Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

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@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section]		 User problems
[new section]		 Blocks and protections
[new section]		 Other
[new section]

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
20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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.


Lps2000

How long is this user going to be allowed to continue to intentionally anf habitually upload copyrighted images? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No longer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning without Assume good faith by user Elcobbola

This discussion has been going in circles for a while, and continuing it isn't going to be productive. AntanO, the CUs have a responsibility to use the tool with discretion. If they tell you that they need you to provide evidence, you need to provide evidence. If you refuse to do so, you're clogging up the process with requests that they can't process and which you've been told they can't process, and that *is* disruptive. While blocking you for that would be an extreme response, it would not be outside their purview to do so, so I suggest that you either start providing evidence or stop submitting CU requests. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elcobbola (talk · contribs) made a warning on page and pointing failures to assume good faith and the reason he/she mentioned that Muralikrishna m is over 2-years-old, with more than 15,000 edits to te.wiki, and is in good standing (contradicts timing reference). Well, I contribute to Wikimedia projects for 11+ years with 80,000+ edits, and I'm a sysop in a Wiki. Also, this user said people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. So, what i am doing? I mostly fight against vandalism and copyvios. When I work in other wiki project, I could easily find vandalism, sock, paid edits and other disputed edits. If the user asked, I could have provided evidence from other wiki? Will it accept? I made some CU and the user sniff some and use against me? You can check how many CU I did in Meta with a simple report and I got very positive response since they know my intention. Elcobbola, don't you think Commons:AGF for me, a person contribute for 11+ years while you advocate for 2 year of contribution. You ask me people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Do you think i hurt the project?

The user thereat me that If you continue filing RFCUs without mandatory evidence, you may be blocked from the Commons namespace or sitewide. Does blocking policy say this? Are you trying to save socks and while targeting me? If you have any hatred, just bring it and we will deal. I don't know what is mandatory evidence. I checked CU and i can't find mandatory evidence. Can you explain it and point me to the reference?

I request other admins to intervene and remove the unprofessional warning which is a humiliation for a pure contributer and . AntanO 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntanO, sorry but I am seriously not finding anything problematic. Filing SPI cases is legit but it is necessary to prove what you are filing the request for. Behavioral evidence is a thing but afaics on your talk page and on the CU requests linked, you have been asked to provide evidence and you failed to comply. In such a case, I would personally advise not to file any CU requests until you have a valid evidence that you can express. You are complaining for @Elcobbola not assuming good faith but you at the same accuse them Are you trying to save socks and while targeting me? If you have any hatred, just bring it and we will deal. This is weird. If I find someone and even if it is me, submitting evidence-less SPI's, I would really deem it as non-constructive, and something that does not help Commons grow. If you believe someone is a sockpuppet, express the evidence correctly before you ask for a CU check because CU check's aren't/can't be performed without those necessary evidences. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comment to AntanO speaks for itself. AntanO has, despite warnings, repeatedly filed RFCUs without appropriate evidence, which is an unambiguous failure to assume good faith. The compliant here, without seeking discussion with me first, is disingenuous nonsense. Эlcobbola talk 18:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: Are you saying user Elcobbola had AGF on me? Do you think I am problematic? Have you seen my other CU that passes through? @Elcobbola: why should I discuss first with you since you already label me as 'problematic person' and I have seen some of you harsh discussion which is disingenuous nonsense? BTW, some of my questions are unanswered. I hope other admin would help on these. --AntanO 19:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntanO, I am not telling that you are problematic and nor do I think @Elcobbola has made any big mistake. You were already asked in a couple of SPI's to provide evidence for example in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vijayakumar143. Given several of these SPI's without a required evidence, I feel @Elcobbola was right in issuing a warning. This does not mean that they disregarded AGF. Please let me know what I have missed. A good remedy to this would be that whenever you file an SPI, you include relevant diffs/evidence, from Commons, or any other wiki, to help a CU's check easy. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You just ignore some of my points and questions. If you are genuinely want to help, you should see what are my points. And, how can I response to declined CU? Do you get my point? AntanO 19:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How these were accepted for CU?

Here, I did not give mandatory evidence. --AntanO 19:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone with "11+ years with 80,000+ edits, and [...] a sysop in a Wiki", you would be expected to know this is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF. Further, that a request was fulfilled ≠ evidence was provided. Verily, one of several reasons your complaint is disingenuous piffle is that you ignored reference to my fulfilment of part of your most recent request with an explicit explanation of why I did so despite you failing to provide the necessary evidence. Those were no different. COM:AGF--which, like COM:RFCU, you appear not to have read--is not an empty slogan, but a defined condition of "assume good faith for the intentions of others" (underline added). I've made no comment on your intent (tellingly, as always, you've provided no diffs); verily, you clearly seem to believe you're reporting sockpuppets. You have, however, ignored over and over and over again the requirement to provide evidence. This is a requirement of both COM:RFCU and w:CheckUser policy. COM:BP is clear that "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" (underline added) This is precisely what accusing others of sockpuppetry without evidence is, and you have been doing it for years without adjusting behaviour in response to ample, repeated notice. The utter lack of clue for someone with "11+ years with 80,000+ edits, and [...] a sysop in a Wiki" to say "Are you trying to save socks and while targeting me?" while complaining about an illusory AGF failure is remarkable, and precisely why a block was referenced. Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @AntanO: Some of these cases may just be that the CU was familiar with the sock. Some of these folks can be spotted from a mile away. If I find somebody on any project (especially cross-project) singularly obsessed with the Cambodian New Year, or hoaxes related to Mario/Sonic crossovers, you don't necessarily need a CU to tell who they are. But if you do need a CU, you are generally expected to provide more of a rational than saying they did "some particular" thing that made you suspicious.
The CU tools are pretty tightly guarded, and we don't have that many of them, so their time is limited. GMGtalk 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you ignore some facts or not like to talk. Therefore, I make it simple and expect response from other admins too.

  • What is mandatory evidence? I do not find in CU or RFCU. Can you give me link to such Commons' guideline/policy?
  • An example: Here I did not give reference / evidence / diffs. But, User elcobbola did CU. Therefore, I came to conclusion that elcobbola has good understanding of my intention. Why did you run CU without reference / evidence / diffs? Is it per guideline/policy? Why double stand? --AntanO 03:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntanO, as I said, sometimes behavioral evidence hints and is helpful which is what you did in this case i.e. telling the CU that how that user was similar to the previous user: Uploading same type of media after block. COM:CHECK explicitly says that Evidence is required. When you request a check, you must include a rationale that demonstrates (e.g., by including diffs) what the disruption to the project is, and why you believe the accounts are related. This is something you missed telling in one of the requests stating just These users are engaged in some particular article related images. These images already deleted, when you were supposed to tell which specific article was that, what are these relevant images, and why you suspect socking. Evidence is always not diffs, it could be a rationale or an argument to produce your case on why you believe there's socking going around. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntanO: the fact that someone followed up on a few requests for checkuser that weren't quite as they should be does not mean that you have a standing exemption from making such requests correctly, or that no one should tell you to do it right. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All seem 'own interpretations' and instance explanations. You interpretations are NOT in Commons' guideline/policy? I just hear now. Do we want to hear interpretations before do anything here in Commons? Here user Elcobbola Declined, justified and warned me on my talk page. Why can't he/she ask me reference / evidence / diffs? Why such hurry? --AntanO 08:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntanO: You asked for a checkuser on a longstanding contributor without presenting evidence. Someone told you (correctly) that was an inappropriate thing to do. You didn't like their tone. So you are here, wanting some sort of censure of their tone, which it should by now be clear that you are not going to get, and still not really owning up to the fact that you got anything wrong. And now, I'm sure, you won't like my tone. You say you are an admin on another wiki. Fine. Then you should appreciate that at this point, all you are doing by continuing this thread is venting and wasting admins' time responding to you. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any problem to understand my point(s)? I repeat last point "Why user Elcobbola Declined, justified and warned me without ask me to submit evidence? AntanO 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simple because you have been continuously asked in previous cases to submit more information and you haven't responded back. Declining a CU request because of missing evidence is "legitimate" and "justified". You were warned because you continuously did not present evidences in your SPIs. It would have you been better for you to learn and adapt, submit evidences in SPIs, instead of creating this vicious thread. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to tell you that it is legitimate to decline a CU check if a CU feels that the provided evidence does not match the standard and is not adequate enough to make the case. You should read more about the checkusers policy. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Except one that I skipped) user Elcobbola declined previous CU before I response? This is 2nd time? Why can't the user ask and then declined if I/any user failed to response? AntanO 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible that Elcobbola should have been more gentle in what he wrote, and possible that blocking was an excessive threat formaking checkuser requests without presenting evidence. It is certain that AntanO made no effort to sort any of this out with Elcobbola before bringing this to the Administrator's noticeboard, and it is certain that AntanO has been making checkuser requests without presenting evidence. Antan0, if you stop making checkuser requests without presenting evidence, then presumably it becomes moot what Elcobbola might do if you keep doing this.
No administrative action in order at this time; that's what this page is for, and I think we should close this thread.- Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read my last response to user The Aafī. I am happy to give evidence, but how can I response once if it declined? AntanO 18:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntanO, the evidence needs to be presented when you make the SPI case. In any case, if there is no evidence, a CU request is to be declined. For the specific case, I suggest you talk with @Elcobbola in a very calm and friendly manner and share your findings. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
//if there is no evidence, a CU request is to be declined// Is it so? Is it in guideline? Can you show me? What is wrong to ask evidence than 'declined'? I already talked and tone was harsh and it is good talk with the help of others. AntanO 18:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The relevant passage is quoted above (Evidence is required…"). Perhaps you should go back and read it rather than continuing to complain in a harsh tone about others's harsh tone. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidence is required, but it doesn't say to decline. Do you want me to shut up and accept all without questioning including own interpretation that not in Commons's guidline? AntanO 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a CU check request is not a "Speedy deletion request". You are seriously not taking the point. COM:CHECK says it clearly Requests to run a check without evidence or with ambiguous reasoning will result in delays or the request not being investigated.. It is up to a CU about how they find the SPI filer's reasoning. There is no one doing own interpretation but it is you who is not ready to fix a mistake that you have been committing again and again, and when directed to fix, you have started seriously a very much vicious thread. You could have resolved this personally with @Elcobbola but unfortunately you have not. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you read my replies or just write without order? I don't wanna repeat what I have said. BTW, I was talked with this user in 2020 and I have seen user's discussions which seems to annoying. AntanO 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's take a look here. I am completely uninvolved in this discussion so far, or in any of the sock-sets as far as I know. First, your concern about having CU requests be denied when you don't follow the instructions for filing has been well answered, including by citing specific CU guideline. Continuing to ask the same question will continue to get the same answer (I would also give the same answer and cite the same guidelines). Continuing to do something you are asked not to do, or thinking you could automatically get exceptions to our policies or guidelines, is not going to get you what you want. The fact that you got a stern warning about it is completely reasonable, especially because it contained specific information about how your behavior was disruptive in several ways. What specific things are remaining un-answered? DMacks (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's make it simple.
  • This CU request was made without following CU guideline, but accepted
  • Last CU request was made without following CU guideline, but declined
AntanO 04:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have been told repeatedly that CUs might have information about a situation even without you telling them. The guideline does not require that they decline if you do not provide evidence. You have been told repeatedly that CUs can decline if you do not provide evidence. They are not required to act without it. Given that's all you have, we're done here. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
//CUs might have information about a situation even without you telling them// Is (situation) it in guideline? How can a user act on this "situation"? Isn't confusing? AntanO 05:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntanO: you say you are an admin on another wiki. I presume you sometimes have a situation where someone gives a fragmentary report, or asks an incoherent question, or such, and you can still work out what is going on and act on it appropriately. E.g. someone asks, without context, "why were my edits deleted" and provides no link to anything, but you can quickly see what of theirs was just rolled back and give them an answer, so you do it. Or someone goes, "A looks like a sockpuppet of B" and you look, and A's edits are so obviously bad that it doesn't matter if they are a sockpuppet: they need to be blocked in any case, so you resolve it without bothering to do a sockpuppet investigation. Because as an admin, you try to get things done, not to make petty complaints and ramp up drama. But at some point, if they keep doing that, you call them on it, as you've been called on this by Elcobbola.
Again, to all: No administrative action in order at this time; that's what this page is for, and I think we should close this thread. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand and accept that admins go into such situation. But, the way the user treated is like treating a vandal. I am here to support the project, not to damage. I faced some incident in Commons (but others supported neutrally) and gradually slow my contribution. I don't want give my contribution purely and get bad experience. I wouldn't come here if other Wiki has no connection with Commons.
All admin seem to me not neutral and cover up fellow admin (except you that you were somehow neutral analytical person). This will chase away pure contributor. Look at the replies and it will create moral anger.
BTW, there is lack of connection between CU guidance/policy and admin action. This will confuse users and it may bring complaints. AntanO 11:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only person confused here is you, AntanO. The only "not neutral" person here is you, AntanO. I will endeavour to be very clear. You have three options going forward: 1) Provide appropriate evidence at future RFCUs (best); 2) If that is not something you're capable of, abstain from filing RFCUs (just okay); or 3) Continue as you have been and be blocked (worst). While I don't consider my warning to you to have been harsh--especially to an experienced user who wastes no time in telling us he's an admin--or even a threat ("may" is not, say, "will" or "shall"), I trust all can see from your participation here why it was entirely fitting. Be grateful CUs (largely me) have gone above and beyond to build cases for you in the past. Stop accusing others of abusing multiple accounts without evidence. Full Stop. Эlcobbola talk 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arbitration? If you use your admin without valid reason, I'd call for de-admin or I'd approach Wikimedia. Full Stop AntanO 03:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Prarambh20

Could an admin please tell me what the deal with these photos is Trade (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I don't see any reason deletion. File:Raj Bhavan of Tripura.jpg is small without EXIF, but File:Agartala town Hall-version.jpg is high resolution with EXIF data. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tojoroy20. Tojoroy20 and Prarambh20 are the same user. Yann (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That helps a bit to explain my confusion, but were any of these files duplicates of those deleted at the DR you've just linked? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holocaust denial and antisemitism from User:Raquel Baranow

User:Raquel Baranow was previously sitebanned from the English Wikipedia under en:WP:NONAZIS following recommendation by Jimbo Wales to be permanently banned. This ban was the result of Raquel's open advocacy of Holocaust denialism. Raquel's Wikimedia Commons userpage is currently full of antisemitic imagery and Holocaust denialism. Even more egregious examples can be found on Raquel's English Wikipedia sandbox. Freedom4U (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Her sandbox, which I nominated for deletion for similar reasons, is relevant to this discussion. Susmuffin (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been reading about this since since F4U brought it up on the Wikimedia Discord, and I gotta say, if Jimbo is advocating for a permanent ban, then you must've done something horrible. They're very much violating WP:NONAZIS still. And don't get me started on the scar pictures, but that's mostly just me hating unlabeled gore. They should not only be banned from Commons, but also globally locked so they don't get to push Nazi propaganda on other projects. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I blocked the user and deleted the user page. We should also review the edits and uploads. GPSLeo (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done? I declined unblock request and looked last twenty or so edits without finding bad ones. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think one or two more admins should have a look at the deleted user page if this justifies an infinite block. We should not take the enwiki behavior into account here and leave this to a decision on a global lock/ban. The content and discussion behavior outside of the deleted user page seems okay. GPSLeo (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, as long as she is just a nazi in her own user space, that's ok? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Third opinion. I for myself surely don't like any kind of conspiracy theories, and Holocaust denial is undoubtedly amongst the nastiest ones. However, if we follow en:WP:NONAZIS we should do it consequently and without double standards, that means, all the public supporters of Russian fascism (in other words, supporters of Putin and Russian invasion of Ukraine) should be indef'ed too, exactly for the same reason. The fact is, however, that at the moment there is no consensus to block them, and on Russian Wikipedia about every second one is either fascist, or fascism supporter, or conformist at the very least; not few of them active on Commons too and at least one is admin on Commons too. Of course me (as anti-fascist) would strong support indef blocks for this reason, but IMHO only then we should block someone for conspirology on userpage, if that's the only reason. Regarding their user page contents, I think the deletion is fine. --A.Savin 11:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think it's productive or necessary to make assessments based on specific ideologies, doctrines, or groups (Nazism, Putinism, etc.) We need only assess a user's edits against policy; for example, per COM:BP: "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere" (underline added) and "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked" (underline added). So the question is not whether one supports fascism (which is not the same as Nazism, it bears mentioning) or any other nonsense, but whether such support is done in a manner that disrupts the collegial atmosphere or creates a hostile environment. Эlcobbola talk 12:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's already (hopefully) perfect consensus here to ban users who publicly wish an other user death. I don't think this should be treated any different in case of those who wish a whole ethnic and/or religious group death, be it otherwise an author of 100 featured WP articles and/or 200 Featured pictures on Commons. --A.Savin 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see how this is responsive to my comment. To "publicly wish an other user death" is unambiguously disruption of a collegial atmosphere and creation of a hostile environment, as is the same wish for "whole ethnic and/or religious group." Эlcobbola talk 23:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since she's now been blocked here as well, I went ahead and deleted her en.wp sandbox. If there's an appetite to run this up the chain for a global ban or an office ban, the stewards/office staff can still see everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore category Category:Zhezhava sanctuary

Category:Zhezhava sanctuary Микола Василечко (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Yann (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging two files

Hello! I've noticed these two files are the same pictures:

Can someone please merge them together? Thanks in advance -- Titlutin (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done @Titlutin, in the future please use {{Duplicate}}. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @AntiCompositeNumber, I didn't know this template. --Titlutin (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need an admin to move image

Could somebody please move File:American Football House (corrected).jpg to File:American Football House.jpg for me? I did the requested perspective correction, but can't upload it back to the same title because I'm not an admin on Commons. There's a bit of time urgency here, since this is going to be on the main page of enwiki in a few hours as part of en:Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RoySmith I would call that a significant change that should not be overwritten. I would suggest using the alternate image. The bot should protect it within 10 minutes of it being changed in the queue. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unattended deletion requests

Three deletion requests for voice files uploaded by me have been left unattended for almost two months.

I'm unsure if this is because I made errors in complying with the standard deletion request, but whatever the case, I hope for assistance here if this is the right place to ask. These files are from C-SPAN website, where coverage of floor activity of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate is in the public domain (thus available for Commons), but coverage of hearings is not. This is why I asked for deletion of these files in relation to copyright.

However, these hearings on the Iran-Contra affair were filmed in 1987, which may qualify them for the Template:PD-US-1978-89 (I don't see any registers for these on the U.S. Copyright Office website) - but I can't be sure until the deletion requests receive outside input. Hopefully these files qualify under the template, so they can be kept. Since I can't remove the requests without them being closed, another reason to ask for help here. Many thanks.

On Commons:Help desk, according to a commenter, since I was the only one to comment on these deletion pages, these files should be non-controversial. SuperWIKI (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You didn't make any errors in how you reported on it. No one has had further comments. This happens. DRs sometimes take a while. There are a lot of them. I imagine no one has seen any urgency in dealing with these. {{PD-US-1978-89}} would probably be safe. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=784336855"