Bitton and to show their opinion of what Sahara maps should look like. Bear in mind, no name-calling or accusations (which would have been undoubtable personal attacks) took place by me, however I do recall Bitton of describing me as a "sock" and accusing me of initiating personal attacks toward Koavf. Al.Massira (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Al.Massira: as per COM:OVERWRITE the major and controversial changes are not allowed, and seeing the discussion above, this is clearly the case. I reverted File:Algeria RASD Locator.PNG and I'm going to check the other maps you edited. Stop to revert and to overwrite with your own versions those maps, specially if they are in use in many other projects, i.e. if they are used like this it's not for nothing and they have an educational value for the other project like that. If they are within our project scope your versions need to be uploded in separate files. I repeat stop to revert or to change the meaning of those maps. Christian Ferrer(talk)06:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
And also @Al.Massira: stop attacking other users in a conflicting manner, such as [8] or [9]. The goal of M.Bitton is not to "get you blocked", your behavior alone would tend to cause you to be blocked if you persist. Christian Ferrer(talk)07:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Bitton got what they wanted, the files they wanted have been reverted back to the version they want. Their intent is beyond just getting those files reverted and is showing their clear intent which is to get me blocked, @Christian Ferrer: . And still carries on with the "personal attack" accusation without showing evidence I personally attacked anyone. This could maybe start to qualify as harassment at this point. Al.Massira (talk) 19:16, 11 March 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.
For several weeks this user is playing with categories naming, making numerous arbitrary redirects, ignoring the standardization and leaving the media in redirected cats. I asked him to stop three times (first, second, third), he said that it won't happen again, but then continues with the same practice again, again and again. He is doing the same disruptive redirects on other projects like English Wikipedia, so he get warned. Fixing his redirects on Wikipedia is easy, someone simple redirect it back, but here on Commons it is not. Numerous page histories have been destroyed because of his playing. Furthermore, it should be noted that User:POS78 has been blocked on Persian Wikipedia as sockpuppet of User:M.k.m2003, also blocked here on Commons. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I do not intend to sabotage And that I want to use a more accurate name, I'm ashamed if I made a mistake But I promise it will not be repeated and I will not moves an article without its correct name And that I was blocked about a year ago with M.k.m2003's username But I had forgotten, Can I apologize and be allowed to work on Wikimedia Commons? I am very eager to upload pictures of historical places and I was successful Without any violation, Please see my files[10] You do not see any violations, Please give me a chance to prove myself, thanks POS78 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@POS78: لطفاً استفاده از این اکانت (POS78) را همین حالا متوقف کنید و دیگر با این اکانت ویرایش نکنید. به info-commonswikimedia.org ایمیل بزنید و بخواهید دسترسی به صفحهٔ بحثتان (M.k.m2003) را باز کنند. بعد درخواست آنبلاک بدهید. شخصاً نظر مساعدی نسبت به باز شدنتان دارم ولی اگر بیکفایتی نشان دهید و مثلاً در کار کردن با ردهها دقت نکنید، دوباره برایتان دردسر درست خواهد شد. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: Fawiki has its own problems. Let's not import issues from there. I have positive opinions about POS78. They are indeed trying very hard to learn making positive contributions. I can mentor them for a while if need be. Regarding "playing with categories", I have a different opinion. Ribat seems to be different from caravanserai. Although they are used interchangeably, ribat seems to be mainly for horses and the like, whereas caravanserai seems to be more generic.[11] I indeed don't know the difference myself (even after skimming [12]) but many of them are called ribat in Persian, for example see Ribat Mehr on Iranshahrpedia and its registration file. My point is further discussion may be needed. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: About fa.wiki, OK. I don't say everything what POS78 did is wrong. Personally I was "mentoring" him, giving him advices about categorization, even when he was asked about references on en.wiki, I sent him some tips. All I asked is that he don't make arbitrary redirects because of three reasons:
(1) in most cases, it was wrong or misleading. I spent a lot of time searching for proper names, namesakes of specific buildings (I even leave notices in edit summaries about it), and then POS78 come and redirect it. Without any notices, discussions or sources.
(2) He insists on "Castle of X" naming, instead of "X Castle". I told him that there are thousands of buildings, even counties and provinces, with such standardized naming, but he don't care.
(3) He never move files after redirects. That's why I called his redirects as playing.
Generally, "ribat" is very rarely used in English terminology, and registration data isn't always authoritative for naming. A fine example would be the "Seleucid Temple of Khvorheh" recently opened by POS78, here on Commons named as Parthian mansion at Khorheh. One Iranian editor already asked me why I reverted his temple category and asked me for sources, and he got it. POS78 can also ping me and ask anything, I'll respond to him, it's far better than making arbitrary redirect to "a more accurate name" which is in fact terribly outdated. When POS78 also recently opened Temple of Mehr and Temple of Mehri, I noticed him it's the same site and he should redirect one. There's no problem if someone makes such mistakes, last summer I added this categories for the same site, based on data from fa.wiki and news media, and two days ago I opened scholarly articles and realized all was wrong. You see, fails happen to all of us.
My general tip to POS78, you and other Iranian editors would be: if you see some category which I edited and something seems "wrong", first check the page history (for notices) and Wikidata (for sources). In most cases you'll find them. For example, take a look at this old dams in Razavi Khorasan, they all have tens of high-quality references inside. It took hours to find them, compare data, insert and so on. Overal result is (IMHO) beautiful: visual presentation with numerous reliable data in infobox, automatically translated to any selected language. It makes Wikipedia in general as "failed" project. :) Hundreds of other buildings have the same, so it can be highly frustrating when someone comes for several seconds and is making superficial edits. And finally, if you don't find any notices or sources, you can always leave message on talk page or contact me directly. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all your excellent contributions. My understanding is that he cannot speak English well and uses Google Translate. I will talk to him in his native language and hope that he will listen. I will mentor him in Persian. That's my point. I specifiaclly tell him think twice before changing your edits, because you indeed work perfectly :)
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.
Done. I blocked the IP for a week. The named user hasn't edited since July, so at current state block is not practical. Thank you for reverting spam! Taivo (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Cvrgy isn't bothered by copyright and existing files
Cvrgy (talk·contribs·logs·block log) keeps uploading files that are either copyright violation or are functional duplicates of existing files, all as Cross-wiki uploads from the Czech Wikipedia, where I explained to them why it isn't necessary 3 weeks ago and then asked and urged him to stop; no reaction, continuing their m.o. A few days ago they downloaded and re-uploaded the same file twice, once in the evening and the next morning for some reason. Some speedy deleted logos have been recreated multiple times, in some cases only hours after being deleted. They also never responded to any notices on Commons so it's hard to tell whether they are even aware of their talk pages.--TFerenczy (talk) 12:38, 15 March 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.
Question to all Commons admins: I have received a startling message fromUser:Davey2010 on my usertalkpage. I am not sure what to make of it, but it is obvious that the user believes my (very limited) work on Commons is counter-productive. I just want to ask admins here if they share this user's assessment.
Background info about me:I have been a low-visibility good-faith contributor to Wikimedia projects since 2007. I have never before posted to any AN to complain about another contributor, and have never visited AN on commons before posting this message. This is partly because I don't want to get another user into trouble, and also because I want to avoid a w:Wikipedia:Boomerang.
Since I do not wish to participate on sites where AGF is not assumed, I would appreciate it if I you tell me ahead of time whether my contributions are not welcome here. Thanks in advance,
Ottawahitech (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You have been blocked on EN, Simple AND Meta for competence issues and for pestering people with your pointless comments and talkpage antics, You now come here and do the exact same stuff you were blocked for on those projects. This report is another point that you simply don't get it.
If anything I support indeffing Ottawahitech as per CIR.
[I'm sorry if my message to Ottawahitech seemed harsh however I got fed up with them doing this crap at EN and Simple and now I'm having to relive it all again here!. Ottawahitech has so far spent more time on peoples talkpages making childish posts than contributing here in any meaningful manner and this was the exact same problem at EN, Simple and Meta.] –Davey2010Talk22:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
73% of my edits at enwiki were to main-space+cats and only 3% to usertalk. The remainder was spent on public discussion such as AFDs CFDs etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 22:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2020 infin reason: Not here to contribute constructively)
2021expiration time of 00:00, 6 March 2021 reason: (Failure to address concerns about their comments on SE, disruptive comments on SE. Blocked until SE ends. (ElectCom member action))
Andy's a very much respected editor here and as such I always take on board their comments - I've struck my original comment to you which can now be considered moot (IE you're free to post whereever you like). I still very much disagree entirely with you being here but it is what it is. COM:One strike exists for a reason. Prove me wrong is all I'm saying. Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk16:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nat, Yeah just realised I was thinking of Simple but I guess BP would be correct. Not gonna lie I've sort of confused myself but hey what's new! . Thanks, –Davey2010Talk00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Whilst Davey might see these as annoying and pointless, they're not repeated and so any real culpable annoyance is negligible. I can't see an issue here.
It's also long practice here that editors are a "clean slate", whatever their history at other projects. This might be seen as unwise, but it's how it is and it's not going to change for one editor here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would second the references to ONESTRIKE though. I can't see any reason to block you for your actions so far. But repeating this pattern would be a different story. It would be wise to learn from this, and the obvious reactions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Ottawahitech/Am_I_in_danger_of_being_blocked_here?. Apparently they had written this after this posting, among others, alleging " D2 and Vermont(VT) and/or (CM)?". I will want them to substantiate this. They had a pattern of making patternly false allegations which lead to their meta block as they claimed in AmandaNP steward election about users outing and refuses to retract which lead to a block as mentioned above. I clearly have no relationship with User:Davey2010 other than editorial ones in simple, such allegations is concerning. And as far as I know, neither Vermont and I had communicated the issues with Davey2010 in this. I think they should answer this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
As to pattern Davey noticed above, I shall point out that it is also evidenced in enwikiquote where he repeatedly advocated for a locked users, entertaining uncivil comments by locked users, and was told by local sysops in multipleplaces this isn't correct. I know whatsoever happened on simple, en, meta, enwikiquote had nothing to do with here, I just wish to hope that this don't happen here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, when multiple users have problems with your conduct, the proper response is to try to see why, not accuse them all of colluding. And yes, it would appear you are in danger of being blocked here, if you continue editing in the same manner that got you blocked on three other projects. Regards, Vermont (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here however I've now seen Camouflaged Mirage's post/pings.
I wonder if there is any connection between D2 and Vermont(VT) and/or Camo/cohaf(CM) - Accusing editors of being one person is a very serious allegation and as such evidence needs to be provided or that statement needs to be struck.
I appreciate had I not originally posted on Otta's talkpage he wouldn't be here now however had someone else posted on his talkpage with a disagreement they could've still posted a very similar page above. –Davey2010Talk13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
One could argue he had a right to create the page moments after the original message was left but I find it disturbing this was created 34 minutes after I struck the warning and 34 minutes after the matter was resolved. Just seems retaliatory IMHO.
I do not wish to participate on sites where AGF is not assumed, I would appreciate it if Commons Admins tell me ahead of time whether my contributions are not welcome here.
So far not one single Commons Admin commented on this thread. Not only that, no one has posted a coherent case against my behavior on Commons. All we have seen so far is innuendo of my alleged misconduct on other wiki-sites. So what am I to do when I am being told by respected users such as yourself, that
as per the w:law of holes, you're very close to [being blocked on Commons] now
?
Let me ask you a question if I may? Can we put the shoe on the other foot? What would you do if you arrived at Commons one day and found a message on your user-talk-page that said what Davey2010 said to me? How would you react? I am asking because as a content contributor who has been treated as an underdog for many years all around wikimedia sites, I have forgotten how normal people react when they get such an abusively worded msg from someone they hardly know and who contributes to very different areas of interest on wikimedia. I am asking this because I have stayed in my hole for many years and have watched countless others dig themselves out the hole simply by being abusive to others. Is this really how it is supposed to be?
The last time I felt relatively normal on enwiki was in January 2012, after quietly contributing about 3,000 edits during my first 5 years. After receiving a cup of coffee from VQuakr (am I supposed to ping them or not?) on January 22 2012, and a thanks note on January 24 from a very quiet contributor for the barnstar I gave them, all hell broke loose on my UTP (user-talk-page) when out of left field I received a msg from Toddst1, whom I had never met before, who left a welcome template on my UTP and in the same breath said:
However, I noticed that your username (Ottawahitech) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy
This unexpected visit from Todd started a firestorm of messges that lasted a couple of days, which seemed like eternity to me at the time. During that interval I was blocked by Toddst1 and then rapidly unblocked by Floquenbeam. But this incident marked me for the rest of my wiki-life and continues today... More if you are interested? Ottawahitech (talk)
As a non-admin, you have made it clear here that you regard any opinion I might have as irrelevant. Accordingly I will ignore this thread and merely watch how your career here develops and blossoms. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Responding to the initial post at the top of this thread: No, you are not in danger of being blocked. Davey's warning was over the top for the messages it responds to, making me think it's importing conflict from other projects more than any particular policy violations here. You can say "please do not post to my talk page anymore". What's not a good idea is to open a preemptive administrators' noticeboard thread about it when you have so few edits to Commons. Nobody likes unnecessary drama before someone has enough edits to show that they are "here" for the right reasons. All of this is to say: no, let's close this thread. — Rhododendritestalk | 21:32, 18 March 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.
I'm going to be bold and close this discussion, as there is nothing constructive to be accomplished here. ANU is the page of last resort, and I have seen no evidence that this issue was brought up by the initiator of this discussion with the subjects of it. I strongly suggest that all parties of this discussion read Commons:Dispute resolution and highlight the first point of the first section: Talk to the user directly. Use talk pages, be civil, polite and assume good faith if possible. It is not policy, but sound advice on how to approach any dispute or disagreements. Whether there is history between the parties should not dissuade or a hinderance to attempt to communicate and to resolve the issue(s) in question. If and only if it escalates should it be brought to ANU. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat.Redd mìt mìr.🥨03:48, 21 March 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 can see a problem with this claim: Category:2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey is obviously relevant, but Category:WeMissTurkey is narrower and is not evidently relevant (at least, not that I can see). So even if including both categories would be against OVERCAT, it belongs in the broader one, not the narrower one. I see no reason to revert this change, nor to describe it as a "categorization mistake". The threat "If you continue to revert me I will report you for sanctions." is also clearly hostile (and unjustified). Particularly so as it was directed to an inexperienced editor and E4024 made no attempt outside threatening edit summaries to discuss this: user talk history.
Today E4024 switched to a new tack and canvassed an admin for assistance: User talk:A.Savin#Admin help requested. This led to an immediate 3RR edit-war by A.Savin, followed by them blocking Ageuser for a week (first offence). Again, there was no attempt to discuss the issue at hand (Ageuser's categorization change is broadly correct, certainly defensible), merely a handwave at OVERCAT and warning not to edit-war, see User talk:Ageuser.
This is bad editing all round, but on one hand I see it coming from an inexperienced editor (E4024 describes them as such, so clearly recognises this), vs. an experienced editor and an admin. Although that experienced editor has their own problematic history here and is also long-banned from other projects for politically-motivated socking around Turkish topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/E4024/Archive My own experience of them here has been very poor. A. Savin is also a long-established admin on Commons, also with a poor reputation. Just recently I called (once again) for their desysopping.
We have here a campaign of bullying, CANVASSING, if not MEATPUPPETing and an INVOLVED block. All against a GF editor (check their other edits) who's making a clear attempt at a minor categorization change that I would support myself (there is some overcategorization, but the appropriate fix is to leave the broader cat they're adding and remove the to-narrow one). As usual, there is also a wilful refusal to engage in any meaningful dialogue, but rather an attempt to rush straight to a week-long block. This just isn't good enough editing, on either hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
You operated a tag team to provoke an inexperienced editor into breaching 3RR so that you could block them. That's really pretty low. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I did't operate anything. A user asked to help, I helped. If someone continues disruptive reverts despite warnings and doesn't answer on any discussion, a block is of course well in place, the only question is for how long. --A.Savin03:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Ageuser is a sock of globally blockedObsuser who has been blocked for edit warring alone six times (!!!) on en.wiki and at least seven times (!!!) on sr.wiki (among many other blocks for various other reasons on those and other projects.) The entire premise of this report, that a poor good faith new user is being ganged up upon and bullied, is utter nonsense; all of this was readily known and visible to all when this report was filed. This just isn't good enough editing, indeed. Эlcobbolatalk12:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Can someone please speedily close this? I may of course not expect Andy Dingley to withdraw the thread himself and to apologize for personal attacks coming out of the blue ("A. Savin [has] a poor reputation" etc.) --A.Savin12:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Ageuser wasn't linked to Obsuser here until 12:00 when you blocked them centrally. By "visible to all" you must mean anyone who checked the text posts from the Balkan wikis (I don't read Croatian). There was nothing on en or tr, the only wikis I did think to check at the time. So neither A.Savin nor I knew they were a sock, or I'm sure we'd both have reacted differently. I wouldn't think to look at CentralAuth unless they'd already have been globally locked (I can't think why they hadn't already been so, if this was so "obvious" to everyone).
So if they're a sock, then it's fine they're indeffed as such. But for treatment of an editor who wasn't know to be a sock at the time, I still see this as falling short. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
By visible to all I mean visible to all:
22:11, 12 July 2020 - Ageuser blockedexplicitly as a sock of Obsuser on sr.wiki;
11:52, 2 February 2021 - Ageuser blocked explicitly as a sock of Obsuser on hr.wiki;
08:19, 9 March 2021 - Obsuser globally blocked (i.e., all edit warring warnings and blocks before this date);
The Special:CentralAuth (for Ageuser) link is at the bottom of every single user contribution page on the Commons. From the links in the report above, you are demonstrably perfectly willing and able to investigate history when it suits you. Эlcobbolatalk16:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Re-opening this, as Эlcobbola is continuing the thread anyway. Also see the related thread beneath, where editors involved in that thread will need to refer to this one and thus it would be pointless to archive it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 20 March 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.
Not done Incivility and attacks have not continued after warning.
@-akko: please refrain from restoring deleted threads to other users' talk page. Their block log on the English Wikipedia is of no use, as Commons is an independent project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Does Commons have any stated standards on language? On en:WP it's clear that "choice of words" is not treated as incivility. Now many might disagree with that (I would), but the fact is that it's established there that some users can use whatever language they like, and as a result the same words are available to everyone and are just not actionable of themselves.
I'm going to be bold and close this discussion, as there is nothing constructive to be accomplished here. ANU is the page of last resort. I strongly suggest that all parties of this discussion read Commons:Dispute resolution and highlight the first point of the first section: Talk to the user directly. Use talk pages, be civil, polite and assume good faith if possible. It is not policy, but sound advice on how to approach any dispute or disagreements. Whether there is history between the parties should not dissuade or a hinderance to attempt to communicate and to resolve the issue(s) in question. If and only if it escalates should it be brought to ANU. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat.Redd mìt mìr.🥨03:49, 21 March 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.
It was closed by an uninvolved editor, Davey2010, as this "looks purely retaliatory" [15]
A. Savin then re-opened it anyway [16]. Note that they did not comment on the closure, re-file a DR, or even strike-through the closure, but instead they reverted the closure, as if it had never happened. A. Savin then proceeded to apply pressure on that editor at their user_talk:.
Well, if the four images are copyright violations, they will have to be deleted, no matter who filed the request. There is no rule on that, everyone is allowed and encouraged to RfD copyvios. I'm sorry that you don't like it. --A.Savin13:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This isn't about the files (they are what they are), it's about the manner in which straight after an AN:UP thread, you searched through the involved editor's contributions looking for anything where you could get them deleted. These are four years old, not recent (I rarely upload here, because I'm sick of this sort of trick). Yet today is the important day to DR them? They are not a category about a particular subject or copyright complexity, they're chosen specifically from one of my user categories. They overlap with an obvious content category containing many similar images, but you didn't DR any of those as they were from other uploaders. The filing then cites COM:TOYS (they aren't toys) and describes them as "puppets" (they aren't puppets either).
There is no rule on when exactly to nominate for deletion a suspected copyvio (in fact, as soon as it's found -- that might be two hours after upload, as well as three years or ten years), and the rest is nothing but unproven speculation. By the way, feel free to nominate similar pictures for deletion, if you think they are suspicious too. --A.Savin14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
From this side of the pond the DR looks purely retaliatory however A.Savins intentions may of been good we'll never know.
Unfortunately there's no good outcome because:
A) If the DR is closed, 2 of the files (which I believe fail DW) would have to be re-nominated which would displease A.Savin and Andy
B) If the DR is left open that too displeases Andy for obvious reasons
Obviously this isn't about displeasing people but what I'm saying is there's no good outcome here for either party,
Unfortunately nothing good will come of this thread either - Commons is a broken process and we've known that for years. Nobody's going to be warned, blocked nor desysopped because that's the way Commons is and has always been.
The best solution for all I think is to close this thread, allow the DR to go ahead and once it's closed just steer clear of each other (so no nominating each others files). Like I said above A.Savins intentions may of been good even if it doesn't look it. Sorry I couldn't give a more positive outcome here. –Davey2010Talk14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I see two current ANU complaints against me opened without seeking discussion with me first, and with personal attacks. --A.Savin14:57, 20 March 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.
Mykola7
I am closing this discussion as there is nothing to be accomplished here. As Rubin16 already stated, “Commons isn't a place to solve the disputes of other wiki-projects”. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat.Redd mìt mìr.🥨15:50, 21 March 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.
The point is that the Ukrainian letter Ґґ was repressed(sic!) in Stalin time. So you really might be murdered by communists for a letter. Nowaday Ukrainian language standart allows it in some certain words and foreign names but in general the status of the letter is still uncertain. Some people say like in Stalin time that everyone who writes this letter is "fascist". You can also see that the letter Ґґ is used in the official and an unofficial Ukrainian transliteration of Chinese, it means that even official restrictions are not so strict as some people want us to think. The letter in fact is not disallowed. We also have WP:NOBUREAUCRACY rule as I can remember.
I don't think this issue is connected with Commons. The user is hardly active here. The issues of uk.wiki should be discussed there. rubin16 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done Commons isn't a place to solve the disputes of other wiki-projects. I have also amended the name of the topic as it could be seen abusive. rubin16 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: Thank you. Sorry for disturbing you. Do you really think that I should discuss a wiki administrator with administrators of that wiki? "Sorry User:Mykola7, but you have vandalised smth, whould you not mind to revert your edition and ban yourself?" -- is it how you imagine it? Expelhares (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: I have also amended the name of the topic as it could be seen abusive. Yes: to call a vandal "vandal" is also very abusive for vandals. We should not call them so abusively! Expelhares (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you. So maybe you could talk to User:Mykola7? You see, it is not so easy when they have political motivation. We have WP:NOPOLITICS rule too, as I can remember. Just for case: I have mentioned the diff at the very beginnig of the section. Thank you for understanding. Expelhares (talk) 15:55, 21 March 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.
Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on public roads, carried out by natural persons, to the exclusion of any commercial use.
Please may I kindly request your help?
What can we do to protect the pictures and restore them?
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Ariane Paris La Défense.jpg gives a clear reason as to why deletion is unavoidable. You (or anyone else) didn't question that at the time, the DR wasn't rushed. Do you have a justification as to why the claimed reason shouldn't be applied? This is perhaps annoying to you, I can understand that, but French law is strong on the protection of author's rights and is out of our hands here.
As to claims of Poudou99 hounding you in any way, then that could be a separate matter, but what evidence do you have for it? Just filing these, because French FoP limitations are against them, isn't enough. But I don't think this is directed at you personally. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
A problem with that is that "non-commercial only" isn't accepted at Commons. Commons is established to become a repository of free content, i.e. which doesn't have that restriction. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I request the deletion of all photographs of many skyscrapers located in "La Défense" district (near Paris/France), not only your photographs. These skyscrapers are very recent and were built by very famous architects in France.
The rule is very clear in France: "No freedom of panorama" for all architectural works whose architecs are not died for more than 70 years.
I worked in the district of La Défense for 30 years (in several of these skyscrapers). I am familiar with architectural rules and copyright.
Another thing: I have been registered in Commons since 2007 (14 years) and I have uploaded several tens of thousands of photographs, and I have never had a complaint here against me. Do you think I'm a vandal?
@YtoSu: Quoting Elcobbola at COM:UDR: “Deletion requests are not votes. If no additional comments have been made (and indeed one notes no !votes supporting retention either), the closing admin evaluates the merits of the nomination rationale. Here France indeed does not have sufficiently free FoP provisions. We require use by anyone (i.e., "the reproduction by individuals (not organizations)" is disqualifying) and commercial usage (i.e., "only for non-commercial utilizations" and "to the exclusion of any commercial use" are disqualifying.)”
Initiating a deletion request is not vandalism -- English Wikipedia has a good definition that applies across all projects: “editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose.”
Done. The file is deleted. Rose did not upload anything after Jeff warned her. I nominated one of her uploads for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This users uploads photos and images, generally from Iran, claiming them as his own. However, most of his production has been deleted for copyvio or other reason according to his Discussion page. He never answer messages left to him. Could an administrator try to make him understand the free licensing of Commons? Maybe block him if the behavior persist.
Not done@StuffedDance: Once again you did not inform Des Vallee of a discussion on ANU that is about them as required by the instructions at the top of this page. There is no evidence of a violation of COM:OVERWRITE the file itself is still protected. Changing the file on English Wikipedia is not overwriting a file -- And not a concern for Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat.Redd mìt mìr.🥨02:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
All of the images uploaded by Audioboss are derivative works with very unclear sources and/or copyright violations. They are using photo filters to disguise sourcing. I would suggest that they are unsuitable for use in Wikipedia projects, but that is beside the point. File:David Roback.jpg, for instance, is a composite of David Roback's head from this photo and some other guy's body. (I don't know why they decided to alter Roback's hairline.) The uploader's claim "Source: own personal photo taken circa 1991, San Francisco" is a flat out lie. Can this uploader be blocked and their Flickr account blacklisted? It looks like a batch of these got deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Audioboss in May 2020, but the rest of these need to go. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I am an artist and most of my uploads are derived from my photographs. I interviewed David Roback for San Jose State Spartan when I was a student in the 1990s. The reason that you cannot see any metafile is that because the final uploads are from scanned works of my mixed media illustration. I am a professional artist with many international exhibitions.
Please enumerate concrete evidence of inappropriate copyright violation (e.g. forensic image analysis). If you are trying to dispute one work, please concentrate on that particular work and not the whole body of the user's contribution. Furthermore, please do not use personal attacks and threats of blocking or blacklisting without further arbitration or discussion. I appreciate your inputs.
Audioboss I'm not sure how much more specific I can get. I gave a link to the image which was used for David Roback's head in your digital collage. Since you claim to have a scan of your original image of David Roback, it will be easy to prove me wrong. Just upload that scan without the filters or "mixed media illustration". Mo Billings (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wow, you made a fake clipping! Most people would have just quit when I identified the actual source material for your collage. Can I be honest with you? I'm impressed. Not by your image editing skills, which are really quite poor, but at your tenacity when your ruse has been discovered. Mo Billings (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinions. I do not appreciate your time hounding and harassing me. However, I am respectful that there are people like you who really put a lot of time and energy to make Wiki a great network of information- that is your life's work. I do not make money or gain anything from my contributions, only the fun of building academic bridges with my representations and editing. I have presented my source. You do not have any evidence against my work forensically, except for the tineye app image that you tied it with. I will leave it to the administrators to make decision on your appeal. I can move on if I needed so. This will be my last correspondence for this talk. Have a great life.--Audioboss (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, if you're done, we may as well finish this up.
Most of the Audioboss's uploads are digital collages incorporating copyrighted images with filters applied to disguise their origins. Their recent uploads of dancers are unlikely to be their own work since the EXIF data has been faked. I suggest that deleting all oftheir uploads is the only safe thing to do. Mo Billings (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nat: No, that's alright. I've given you sources for four of the images to prove that they are copyright violations. I've told you that the dance images all have faked EXIF data. If that's not enough for you to see that there's a problem, there's probably no point in me starting individual deletion discussions. I'm still waiting for Taivo to delete a bunch of admitted copyright violations that I identified in February after they declined to block another user with a history of lying about their sources. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with this, I'll try to keep any further copyright issues to myself. Mo Billings (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Audiobass has now nominated two of their own uploads for speedy deletion.File:"Killer " Tim Brooks.jpg, discussed above, was described as "American wrestler Tribute Fan Art- digital sketch". File:Mark Rocco.jpg is also a copyright violation of multiple sources. It was described as "Illustration and digital render art. Tribute Fan Art- digital sketch Source: own personal photo taken circa 1977". Just for future reference, should anyone need it. Mo Billings (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Nat, I like process as much as the next guy, but I don't see the point of dealing with individual files when the problem is everything single thing ever uploaded by this user. Which is why I started the discussion here on the noticeboard for user problems. I will try not to make that error again. Mo Billings (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Continued reporting of an individual to administrative noticeboards without notifying them of such after the requirement was pointed out.
Brief reason: Has uploaded OpenSeaMap screenshot without proper license since 2013, while there were a deletion request and reminder about that.
Detail:
OpenSeaMap is based on OpenStreetMap data which is licensed under ODbL. ODbL requires Attribution and the user (and uploader) must make clear to others the license of the database. Thus Commons uploader must insert {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} in the file information page or user other methods, so that meet the Attribution requirement. Otherwise that will become copyright violation.
IMO Using incorrect license is a common mistake, normally fixing the license and reminding is enough. However they are not the first time doing this and the reminder cannot work. Hence I request an admin's intervention to prevent this behavior has happened again. Thank you.
Would an admin mind reviewing the files uploaded by Y.S.Naikwadi. There's 15 at the moment and from the descriptions, all of them have been pulled from external sites, mostly Instagram, Facebook and Pintrest, but some news sites as well. I left a fairly pointed warning, but all of the files need to be deleted. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to request assistance with a dispute with the user Oraaw, who has been continuously vandalizing File:Coat of arms of The Gambia.svg. The file, created by User:Fenn-O-maniC, is based on an official government source. The user Oraaw has continued to revert and vandalize the file on grounds that their version is more accurate (with no sources to back this up other than their claim to be a Gambian). When their edits were reverted for being inaccurate and unsourced, they left rude messages on my talk page as well as that of User:Dughorm. I would greatly appreciate if an administrator could help resolve this issue. Many thanks. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I have had positive interaction with Tyler in the past, but this appears to be a clear example of obstinance without discussion, despite repeated attempts.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether an administrator would mind taking a look at S Tallim's uploads and perhaps try and explain COM:L and COM:OTRS. I've tried to help this editor both on Commons and on English Wikipedia with their uploads, but I haven't been very successful. They've also been warned about this by Jeff G. I think this editor means well, but they continue to upload files with questionable licensing or permission, and continue to make edits like this, which kind of show that they're not quite understanding something about COM:L. I'm not asking for a block or even an Template:End of copyvios; just to see whether an administrator might want to try and explain things before taking such steps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I will try to answer questions raised about various uploaded files. I readily admit I am not very conversant with copyright laws. I believe that a photographer hired by any institute is an agent and cannot hold a copyright of picture taken. I also believe that an institute that holds a public event (e.g. medal presentation) and has a picture taken has the event in public domain. All material (photos and documents) were furnished by Bhupinder Singh Mahal at my request.
Now here is my response to the various files that were uploaded:
1. File: Bhupinder Singh Mahal.jpg – This photo was taken by Bhupinder Mahal’s spouse, Suneeta Mahal during one of their travels.
2. File: Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal award 2003.jpeg – This picture was taken by Bhupinder Mahal’s spouse, Suneeta Mahal at the award ceremony.
3. File tagging: Hamilton CCAC Board.jpg – This is a group photo of Directors of Hamilton CCAC Board published in the local paper that became insolvent around 2012 and is no longer in publication.
4. File tagging: Multicultural Committee 1.jpg – This was a group photo of the 37 members appointed to the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee (CMAC) taken at the behest of the Chairperson Dr. Karen Mock and was published in CMAC’s bulletin published for general release to the public. The committee had an 8-year mandate and was dissolved at the expiry of its mandate. CMAC no longer exists.
5. File Tagging: College of Physiotherapists of Ontario Council Award 2002.jpg – This picture was taken at the Annual General meeting of the College that was open to general public. The picture was published in the College’s annual report that was generally released to the public. Mr. Mahal could ask the College for permission to publish it if you so desire.
6. File: Chairperson Board of Referees.jpg – This is a Governor-General’s appointment letter given to Bhupinder Singh Mahal, as is indicated in the document. It is like a diploma that, for example, an MD hangs in his office.
7. File tagging: Medal recipients.jpg – This was a picture taken at a public event held by the authorities awarding medals to selected members of the community for services rendered to the community. It was published in the local community paper in Brampton that is no longer in print as of 2009.
Please guide me as to what needs to be done. I am sorry if I have wronged Wikipedia in any way or form. I am simply ignorant of legal implications of publishing photos. I am 88 and frail. I thank you for your indulgence.
S Tallim 70.51.132.16815:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I usually don't count the normal warnings, IF there are only a few. I go by real warnings, like {{End of copyvios}}. IMHO that guy didn't do enough to justify a block. I trust my gut, this guy isn't a bad apple. Anyway, feel free to override. No problem. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Refuses to follow all the instructions in {{Delete}} or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually after warning, for example removing contents and just tagging with {{Delete}} in this edit, while neglecting to create the subpage, transclude it, or notify about it, making extra work for other volunteers.
@Discostu: All of these actions appear to be in support of the self-promotion of MrsChandravansh and Digimanako. I added them above, warned all three for you, and notified all three for you (the latter as you were required to do above). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me02:09, 8 April 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.
Mo Billings has an issue with civility and now has resorted to uploading images to be disruptive to commons processes. Zppix (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Zppix I'm not sure when you think I have been uncivil. We've only had two interactions that I can recall, both very recent. The first here where you joined a discussion I was having with AntiCompositeNumber, and the second on my talk page which, I assume, came about as a result of you looking through my uploads after the first discussion. Which is perfectly fine. If you feel that I have been uncivil to you, please post a diff.
As far as File:President Donald J Trump looking at Japanese cartoon pornography.png, I uploaded that because you said you could not answer a hypothetical question. I took you at your word because I know that some people have genuine difficulty with hypothetical questions. I don't see how that's "disruptive to Commons processes" in any way. No process has been interrupted, delayed, changed, or in any way disrupted by the upload of this file. In fact, you are using Commons processes to start a deletion discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Mo should be warned that further pointless uploads to prove a point to another editor could result in a very long block. This project does not exist for the sole purpose of uploading content to make a POINT. You either upload normal images of normal things.... or you don't. –Davey2010Talk22:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it pointy or is it pointless? I wish you people would make up your minds. Davey2010, "normal pictures of normal things" probably leaves out a lot of images that would be very useful for educational purposes. I think the project would suffer greatly if everyone were as close-minded as you seem to be. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Well it's quite obviously isn't it?, sure I've seen some weird images here in my time however the majority of those are no longer here.....,
That's rubbish! - it's not about being close-minded - It's about looking at the bigger picture and asking yourself "could or would this file be used outside of Commons?" and IMHO the answer would be no. Those looking for 4chan content aren't going to come here and I don't really see why we would need to provide it. But as stated above the file was only created because someone couldn't answer a hypothetical question which personally I don't believe is a valid reason to upload files here. –Davey2010Talk11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes - Both images I would consider to be of 4Chan material. Anyway this discussion wont lead anywhere - IMHO pictures such as yours should be avoided ... that's it. Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter referenced this 2011 WMF board resolution in the deletion discussion. I had never seen it before so I found it quite interesting reading. I know Jimbo Wales is a board member so I asked him about it on his talk page. Why is that discussion being brought up here, on "user problems"? How is it a problem in any sense? Mo Billings (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Kwhizzzz has been changing Category:Eddie Van Halen, who died in 2020, to say that Van Halen is alive. I have been reverting this vandalism, but reported the user today because they weren't going away and I was tired of seeing messages when I was reverted. AntiCompositeNumber has now protected the category with the vandalism uncorrected. Not only did they warn me about edit warring, they pointed the vandal to this discussion! Can someone please explain to me what exactly is going on here? I've only ever tried to be helpful here and suddenly I find that rather than dealing with serious copyright problems I have pointed out (this one), I seem to have become a target. Mo Billings (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A proposal that I do not support whch was opened by someone else. How is that discussion a "problem" and what does it have to do with me? Mo Billings (talk) 17:10, 8 April 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.
You should also note your poor behavior of not understanding simple message as left on your talkpage. And also I am not sure why you did not mention the several reverts that "you" did. These logos were uploaded several years ago when I was just fumbling around Commons. I have no business nor any interest in them now and don't care anymore. My talkpage also is my personal space, it's not image page or project policy page, I have the right to clear it. It's strange you don't know this. Please since the discussions around these items have been already concluded, do not edit my talkpage again in that respect. Please do not. I don't instruct you on how to use your talkpage.– Ammarpad (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
When users remove warnings or other messages from their talk page, it is assumed that they have read them and policy allow them to remove messages from their talk page. There is nothing we can do here. Let's get back to work. Regards. T CellsTalk07:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Systematic failure to accept COM:NPOV and COM:UPLOADWAR on File:Time zones of Europe.svg. The story: the file had a long consensus on displaying de facto time, regardless of recognition (as exemplified by the Northern Cyprus, which was displayed in de facto time in 2016-2018, despite lack of any recognition except for Turkish (patron state) one - note that nobody contested that change, despite almost identical situation to Crimea, except lack of outright annexation of the area by Turkey), yet the user insists that Crimea time should be displayed solely as claimed by Ukraine (or, at most, as disputed), not as de facto applied. Similar edits (uploads), painting Crimea as either disputed or Ukrainian, were attempted before by another user, but had no consensus for them (File_talk:Time_zones_of_Europe.svg#Crimea_time, File_talk:Time_zones_of_Europe.svg#Donbass - esp. note for Rob984's reply of 11:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC): "I created a second file which can be used in place of this one. You cannot modify a file on Commons without support of the various contributors. The weight of your argument is irrelevant here, because files do not need to be factually accurate. If you want your change to the file to be reflected on Wikipedia you will need to gain consensus on Wikiepdia. I sympathise with your argument but you are now being disruptive"). Yet, despite all this, these non-consensus uploads continue. I tried to explain the policy and consensus at file talk, yet it was futile, so reporting here. --Seryo93 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
User Seryo93 shows destructive behaviour by drawing insistently maps where Crimea is Russian without even slightest annotation that this position of Crimea is disputed. Some of maps are originally included in templates and made before Russian invasion and Crimea annexation they are made & updated by other users, and these maps were/are included everywhere. Now user dares to argument that we (Ukrainian community) have to make & use local copies where Crimea is Ukrainian, leaving Russian-invaded maps for the world community included everywhere.
I think that annexation of Global Knowledge and advocation of Russia wars is unacceptable by this way and undermines basic principles of Wikipeadia neutrality. Since recognition of Crimea is more prevailed by worldwide community as Ukrainian, Seryo93 (Together with North Korea) explicitly has to make separate maps which annotate in brackets that Crimea is Russian by Russian point of view and include them everywhere: I just want to watch how he will be banned for such data corruption in other Wikipedias.
I want to pay your attention that re-remaking pre-made before maps so they explicitly depict Russian point of view is disruptive behaviour in community and such user should be warned and banned if such practice continues. Alex Khimich (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You miss the fact: Crimea is already drawn there as a disputed territory - as indicated by a disputed (dotted, not a solid line) border between it and Kherson Oblast of Ukraine. But that territorial dispute doesn't affect the fact that local time is the one imposed by the de facto authorities (you again failed to address consensus example of non-edit-warred two-year-long Northern Cyprus, which is similar to Crimea in all but the lack of outright annexation). And since previous attempt to alter the map based on "recognition" (rather than actual time) was rejected, so, per COM:UPLOADWAR: " Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion." (emphasis mine). The proposed change was reverted earlier, so it cannot be reinstated - only as a new variant (and yes, this applies regardless of any "recognition"). User, who upload-warred to implement that change against consensus (Antonyahu) was blocked for that - and if you contiune such behavior, then you'll likely follow down that road too. Again, as you were told several times (but refused to accept), recognition is not, and never was, an argument here, on Commons. True, a file change can emerge, but only when agreement arises - and when there isn't (as was the case of the file in question - if you look into its history, you'll note that I wasn't the first, and ceratinly not the only, person to object changing file from de facto timezoning), the only way to do it is to upload as a separate version. --Seryo93 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Still waiting for the action from admin board to be taken. The "de facto" state which user tries to annotate your attention to is ridiculous. There are international laws, international recognition, prevailing majority of population are ukrainians and the word "de facto" has nothing to do with that rather than military propaganda. Don't even try to say me about referendum was 95% "pro-Russian vote". I think it's an acceptable behaviour where default maps that are included everywhere are showing Crimea explicitly as Russian. It is destructive behaviour and should be banned. If he wants to draw map where it is explicitly Russian it should be put into the brackets and description should point into another version where disputed state shown. It's unacceptable to include in templates Russian-colored Crimea — it doesn't matter is that time zones map or political maps or language maps. If map has state- involved borders, it ought to be politically correct otherwise deleted as terrorism & war & harassment propaganga. Many readers feel to be harassed when they open Wikipedia and they see Russian fascist propaganda on the pages of Wikipedia. Is harassment for international community many of whom remember what the sadistic Soviet Union was and they sincerely do not understand why Wikipedia adores Russian annexations. Please take an action immediately. Alex Khimich (talk) 13:16, 16 April 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.
Ping harassment: special:diff/553362412. I explained why I didn't discuss about the pictures involving FOP-Taiwan issues. If you look at my complaint, it makes it pretty clear that I have been accused of destroying the pictures of other. I used this method to remind everyone (not just A1Cafel) not to ping me.--Kai3952 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Kai3952 - Please visit Special:Mute/Ankry. Once you tick the boxes and hit save it should mute all pings, If you visit Special:Preferences and scroll down to Email options you can also stop emails from them. (Pinging Ankry if they want to do this too).
Are you deliberately provoking me? I don't care what you say, I don't want to quarrel with you. Stop pinging me!--Kai3952 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 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.
User:Nr. 13465
This user, probably active under a different name before, repeatedly over-categorizes many sub-categories, e.g. of Category:Electric rack locomotives - Electric locomotives of Wengernalpbahn - WAB He 2/2 51–58. When reverting the deleted categories under an IP he adds personal attacks. This is not acceptable.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Did you have any sort of discussion with this editor before coming here? Why not?
This is obviously an editor who is unclear as to licensing requirements on Commons. Despite your increasingly hostile warnings - as ever - they still haven't had this _explained_ to them, and so they're still not changing their behaviour. No new editor should be blocked on such a basis. Nor should you be threatening them like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Before coming here, Yuraily Lic ensured that the user had been told "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content", "Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing" many times, and "The next time you upload a copyright violation, you will be blocked", and the user had subsequently uploaded more copyvios. Yes, the user could have gotten a polite {{Fcs}} warning including "Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked" after the first copyvionote, but it is not strictly necessary, as we survived without it for many years before I copied it here. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me02:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Since that day, my login, recognized on Wikipedia whatever the language, is not recognized on Commons. After several attempts, in doubt including with other login/passwords, I posted a reset request, twice, and didn't receive the announced mail. Of course, I checked all folders with unread messages. I even tried to recreate my user login, but was immediately stopped, the page answering that this login already exists. I don't know what's going on. Can you unblock me? What can I do? Greetings, Dominique Greusard — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.132.218.47 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
One user ('remover') believes certain tens of images should be removed from a certain category, whereas myself and another user believe the images should not be removed. There has been a revert of an initial edit by the remover that was reverted and then reverted back by the remover [17]. I raised the issue on the Help Desk [18], one of the talk pages [19], the Village Pump [20] and Categories for discussion [21] with limited interest. I am not asking for the remover to be blocked or disciplined. I am asking for some kind of judgment to be made between us as to whether the images that have been removed by the remover should be restored to the category they were removed from. If possible, please do not remove this from the noticeboard without notifying me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a dispute between Geographyinitiative, who sees any legible element of the Tongyong Pinyin romanization of the Mandarin language visible while pixelpeeping or viewing an image at a particular large size to be justification for adding Category:Tongyong Pinyin, and Kai3952, who wants to be able to see it in a thumbnail of a certain small size before addition of that category is justified, and both edit warring to justify their points of viewcontinuing to enforce their points of view, and then escalating to and forum shopping on various noticeboards. Hopefully, we can help them to come to an agreement on a size cutoff, in pixels horizontally, to prevent further disruption, sanctions, and blocking. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me09:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I would like to politely ask you to justify, with citation and links to specific edits, your statement that I have been edit warring. I have not been edit warring whatsoever. Kai3952 broke the three revert rule, but I don't want the editor to get in trouble- I merely want a decision made between us all. You said that I was edit warring, but I want to know where I have done that. The 'forum shopping' has happened because no one has yet given us a decision or even an opinion on the issue. It's only analogous to forum shopping if we were getting negative opinions in some place and then switching forums. I have done everything I could, and literally gone out of my way, to prevent edit warring from happening. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for saying that I am not edit warring. I'm just wanting an authoritative decision to be made about the proper limits for the Category:Tongyong Pinyin- that's all! You seem to be the first person not party to the discussions to understand the issue, so I'm happy about that. Just looking for some guidance. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Example image I know this may seem silly, but I'm so happy that there is some productive discussion going on now. My base position is that if a Tongyong Pinyin-derived word appears in an image, then that image could be legitimately included in Category:Tongyong Pinyin. To answer the question posed above: it's not my intention that stuff that's "too small to see" should be included in the category, but in my mind, I think all the images Kai removed have a Tongyong Pinyin word that can be clearly seen if you open up the image. I wasn't using a program to zoom in to see pixelated Tongyong Pinyin signs. Tongyong Pinyin is very rare, and some of the images removed are among the few images on the internet where a given word appears at all. If there's a rule about when things are "too small" to be part of a category, let me know! As an example, the word 'Tianjhong' is clearly visible in this image-no need for "pixel peeping"- yet this image has been removed from Category:Tongyong Pinyin. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I have no technical knowledge to be able to answer that question. All I'm saying is that I'm using my normal eyes to look at the Wikimedia Commons page File:TRA_TianJhong_Station.jpg and without even clicking to open up the image, I can clearly see the Tongyong Pinyin word 'Tianjhong' on the sign. Also, the title of the image includes the word Tianjhong, written as TianJhong (a variant form), demonstrating that the word is a salient part of the image and not a minor background detail that can only be "pixel peeped". In my mind, the image should therefore be included in Category:Tongyong Pinyin, because it is a legitimate example of a Tongyong Pinyin word being used in real-life and it's a high-quality image where a Tongyong Pinyin word can be clearly seen. If someone wanted crop the image and zoom in closer on the word, they could. Thanks for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: If you do a printscreen and then paste the result into a paint program or app and ask for the file's properties or pretend to upload it, how wide is the resulting image? If you don't know how to do a printscreen, what device manufacturer and operating system are you using? For reference, my usual editing platform is my iPad 3, width 2048px. My working laptop's width is 1366px. When used as an external display by my working laptop over HDMI, my TV's width is 2221px. My image size limit on file description pages on Commons is 320×240px. My thumbnail size on Commons is 400px (default 220px). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me11:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, maybe I did not clearly articulated what was expected of the Tongyong Pinyin category... please take a look at the following pictures:
Yes, it's clearly showing "Fusing."
Yes, it's clearly showing "Jyunsiao."
Yes, it's clearly showing "Liouguei."
Yes, it's clearly showing "Siaogang."
Yes, the sign that says "Sinyi," which is clearly shown on the left side of the foreground.
Yes, the sign that says "Cingshuei," which is clearly shown on the left side of the foreground.
Yes, the sign that says "Jhaishan" and "Jhushan," which isclearly shown on the right side of the foreground.
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Zaociao."
No, too far away from the sign that says "Zaociao."
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Jiasian."
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Tianchih."
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Sinhua" and "Shanhua."
Let's take a look at File:ZaociaoTownshiP.jpg, shown in the photo gallery above. I mean, I would argue almost the exact reverse of what Kai3952 is saying- the image IS clearly focused on the sign that says Zaociao. I don't think you have to be "clearly focused" on something to be part of a category, but in that particular image, I would say that the image is definitely clearly focused on the Tongyong Pinyin word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I created File:ZaociaoTownshiP.jpg as a crop after this matter was raised in VP a week or so ago. It meant to address Kai3952’s apparent issues with some of the images categorized as Category:Tongyong Pinyin, yet it’s not good enough yet apparently, which make me suspect that this user’s motivation is not a useful categorization of media files in Category:Tongyong Pinyin but something else altogether. And whatever it may be, it’s not a concern of Commons and therefore Geographyinitiative’s decision to move this matter onto an admin messageboard seems to be the right one: It’s a user problem, and it needs to be dealt with. Again. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, you use your eyes to see them, then compare three separate photographs next to each other within the same file. Also, I feel that your actions are disturbing the peace of my mind because I seem to be pinged by you every time. Please stop {{Ping}}ing me to this page.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Cropped images are good, but you should have done that before instead. Now’s a bit too late. (And mosaics of several photos in the same JPEG file? Technically bad idea. Just upload the crooped details and leave the arrangement to final users in Wikipedia articles and such.) -- Tuválkin✉✇14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Too late? You and Jeff G. don't understand what I'm talking about, so I use picture cropping as an example. Please take a look at Example 1 and 2:
Example 1.: a., b., c.. Compare the differences between them clearly: b is better than a, but c is better than b.
Example 2.: a., b., c.. Compare the differences between them clearly: b is better than a, but c is better than b.
Just like is better than , but is better than . Therefore, the point is not whether the photo is cropped, but whether the camera lens is aimed to the word on the sign. I hope my explanation can help you to understand what I mean (including what's expected of Category:Tongyong Pinyin).--Kai3952 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get Kai3952 blocked or punished. I just want to get an answer from an authority on Wikimedia Commons about the issue that Kai has raised. Once we have that answer, then we will have a firmer standard to follow, and no one has to be banned or blocked- we just follow the rules as articulated. I believe that the issue raised is without merit and that all the images removed from Category:Tongyong Pinyin should be restored on the basis that a visually recognizable Tongyong Pinyin word is photographed in each of them. Obviously there is some cut-off line where "pixelated" Tongyong Pinyin should not be included in the category, but we are not at the stage where the category is populated with words that are not visually recognizable as Tongyong Pinyin, and Kai is arguing for something much more expansive than that standard. My standard: if I can click on and open the image and see the letters of a Tongyong Pinyin word with my eyes, then it's good for inclusion. My standard may be wrong! We just need an authoritative answer- or even just a provisional answer. We need the hand of experience and wisdom to reach down into this conversation and give us an answer. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Let me bring to everybody’s attention that this is AN/U. We’re not discussing how to populate Category:Tongyong Pinyin — that should be done at Category talk:Tongyong Pinyin or maybe in the COM:VP (where a section about this topic is still open?). We’re here to discuss Kai3952, or rather admins are. Uploading detail crops of images at Category:Tongyong Pinyin is the right thing to do, but this is being discussed here and not there because Kai3952 didn’t do that cropping when it was the right time: Kai3952 uncategorized and edit-warred — and that’s why Kai3952 is here. -- Tuválkin✉✇14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I explained that the point is whether the camera lens is aimed to the word on the sign. It does not make sense to add Category:Tongyong Pinyin, since the word (name written in Tongyong pinyin) on the sign that are too small or too far away. I don't know why you think the problem is that I didn't do that cropping when it was the right time? Fortunately, now that we have such pictures (, , , etc.), so we don't need to deliberately crop other pictures. If Geographyinitiative wants to add the category "Tongyong Pinyin" to the picture, then my suggestion is: when the name written in Tongyong pinyin on the sign is too small or the sign is too far away, it's best to crop the picture first. For example, shows the sign that says "Tianghong" is too far away. shows the sign that says "Youhsiamfang" or "Niuchoutzu" is too small. Tuválkin, I tell you what is the right thing to do, and that is taking pictures like this for Tongyong Pinyin: for example, this picture , the camera lens is aimed to the sign which shows 782 Lane Jyunsiao Rd., then it makes sense to add Category:Tongyong Pinyin on the picture. If my account should be blocked or I did something wrong, please tell me why but don't give excuses such as "Kai3952 didn't do that cropping when it was the right time."--Kai3952 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Way to miss the point. But if you want to know what I think about this matter, just read what I weote. I have nothing to add. Except, of course, this: «Please stop {{Ping}}ing me». -- Tuválkin✉✇04:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel that you seem to blame me for not crop pictures, such as this: . If you support him or think he is right, I like to ask more people what they think about what happens when Geographyinitiative add Category:Tongyong Pinyin.--Kai3952 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment I do not think that we have a rule that says that a subject have to be very clear before it can be added to a category. I checked a random example. Above Kai3952 say to File:TW PHY20 Photo 01.JPG "No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Tianchih."". So I would expect Kai3952 thinks that the sign is not the subject and that there should be no categories added related to the sign. But with Special:Diff/385843469 2 categories with sign was added. Similar with File:新市街景 - panoramio.jpg where the comment above is "No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Sinhua" and "Shanhua."" but with Special:Diff/315065628 a category related to signs was added. Also File:Jiasian Elementary School 甲仙國小 - panoramio.jpg had a "No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Jiasian."" but Special:Diff/284390918 added a category for signs. So to me it seems that Kai3952 adds categories for signs but at the same time argues that the signs are not in focus so there should not be a category signs. I find it hard to see the logic in that. --MGA73 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at File:20210421 pinyin red lines (number).jpg, a.1~a.3 and c.1~c.3 should be added the "road signs" category, b.1~b.3 should be added the "entrance signs" category. Pinyin some of them were clear but some of them should not be added and obviously was too small or the sign was too far away, so I won't add it to a.1, b.1, c.1. What's wrong with my logic?--Kai3952 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have been thinking about it. If John Doe wants to see photos of the signs then looking in Category:Tongyong Pinyin would be an easy way to find them. If John Doe thinks that a few of the signs are too small then he can just skip them and he will only have wasted 30 seconds.
If some photos are not there because the signs are small and John Doe does not find what he is looking for in the category then it would be hard for him to locate the missing photos. It would take way more than 30 seconds.
So I think it is better to include photos in a category even if the signs are small. Especially because there are only 55 photos in the category. If there were 1000 photos in the category then I do not think we would miss a few photos but it would also be possible to make sub categories for the type of signs there are most of (road signs?). --MGA73 (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment Based on our productive discussions here, my new vision for the categories for the Mandarin romanization systems Category:Pinyin, Category:Tongyong Pinyin and Category:Wade–Giles is that ANY image/document/media that has a word in it that is derived from one of these systems should be included therein, without any regard to the size of the word in the media file (excepting the extreme case of words that cannot actually be seen without so-called 'pixel peeping'). After the categories get too big, then I will split the categories up into subcategories like "road signs with x romanization", "road signs with x in different countries", "books/documents with x", "maps with x", etc. I think this is a really great idea and I hope you all approve of it. The thoughts proposed by Kai3952 are interesting, but the user's requirement for a 'clear focus' on a word derived from one of these romanization systems will needlessly slow down this explosive growth because I will just "crop" every image so they meet some "clear focus" standard- why not just go ahead and put the original images in the actual category rather than upload a bunch of cropped images? I reject that notion totally and I ask for confirmation of my idea as valid since in the ideal form it will create a massive collection of Hanyu Pinyin/Tongyong Pinyin/Wade-Giles usages for researchers and editors to browse and use on the Wiki Projects, and Kai's "clear focus" limiting rule is a rule that would hinder reaching an obvious good for the community and the world- that massive, sub-categorized collection. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Among the people I know around here, nobody speaks like that and nobody writes like that in normal situations. I am curious to ask: Which country you are from? China?--Kai3952 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, I'm just kind of a strange person in general. Again, I apologize for causing any problems for you. You are doing a lot of categorization work and I respect that a lot. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Why did you twist my words? I did not say that I will just crop every image so they meet some clear focus standard. I think the above examples are clear enough to explain what I mean, but you keep misunderstanding me. That's why I have been reluctant to reply to you. Also, you said "Kai's clear focus limiting rule is a rule that would hinder reaching an obvious good for the community and the world- that massive, sub-categorized collection." This is not true, it is a bad faith accusation. I believe that everything I doing here is in good faith. If you want things to go better – stop misunderstand me and to control your words (I would be glad to discuss with you).--Kai3952 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not intend to malign you personally by any means and I apologize if I did. I believe I understand your concerns, but I believe that the good of setting those concerns aside outweighs the positive that can be gained by implementing a policy related to clear focus on a subject in an image. I have created two new categories within Category:Tongyong Pinyin called Category:Building signs using Tongyong Pinyin and Category:Road signs using Tongyong Pinyin such that it is clear what's going on with these pictures: they are images already tagged with Road sign or Building categories, and now we give people some more specifics. It's just like a category that includes every image in which a given language can be seen on road signs. Anyway, I rely on the admin board to decide these things. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I plan to be offline this coming week or so, so please look over this stuff and leave me a message about any questions and I will get back with you in May. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Working here has provided me with the opportunity to continue doing what I enjoy, helping me to learn and to grow. Looking back, you said "Kai's clear focus limiting rule is a rule that would hinder reaching an obvious good for the community and the world- that massive collection," during that time it felt like the world's sharpest, tiniest knives were stabbing my heart. Do not insult me just because you misunderstood what I saying. If you are really talking about Tongyong Pinyin, you will not make malicious accusations against me. After this bad experience I would probably never talk to you again. I told myself it's better to just stay away from you from now on. Under this pressure, I have to make certain concessions and compromises. If your edits involve facts which are likely to be contested, you can be assured I won't do anything with them. Besides, I don't know why you apologize to me. You got support from many users like Jeff G, MGA73, so you don't need to apologize at all.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Accusing me of bad faith due to use of the word "hinder". Here, where he claimed that "Kai's clear focus limiting rule is a rule that would hinder reaching an obvious good for the community and the world- that massive collection".--Kai3952 (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
per the definition at WP:VD, vandalism means: "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." I think he overstepped the line with his accusation of hindering because there is no good reason or clear evidence to accusing/convicting/proving as a vandalism.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for causing any problems for Kai, and I will take back anything that you want me to take back. I believe Kai is an excellent user and I just wanted to get a clear answer from this board about a rule/standard for picture inclusion in a category that the user was talking about. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
"hinder" means to act as an obstacle. To say that your rule hinders this goal is not an accusation of bad faith; it's saying your rule makes certain things harder. This is not the correct board for a response.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This user might be a sockpuppet of Luis camilo álvarez vega. In this image, the possible sock is reverting to versions of the file previously uploaded by Luis camilo. It also makes erroneous moving requests also made by Luis camilo without an acceptable explanation. --Bankster (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bankster: It looks like a duck to me but I cannot impose a block. I can re-request a check from checkusers, but I'm afraid the information is too old to ask them to perform it. But anyway, a group users has had problems with the same user for around 5 months ago; and I was involved too. Let's awaiting help from administrators or stewards... Nieuwsgierige GebruikerOverleg • CA08:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This user has uploaded a lot of images of Indian personalities taken with many different cameras. There are also many outright copyright violations, which question the ownership of the images. Help needed to review them all. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Refuses to communicate; refuses to use edit summaries. See edit warring at [22] since February. See edits today at [23].
Please admonish and try to resolve the factual dispute.--50.201.195.17023:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not refuse to communicate. The IP confused the image description page with the discussion page of the file. I reverted this correctly. I don't have to reply to pages with which I have nothing to do in terms of content. The IP seems not to understand this. Again, I am really not interested what the IP did post on that talk page. --Mosbatho (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually tried to help this IP by placing {{Fact disputed}} in order to point out that the IP's message is on the talk page. I never disagreed with the IP's comments, I was just providing technical support. I am not interested in the subject. I do not care which problem the IP had with this file. But double posts od the same comment - on the talk page and on the file page (with emojis) are not usual and this is what I have fixed. There has never been an edit war. No troll feeding by me. --Mosbatho (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Tuvalkin- What's good about removing information on an image description page that correctly notes that the information in the image is wrong? What's good about claiming that "The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed." when there's no dispute - when no one has disputed that the the information in the image is wrong? More importantly, please address and/or close this. --50.201.195.17005:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. Rose was not warned before, so I warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done The works are offered on YouTube under an accepted free licence. As long as the copyright holder offers their work under an accepted free licence at one source and it has been licence reviewed, it can be hosted on Commons. No action necessary here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Checked this out and neither user looks particularly good here. Kazimier Lachnovič blasted Ymblanter with an emotional demand over a seriously minor renaming issue. Ymblanter threatened to use his admin powers to block in a dispute in which he is involved. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Info Dropped a quick note on the user's talk page. Yasu (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
wikimedia.org ایمیل بزنید و بخواهید دسترسی به صفحهٔ بحثتان (M.k.m2003) را باز کنند. بعد درخواست آنبلاک بدهید. شخصاً نظر مساعدی نسبت به باز شدنتان دارم ولی اگر بیکفایتی نشان دهید و مثلاً در کار کردن با ردهها دقت نکنید، دوباره برایتان دردسر درست خواهد شد. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Support, the user appears to have no concept of copyright law, policies, or guidelines; they like to upload File:Sprite logo.svg too. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
, b.
, c.. Compare the differences between them clearly: b is better than a, but c is better than b.
, b., c.. Compare the differences between them clearly: b is better than a, but c is better than b..JPG/50px-Cingshuei_River_(Nantou_County).JPG)
is better than 
, but 
is better than 
, 
, .jpg/25px-高雄捷運小港站_(2330729579).jpg)
, etc.), so we don't need to deliberately crop other pictures. If Geographyinitiative wants to add the category "Tongyong Pinyin" to the picture, then my suggestion is: when the name written in Tongyong pinyin on the sign is too small or the sign is too far away, it's best to crop the picture first. For example, 
shows the sign that says "Tianghong" is too far away. 
shows the sign that says "Youhsiamfang" or "Niuchoutzu" is too small. Tuválkin, I tell you what is the right thing to do, and that is taking pictures like this for Tongyong Pinyin: for example, this picture 
, the camera lens is aimed to the sign which shows 782 Lane Jyunsiao Rd., then it makes sense to add Category:Tongyong Pinyin on the picture. If my account should be blocked or I did something wrong, please tell me why but don't give excuses such as "Kai3952 didn't do that cropping when it was the right time."--Kai3952 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like a duck to me but I cannot impose a block. I can re-request a check from checkusers, but I'm afraid the information is too old to ask them to perform it. But anyway, a group users has had problems with the same user for around 5 months ago; and I was involved too. Let's awaiting help from administrators or stewards... Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 08:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%96%D1%84%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%8B%D1%8F._%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%80._%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D1%86%D1%91%D0%BB_%D0%A1%D1%8C%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F.jpg&diff=534282938&oldid=534282860){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
,_2020.svg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Zaociao_Township_Office.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Zaociao_Township_Office.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AWG_calculation_in_Mathcad_software.png&action=history){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:AWG_calculation_in_Mathcad_software.png&diff=554673563&oldid=536496243){kind=link}
