Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Uploads by Mheekanong
Mheekanong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a new account (created on June 10, 2025) that has uploaded several photo from the official website en:Japanese Imperial Household Agency. All of these photo's are licensed as {{CC-by-4.0}} which could be OK per kunaicho.go.jp/e-copyright/ but which is something that probably needs to be assessed given the "No infringement of third party rights" section which specifically makes mention of photographs of the Japanese Imperial family. All of the uploads seems to be sourced to kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/activity/activity03.html, but only File:Prince Hisahito in early summer 2024.jpg seems to be directly taken from that page: this file, by the way, has COM:OVERWRITE issues and probably needs to be split if properly licensed. Most likely these photos come from some inner page of the agency's official website, but a direct link to their source page probably needs to be provided, assuming the "CC-by-4.0" licensing is correct. I think this was a good-faith attempt to upload these files, which is why I'm asking about it here instead of COM:AN/U: however, the licensing claim really should be assessed by more people because if it's OK, then there are lots of photos from the agency's site which could be uploaded and used under similar terms. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I admit I'm new to editing Wikipedia and understanding image copyrights. I've been gradually updating information about the Japanese Imperial Family for a while now and noticed that photos of the family members haven't been updated in many years. That's why I tried to find a way to update them and came across the copyright permissions on the Imperial Household Agency's website.
- Regarding "No infringement of third party rights," my understanding is that the Imperial Household Agency's role is to publicize and disseminate the activities of the Imperial Family members (third parties). Naturally, these activities would always present them in a positive light, causing no harm to the individuals.
- I also agree that I should update the sources for some of the images I've uploaded. I'll go in and correct the details for those specific photos. Thanks for understanding my intentions. Mheekanong (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Mheekanong: I'm not sure you got the point. "No infringement of third party rights" is almost certainly not about the personality rights of the royal family, which are non-copyright restrictions in any case, and could be covered (if relevant) with {{Personality rights}}. It presumably refers to the intellectual property rights (copyright) of photographers whose copyrighted work may be reproduced on the site. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- The two examples given by the website are "portrait rights in a photograph, publicity rights". Wouldn't these be personality rights? Dajasj (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, then those would be non-copyright restrictions, fully dealt with by {{Personality rights}}. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- The two examples given by the website are "portrait rights in a photograph, publicity rights". Wouldn't these be personality rights? Dajasj (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Mheekanong: I'm not sure you got the point. "No infringement of third party rights" is almost certainly not about the personality rights of the royal family, which are non-copyright restrictions in any case, and could be covered (if relevant) with {{Personality rights}}. It presumably refers to the intellectual property rights (copyright) of photographers whose copyrighted work may be reproduced on the site. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the Imperial Household Agency's (IHA) website licensing information again, and it explicitly states: "Matters pertaining to copyrights, images and likenesses of members of the Imperial Family 1. 2). Persons wishing to make use of the above mentioned items, are requested to submit an inquiry to the contact detailed below." (https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-copyright/other-terms.html)
- So, I've already sent an inquiry to the IHA regarding these terms on June 16, 2025. However, I have no way of knowing if or when they will reply.
- I understand that this file has been nominated for deletion, and I acknowledge that it hasn't yet received formal approval from the source. Nevertheless, I believe this discussion isn't conclusive until we receive a response from the IHA. While I'm willing to agree to the deletion of some less important images, but I request that certain essential images, such as the updated profile pictures of Imperial Family members, should be kept for now. If you see the articles for younger members of the Imperial Family, you'll notice there are currently no photos that fully meet free license requirements. This means if these are deleted, there will be no accompanying images in their articles, which I wish to avoid.
- Furthermore, keeping these specific images would help prevent other users from uploading the same images from the same source in the future, which would inevitably lead to repetitive deletion discussions. I believe consolidating this discussion here, with a clear status that we're awaiting official permission, is a more efficient approach than deleting them now.
- While awaiting response, I will not upload any new images from the IHA. Should I receive a clear denial of permission, I'm fully prepared to request the immediate deletion of this file without any objections.
- Finally, to any fellow members contributing to Japanese Imperial Family articles who are reading this: I encourage you to also send inquiries to the IHA website. More inquiries might lead to a quicker response from the source.
- Looking forward to hearing diverse opinions. Thank you. Mheekanong (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Commons can only keep these images if it can be verified that they're licensed in accordance with COM:L; otherwise, they're most likely going to end up deleted per COM:PCP. Moreover, Commons most likely isn't going to wait until you or anyone else receives a reply from the assumed copyright holder of these images. The files listed above have been nominated for deletion, and that deletion discussion is going to last at least seven days; so, if you want to make an argument in favor of keeping these files, then that's the venue (not here anymore) where you should do so. Please understand, though, though the lack of freely licensed images of members of the Japanese Imperial Family isn't really relevant to what's being discussed in that deletion discussion because that's not really a concern of Commons. Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type and that's not going to change just because there are no free equivalent images currently available of the younger members of Imperial Family. In the same vain, Commons isn't going to keep content with invalid copyright licenses (even temporarily) just to stop others from uploading similar content in the future; if such a thing were to happen, then said content would just need to be nominated for deletion.One thing that you might not be familiar with about Commons is that the "deletion" of a file from Commons doesn't mean it's gone forever so to speak; the file will still be found on Commons' servers and only really just hidden from public view. So, even if the deletion discussion results in the file's being deleted; they're still there in a sense and can be relatively easily restored if copyright holder consent is subsequently verified or the reasons for deleting the file's are subsequently addressed. This can be done per COM:REFUND.If all this seems too rash, please try to understand that possibility of someone using these files outside of Commons or any of the Wikipedias increases the longer the files remain on Commons. You've basically licensed the files in a way that allows them to be used by anyone anywhere in the world in pretty much anyway they want, which includes ways that copyright holder might not like. There's no way to limit the use of these files to "Wikipedia only", "educational use only", "non-commercial use", "non-derivative use only", etc. even though you personally might not have uploaded the files to be used in such a way. This is fine when the licensing of the files can be verified to be what the copyright holder wants, but otherwise it can potentially lead to problems not just for Commons and copyright holders but also for good-faith re-users of the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'll try requesting it under my country's Wikipedia project for Non-free Content. Mheekanong (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Commons can only keep these images if it can be verified that they're licensed in accordance with COM:L; otherwise, they're most likely going to end up deleted per COM:PCP. Moreover, Commons most likely isn't going to wait until you or anyone else receives a reply from the assumed copyright holder of these images. The files listed above have been nominated for deletion, and that deletion discussion is going to last at least seven days; so, if you want to make an argument in favor of keeping these files, then that's the venue (not here anymore) where you should do so. Please understand, though, though the lack of freely licensed images of members of the Japanese Imperial Family isn't really relevant to what's being discussed in that deletion discussion because that's not really a concern of Commons. Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type and that's not going to change just because there are no free equivalent images currently available of the younger members of Imperial Family. In the same vain, Commons isn't going to keep content with invalid copyright licenses (even temporarily) just to stop others from uploading similar content in the future; if such a thing were to happen, then said content would just need to be nominated for deletion.One thing that you might not be familiar with about Commons is that the "deletion" of a file from Commons doesn't mean it's gone forever so to speak; the file will still be found on Commons' servers and only really just hidden from public view. So, even if the deletion discussion results in the file's being deleted; they're still there in a sense and can be relatively easily restored if copyright holder consent is subsequently verified or the reasons for deleting the file's are subsequently addressed. This can be done per COM:REFUND.If all this seems too rash, please try to understand that possibility of someone using these files outside of Commons or any of the Wikipedias increases the longer the files remain on Commons. You've basically licensed the files in a way that allows them to be used by anyone anywhere in the world in pretty much anyway they want, which includes ways that copyright holder might not like. There's no way to limit the use of these files to "Wikipedia only", "educational use only", "non-commercial use", "non-derivative use only", etc. even though you personally might not have uploaded the files to be used in such a way. This is fine when the licensing of the files can be verified to be what the copyright holder wants, but otherwise it can potentially lead to problems not just for Commons and copyright holders but also for good-faith re-users of the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Revision delete request
Hello, I request any admin to delete the previous two versions/revisions of this File:Green Vehicle Expo 2025 (Bangalore International Exhibition Centre) 145.jpg. The reason is because I used original QRcodes in the previous uploads, now I have used dummy: File:QR Code Example.svg. --Gpkp (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
_145.jpg){kind=link}
- @Gpkp
Done. Best, ChemSim (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @ChemSim: . --Gpkp (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Clarification needed: Use of user talk: pages whilst blocked?
This at User_talk:Dronebogus#You_have_been_blocked_for_a_duration_of_1_week_2 seems to be a really startling interpretation of talk: page access policy for blocked editors.
Finally, because you are only allowed to edit your talk page to request an unblock, which you already did, you should not respond any further comments or talk page access will certainly be revoked.
I've never seen this before. I've never seen it cited, I've never seen it implemented. WTF ? Even to the extent of this.
Is this a real policy? Where is it stated? I don't see Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block as supporting this interpretation.
@Bedivere: @Dronebogus: , @HingWahStreet: Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to depend on whether the talk page usage qualifies as "abuse". AFAIK, there is no guidance indicating that anything other than requesting an unblock constitutes abuse. GMGtalk 14:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Re. "to the extent of this" - I don't see how that's related. The edit being reverted was by HingWahStreet, not Dronebogus. I agree that it's inappropriate for another user to configure archiving for an active user's talk page. Omphalographer (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything here that gets into the range of being a problem, but if it were to continue at this pace for several more days, that might be an issue. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would disagree that it's inappropriate for another user to configure archiving for an active user's talk page. Archiving is a PITA. It's often tricky to set up, in particular because most editors need to do it so rarely. For an editor to see a page that clearly needs it, to do the necessary, and especially when they label that clearly as 'Here's a default setup for you, do what you want with it, including reverting it' I would see that as absolutely a helpful and good faith action from one editor to another, and in this case evidently welcomed.
- In today's missing the point special, this post here is nothing to with archiving, or even with HingWahStreet. (I pinged them only out of courtesy). This is about Bedivere making up policies that no-one has ever seen before, and threatening that talk page access will be revoked without any further option for discussion. (I don't write "will certainly be" if it's just a polite request to not do it again.) We don't have any such policy. It is wrong (but sadly not unheard of) to threaten editors for breaching policies that don't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Bedivere @Omphalographer Sorry for that. I would consult others first before setting it up (I replied to Bedivere here). 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Re-pinging @Andy Dingley and @Andy Dingley to do what @HingWahStreet failed to do at 01:27 in Special:Diff/1046345815/1046354268. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Bedivere @Omphalographer Sorry for that. I would consult others first before setting it up (I replied to Bedivere here). 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Quoting from Template:unblock:
Please note that trolling or otherwise abusing your ability to edit your talk page will result in that ability being revoked
. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)- We all knew that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I view the threat to revoke TPA in the context the comment immediately above it, Dronebogus saying "I didn’t know pings worked while blocked, that’s interesting". If they abuse that functionality to troll, revoking TPA is clearly within policy. If they don't, it isn't. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. The word choice may not have been the best but that's exactly what I meant. And the blocking policy allows for interpretation on what is meant to be an abuse of talk page edit access. Using a talk page to ping users to start conversations while blocked is not OK imo (they did do that by pinging me, by the way). Moreover, my final comment on Dronebogus' talk page is a friendly one, urging them to just take some days off while blocked. Bedivere (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is what the case of Shāntián Tàiláng actually did: blocked in wikt, pinging others cross-wiki in its talk page asking for edits in wikt, and led to a global ban. But not responding to any comment is somehow impolite, I think. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- It is expected that If someone leaves a note while you are blocked for more than about 3 days, you do respond while blocked if you have TPA, some indefed users use their talk to handle copyright questions or other matters. the big difference is the only threads that should be started by the blocked user are unblock appeals and maybe statements to be transcluded onto a noticeboard discussion. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 07:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is what the case of Shāntián Tàiláng actually did: blocked in wikt, pinging others cross-wiki in its talk page asking for edits in wikt, and led to a global ban. But not responding to any comment is somehow impolite, I think. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. The word choice may not have been the best but that's exactly what I meant. And the blocking policy allows for interpretation on what is meant to be an abuse of talk page edit access. Using a talk page to ping users to start conversations while blocked is not OK imo (they did do that by pinging me, by the way). Moreover, my final comment on Dronebogus' talk page is a friendly one, urging them to just take some days off while blocked. Bedivere (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Edit war
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motd/2025-06-21&action=history
I put up a VOA Chinese video on the topic of world refugee day (20 june) as Template:Motd/2025-06-21 and restored it once. User:Prototyperspective has now removed it twice. I expect the motd be restored. RoyZuo (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I added English subtitles to the video, so there shouldn't be any problems with it anymore. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, this can simply be done before the video is added to the very frontpage where at least most users don't understand Chinese. Totally inappropriate to create an AN thread about this and also totally inappropriate to insist a video in Chinese added unilaterally by one users belongs in the motd. Please don't do this again RoyZuo, especially in times when adding subtitles is easy and you're the only user who added this video. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is not the 1st time this user not acting respectfully to a certain language or according to Commons:Language policy. i dont think it's even necessary to have a policy to emphasise basic courtesy, which any user should have, to treat all languages equally. even after this issue has been brought to this page, where is the understanding "Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project" this user should have? and the motd is still not restored. RoyZuo (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not acting unrespectfully even in the slightest. MOTD was not conceptualized as a way for individual users just dumping random videos they personally find interesting. The current process is to remove videos others freely add if they don't belong there and thereby have collaborative process and some baseline minimum level or quality/relevance.
- A video in Chinese without subtitles that >91% of users don't understand that depends on the audio language being understood does not belong there. I do care about quality and this platform not being degraded to boring or uneducational videos on the frontpage/first impression. Btw, the user still adds videos to MOTD without adding captions.
- You're acting unrespectfully by claiming various things, assuming various things, immediately coming to this place to complain, and by just strongly insisting your unexplained inappropriate personally-selected video that is ununderstable to most people and takes away the option to make it MOTD after has subtitles belongs on the very frontpage. Stop it please.
- Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Commons is a global project. I think you are being disrespectful, and I don't think any of your arguments are valid. You seem to be creating quite a bit of conflict, unnecessarily. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree. Where exactly did I act unrespectfully? I didn't. And I outlined ways that RoyZuo was but am not here to complain about it.
Commons is a global project
exactly. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)- And your decision got reverted. Face it, your arguments don't stack up. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- By the same user. They stack up. a) I care about quality and this platform in practice not in theory in some abstract ways b) what even makes you think just saying 'I don't think your arguments stack up' or 'in my view those points are invalid' have any merit – you did not address what I said even just slightly. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's got subtitles. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, now. And now I'm totally fine it with being motd. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's got subtitles. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- By the same user. They stack up. a) I care about quality and this platform in practice not in theory in some abstract ways b) what even makes you think just saying 'I don't think your arguments stack up' or 'in my view those points are invalid' have any merit – you did not address what I said even just slightly. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- And your decision got reverted. Face it, your arguments don't stack up. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree. Where exactly did I act unrespectfully? I didn't. And I outlined ways that RoyZuo was but am not here to complain about it.
- Commons is a global project. I think you are being disrespectful, and I don't think any of your arguments are valid. You seem to be creating quite a bit of conflict, unnecessarily. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not acting unrespectfully even in the slightest. MOTD was not conceptualized as a way for individual users just dumping random videos they personally find interesting. The current process is to remove videos others freely add if they don't belong there and thereby have collaborative process and some baseline minimum level or quality/relevance.
- This is not the 1st time this user not acting respectfully to a certain language or according to Commons:Language policy. i dont think it's even necessary to have a policy to emphasise basic courtesy, which any user should have, to treat all languages equally. even after this issue has been brought to this page, where is the understanding "Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project" this user should have? and the motd is still not restored. RoyZuo (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, this can simply be done before the video is added to the very frontpage where at least most users don't understand Chinese. Totally inappropriate to create an AN thread about this and also totally inappropriate to insist a video in Chinese added unilaterally by one users belongs in the motd. Please don't do this again RoyZuo, especially in times when adding subtitles is easy and you're the only user who added this video. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted to the original. There is no reason not to have videos in any language. And IMO this is more interesting that a video of Wikipedia articles. Yann (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, video of Wikipedia article is the most uninteresting choice. Taivo (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thirded. While the other video (File:6.7 protected pages.webm) isn't without value, it's primarily of interest to Wikimedia editors. POTD and MOTD are essentially a form of outreach to visitors to demonstrate the value of Commons; files selected for these placements should ideally be of general interest. Omphalographer (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Noting here for posterity that I am happy to provide subtitles for any video on commons, Especially for MOTD. Just leave a note on my talk page. (and this whole situation would have been avoided.) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 06:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
demonstrate the value of Commons; files selected for these placements should ideally be of general interest
Agree. (General use/understanding of Wikipedia is of general interest if you were saying it isn't.) Alachuckthebuck, thanks – it's on the person who adds the video to ask that if they don't add the subtitles themselves though and the user could just do that instead of coming here complaining. Btw, if a video is added before subtitles make the video understandable that's just counterproductive to the video since it probably won't be added a second time after the substitles make it actually understandable instead of users closing the video weirded out by the understrandable Chinese audio language. This kind of insisting and rejection of rational debate and consideration of other's points just undermines MOTD. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)- You seem to be the only person making this argument. Consider me the fourth voice that considers the Wikipedia article uninteresting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about interesting only but also about quality and educational content. You could add more interesting videos if you think it's boring. It's of global general relevance and interest and of good-quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- The video you reverted out is both of those things. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Only after got subtitles, particularly either subtitles for a language a large share of Commons visitors understand or subtitles for many languages. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- The video you reverted out is both of those things. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not about interesting only but also about quality and educational content. You could add more interesting videos if you think it's boring. It's of global general relevance and interest and of good-quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be the only person making this argument. Consider me the fourth voice that considers the Wikipedia article uninteresting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thirded. While the other video (File:6.7 protected pages.webm) isn't without value, it's primarily of interest to Wikimedia editors. POTD and MOTD are essentially a form of outreach to visitors to demonstrate the value of Commons; files selected for these placements should ideally be of general interest. Omphalographer (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, video of Wikipedia article is the most uninteresting choice. Taivo (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Edit war for C.S.D Copyright Violation
@Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski resists a C.S.D copyright violation banner by repeatedly reverting changes.
Please see: File:Wargo.jpg, Thank you!
Sev6nWiki (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done Indeffed as vandalism-only account. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Request to delete redirect
Hello. Requesting admin to delete Category:Aspiras-Palispis Highway, so that Category:Aspiras–Palispis Highway can be moved into that category title (reason: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/10#Dashes in category names, with more support for using hyphens in most cases, except usages in date ranges). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done Abzeronow (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Category:Sadzhivka
Hi. You need to rename Category:Sadzhivka, Monastyryska Hromada to Category:Sadzhivka, because after renaming the settlements, there is only one village with this name left. Thank you! Maks (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Quick question
Hi former colleagues! :) Can I have the bot flag for my bot HiW-Bot back, or do I need to go through the whole procedure again? Krd removed the flag two years ago, due to my inactivity. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd and EugeneZelenko: : Can you please look into this? Looks like you two are the main folks at COM:BRFA. I can't find anything on COM:BOTS or BRFA to answer this question myself. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
This user has been a cross-wiki promotion-only account, and I have encountered behavior here on Commons similar to that which got them blocked on ENWP. So, could you please block them here as well? P.S. I even requested a global lock on Meta. Faster than Thunder (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done Clearly NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
User:Crabinovich and User:EgertonHistory - fake AI images and hoaxing
- Crabinovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- EgertonHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
These are almost certainly the same user. Most if not all of both user's uploads - certainly the "historical" paintings and similar - are AI generated and are being used for hoaxing purposes at enwiki and huwiki.
Examples
- File:The Legacy Preserved EarlOfEllesmere Francis Egerton the Admiral Vaclav Egert.png (Crabinovich)
- File:Admiral_Hon._Francis_Egerton_&_Son.png (EgertonHistory)
Enwiki administrator's noticeboard link - here.
Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)