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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
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.
Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
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/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
After the end of his first blocking he continued his behavior, to a greater extent than before. I think he has not recognized his mistakes. He wrote a comment with his signature in a template. See here.
Last weekend I spent many hours correcting errors which he made in the Mulhouse Museum categories. I only did the decades from 1870 to 1930. This week he ruined the work. Of course, he did not engage in any discussion on any of the points.
Now he obviously tried to solve one of the problems with "of the Musée" instead of "in the Musée". But he still put these categories under categories "in museum". That cannot be right!
Two points:
20 Reverts. Last weekend I had made changes (from wrong to right) and written edit comments. He made reverts (from right to wrong) without comments. That doesn't work! Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. With a closer look: Often I removed the category in this museum. Sometimes he made exact revert, ignoring that some pictures were not made in this museum. Sometimes he added the category of the museum, ignoring that (example) Category:1920s automobiles of the Musée National de l'Automobile cannot be a subcategory of Category:1920s automobiles in museums because some pictures were not made in museums. I don't know if it's okay to press the revert button to make a hidden change. It looks like an attempt at deception for me. This must be multiple misuse of revert.
I request: A block for a longer period than the first time. If possible and usual on Commons: A ban for specific areas for a long time. Perhaps for the areas of creating categories, moving categories, renaming categories, emptying categories, suggesting for quick category deletions, changing main categories or subcategories, and reverts. Or generally for everything to do with vehicles or vehicle museums. Buch-t (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buch-t: I am sympathetic, but not all of the above edits look at all obviously wrong. For example, at [1]: what exactly is wrong with adding each of the following to Category:Alfa-Romeo type 8C 2,9 B biplace course (M.N.A. 1118)? Please reply under the respective bullet points for any where you think I have it wrong.
So for this edit, I see one pretty obviously correct change, one other that looks correct, one other that is not a well-named category but looks otherwise correct, and one that is, indeed COM:OVERCAT. If that is typical, this does not suggest high competence on Finoskov's part, but is not usually the sort of thing over which someone gets blocked.
It is really hard to go through a laundry list like the one you posted above and try to work out whether someone's edits or good, bad, or (as it appears from this one) somewhere in between. This took me over 5 minutes just to evaluate on edit in an area where I don't normally work and it came up "not great, not awful." I would much rather see you take 3-5 specific edits of his that you think are wrong and break them down like I did above. In other words: if this is what you want us to look at, please do the heavy lifting yourself instead of making an admin spend an hour on working out whether you are correct.
As for the category moves: yes, that is very wrong, and might merit a block all on its own, especially if he won't promise to stop. - Jmabel ! talk17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. In this category and subcategories are only historic pictures made 1938 and 1948 during car races in Italy, not in the museum Mulhouse in France. He added:
@Finoskov: all of this looks very wrong on your part, especially putting way too broad categories under particular museums that might have an exemplar.
Blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive. If you promise to stop this now, and you do stop, I see no need for a block. If you persist, I would advocate either a 3-month block now, to be turned into a year-long block if you come back and do this again, or a complete topic ban from anything about automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Finoskov feels competent to override others' decisions about prepositions in English, but does not understand enough English to follow what I'm saying. Also apparently, he believes that the overhead of a cat redirect is something comparable to, for example, downloading images.
French is about my fifth or sixth language, which is to say I can read it moderately well, but certainly cannot express myself in it significantly better than a Google Translate rendition of my English. @Ruthven: I know you are quite comfortable in both English and French, can you possibly take over this situation, or let me know that you can't so I can look for someone else to ask? - Jmabel ! talk08:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann for the translation. I find worrisome that Finoskov sees your message as an "attack", when it's just a warning about a behaviour. Jmabel, would a partial block on the categories ns suffice? Ruthven(msg)14:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven and Yann: do what you think best. My request to bring in another admin was not strictly a language issue. After my entirely appropriate warning was described as vos attaques, and after what I agree was almost certainly a "pretense" of not understanding me, I was livid enough to impose a long, long block. I figured it should be left to someone else to handle this, because acting out of anger is not generally a great thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk19:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of moving categories Finoskov creates new ones tagging the old ones for deletion (I didn't count exactly, it might have been about 4000 categories). That is massive disruptive behavior because a) one cannot move the cat back if necessary and b) links pointing there from other projects are broken. Therefore I asked Finoskov in 2019 and again in 2023 to refrain from that, but they ignored it. Therefore I herewith request a block only for category namespace for one year. --Achim55 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: , and this also goes for any other admin: it's two days later, obviously no one else is taking this on, and I'm tired of it dragging on. If it is left to me—and if this sits another 24 hours, I'm going to consider it left to me—it is going to be an indefinite block from category namespace. - Jmabel ! talk04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user uploaded a bunch of random photos and categorized them into Category:2024 Magdeburg Christmas market attack with them not being directly connected to the attack and therefore misleading possible viewers. I tried to contact him on his talk page about it but haven't received any answer so far. I have tried to edit the corresponding pictures, but the user keeps reverting my changes. (ongoing deletion request with redundant pictures at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:C.Suthorn)
@Jmabel, what would be the best way if the user resets several times for some images that have nothing to do with the attack? I don't want to get caught up in an edit war, but some images can't stay in this category. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a bit clumsy, but: If I drive to a city where something significant happened the day before and I take a photo of some statue in that city that had nothing to do with that event, except that maybe there was a police car there the day before drove by, then this image should not be sorted into any category or subcategory of that event at all. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Es kann sein, dass ich ein Bild versehentlich zweimal zurückgesetzt haben VECTRONATOR hat so schnell und ohne Edit-Komment editiert, das wurde sehr unübersichtlich und ich hatte - warum auch immer zu dem Zeitpunkt - nur langsames Internet. Das ganze wäre nicht nötig gewesen, wenn VECTRONATOR einfach die mehrfach erwähnte Unterkategorie angelegt hätte. C.Suthorn (@[email protected] - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does nothing but make sloppy deletion requests that are either full of snitty jokes or flat-out incomprehensible. Usually “right but for the wrong reasons”. Not here in good faith IMO. Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user is trying to enforce his POV regarding the naming of sports club categories by force (see also: User talk:Mitte27#Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories, Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:FC Bayern Munich, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 98#Category:FC Bayern München/Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories). The specific occasion for this report is that he started a category-move war by moving the category Category:Polonia Warszawa to the English name. This category, like all of our categories for sports clubs, was originally created under the original (in this case Polish) name Polonia Warszawa, but was moved to the English name Polonia Warsaw by Eksperto in 2019 without any discussion ([2]). I recently reverted this because using the English name is against our common practice (I already have written that several times and proven there that our common practice here on Commons is to use the original proper name for sports clubs categories, not the English translation). And such controversial category renaming should not happen without a CfD, anyway (Mitte27 nows that, Jmabel already has told him that in the above linked first report 2,5 weeks ago). On December 15, Mitte27 then moved the category back to the undiscussed title, with the deliberately misleading comment "renamed without discussion". This is clearly vandalism. His solo efforts in the sports clubs categories case are no longer acceptable. By this he causes a lot of extra work for other users and causes a lot of damage. Please strictly warn the user and explain him that this behaviour is not welcome on Commons and will result in serious consequences.
Furthermore, I ask for this cfd to be closed now: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:FC Bayern Munich.
Ping also to User:GPSLeo, User:Jeff G., User:Jmabel. -- Chaddy (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To rename a controversial name, a discussion must first take place. You yourself insisted on this in the case of FC Bayern Munich. Mitte27 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Exactly that is what I have explained in my above report. If you want to move the category to the English title, you have to discuss it first. Please read my report first before commenting or even starting another edit-war. -- Chaddy (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The renaming in 2019 also was undiscussed. That no one had noticed this for five years does not legitimate Eksperto's undiscussed renaming.
I really don't know why you try to spread as much chaos as possible in this case. That behaviour is very unconstructive. Why can't you just work together in a cooperative manner? It's really sad that we got into this deadlock. -- Chaddy (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are edit warring and blaming each other here. I am blocking both of you from moving pages for two weeks. If you are not able to find a solution during this time I will extend this. Bypassing the moving block will result in a complete block. GPSLeo (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that the block can be lifted anytime when you pledge not to make any controversial category moves including all category moves changing the language. GPSLeo (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, wenn jetzt alle in ihrer Muttersprache kommunizieren tu ich das eben auch: Wo genau hab ich denn einen Edit-War geführt? Ich habe ein einziges Mal verschoben, dabei habe ich die regelwidrige Verschiebung von 2019 rückgängig gemacht. Das ist nun wirklich kein Edit-War.
Mitte27 hat das dann völlig regelwidrig rückgängig gemacht. Und dafür bekomme ich nun eine Sanktion? Das verstehe ich jetzt wirklich nicht. Und was ist mit der regelwidrigen Verschiebung von Category:Polonia Warszawa? Bleibt die jetzt einfach so? Und wieso? Bei der FC-Bayern-Kategorie wurde das - von dir selbst - anders gehandhabt. Wieso werden hier andere Maßstäbe angesetzt? -- Chaddy (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Du hast einen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt um die Kategorie zurückverschieben zu können. Als das mit dem berechtigten Einwand, dass das nicht ohne Diskussion geschehen kann, rückgängig gemacht wurde hast du das wieder rückgängig gemacht. Das geschah nachdem du dich hier schon bewert und die Bewertung des Falls damit eigentlich abgegeben hattest. Eine Diskussion mit der anderen Person hast du zu keinem Zeitpunkt versucht. Als dann von Mitte27 eine Diskussion geöffnet wurde hast du dich darüber beschwert, dass jetzt darüber diskutiert und eine konsensuelle Lösung gefunden werden soll. Wenn dich der Begriff Edit-War stört, kann ich es auch unkonstuktives Verhalten nennen. GPSLeo (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Einen SLA zu stellen ist doch kein Edit-War. Mitte27s anschließende Entfernung des SLAs war zudem klar regelwidrig - als Nichtadmin kann er nicht einfach eigenmächtig SLAs entfernen. Dazu sind die Regeln hier auf Commons doch sicher nicht so grundlegend anders als auf de-WP, oder?
Und selbstverständlich habe ich versucht, mit Mitte27 zu diskutieren. Ich habe doch oben in meiner Meldung alle Links angegeben. Es wurde längst ausführlichst diskutiert. An einer dieser Diskussionen warst du auch selbst beteiligt. Das hier ist kein isolierter Einzelfall, es ist Teil des umfassenden Streits bzgl. der Benennung von Kats von Sportvereinen. Mitte27 weiß, dass er eine nicht konsensfähige Minderposition vertritt (lies doch mal die verlinkten Dikussionen, die sind schon ziemlich klar gegen seine Position). Dennoch handelt er, wie er handelt - das lässt nur den Schluss zu, dass er offensichtlich mit der Brechstange seine Position durchsetzen will. Das kannst du doch nicht gleichsetzem mit meinem Handeln. Ich habe lediglich versucht, das angerichtete Chaos aufzuräumen. Ich verstehe, dass das alles unübersichtlich ist, da wie immer die Diskussionen natürlich wortreich in die Länge gezogen werden. Aber bitte, lies dich da mal ein. Dann siehst du, dass du hier eine falsche Bewertung der Sachlage vorgenommen hast. Im Anschluss bitte dann meine Verschiebesperre aufheben, die ist nämlich nun wirklich unberechtigt. Ich habe keinen Editwar begangen und ich habe auch keine kontroversen Verschiebungen durchgeführt.
Auf den Rest bist du leider nicht eingegangen: Auch schon Mitte27s Verschiebung war klar regelwidrig - wie du ja selbst schreibst, dazu ist erst eine Diskussion nötig. Wieso bleibt seine Verschiebung aber nun bestehen? Wieso bewertest du das hier anders als vor kurzem bei der FCB-Kat? Es kann doch nicht sein, dass er für seinen Regelbruch letztlich belohnt wird? Dass er eine Kat-Diskussion eröffnet hat ist sein gutes Recht. Aber zuerst bereits Fakten schaffen geht nicht. Und ja, die Kat lag 5 Jahre unter dem falschen Lemma, weil sie bereits 2019 regelwidrig verschoben wurde. Durch diese fünf Jahre wird die Regelwidrigkeit aber nicht "geheilt". Andernfalls könnte man allerhand Unsinn anstellen in wenig beobachteten Bereichen und sich Jahre später, wenn es dann doch auffliegt, darauf berufen, dass es ja Jahre lang so Bestand hatte (es also jahrelang einfach niemandem aufgefallen ist). Da sind wir uns doch einig, oder? -- Chaddy (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GPSLeo, а можно пояснить за что на меня было наложено ограничение сегодня, если я не переименовывал никакие категории в течение послендних дней и сам открыл тему для обсуждения? Без каких либо предупреждений. Снимите с меня блокировку как необоснованную. --Mitte27 (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what you wrote on the different discussions I am not convinced that you would not make a new controversial renaming without prior discussion. GPSLeo (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo Я не делал никаких переименований в течение последних недель. Ваша блокировка необоснованна и без каких либо предупреждений. Я не нанёс никакого вреда проекту и всегда готов обсудить спорный вопрос для чего дважды открывал темы для обсуждений в отличие от участника Chaddy. Прошу снять блокировку с меня, а я в свою очередь обещаю не делать никакие переименование в течение последующих двух недель. Mitte27 (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will unblock you if you pledge that you do not do controversial category renames including all language changes until further notice (not just for two weeks). If you do so you will be infinitly blocked from renaming or even entirely. Same for @Chaddy from now on you need to aks the person who moved the category to move it back or you have start a CfD even if the category was moved against the guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GPSLeo, Sorry to bother you, but you have not responded in the last three days. Since the block was determined to be in error, please remove it from my block log. The block makes me the top offender on Commons, despite my many years of contributing to the Commons. --Mitte27 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that the block was determined to be against some policy. I still think it was needed to prevent potential further damage. But as you wish I hereby ask some other admins to look at this case and decide if that was justified or not. GPSLeo (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this request this is done. @ Other Amdins please have a look at this case and give a statement if the partial block was justified or not. If the block was not justified add a comment to the block log with this decision. GPSLeo (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me if I can state my point of view on the events, since the request was submitted by the user Chaddy, and I actually did not express myself about the essence of the request? Mitte27 (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no technical possibility to remove such log entries. The only possibility is another very short block (1 second or so) that generates another log entry in whose comment line an annotation can be added that the last block was wrong or something similar. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to hide the log entry from non admins and it is technically possible to even oversight the hole log entry and therefore making it entirely invisible even to admins. But I think this would not be a good idea to do this here for transparency reasons. Therefore it would need a 1 second block or an block with immediate unblock to add a comment with the decision to the log. GPSLeo (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, this report is for @VNC200. He is once again back with false speedy deletion nominations. Previously too he has started DRs which were flase as can be seen here. Although both cases are not same but similar. There he was warned by @Jmabel not to do this. But he seems not to understand it. Please refer to their contribution history to see what I am talking about. Pinging @Yann who blocked them twice. First time for 1 week for Edit warring and then for 1 month for Vandalism. Thank you. ShaanSenguptaTalk03:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With their reply to the TP notice of this discussion, it is clear that they have not understood what Jmabel told them at the DR. They were advised that if there is some issue with file name or description or anything, it can be sorted out and DR isn't required. Also tge second part of their reply You should remove it or a strict action can be taken against this file and you. I wonder if by strict action, fo they mean just it being deleted or is this a legal threat? ShaanSenguptaTalk03:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I see on his user page that instead of coming here to COM:AN/U to discuss, he threatened "strict action" against Shaan Sengupta. I think this merits a block but I don't know how long. I'd appreciate if some admin who is more involved in blocking users would take this on. I usually only get involved with blocks for blatant violations or vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk19:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no other admin seems interested in taking this on. I'll do a three-month block here, but won't object to any other admin modifying it in either direction. - Jmabel ! talk22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I deleted speedily all other uploads as fantasy maps and flags. Map of winners of beauty competition in years 2025 and 2044? Get real! Flag of en:Equestria and so on. Taivo (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remjeud persistently uploads copyright violations, most recently two reuploads of previously deleted copyvios immediately following a warning not to do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account is disruptively and destructively attempting to speedily delete images most images I've uploaded and is refusing any and all attempts to be civil about not doing this. I have no idea why they would be targeting my uploads, and none of their deletion requests have made any sense whatsoever.
Some examples include:
album and concert art by a band that has explicitly released this content into the public domain per their bandcamp website: If anyone wants to release these albums, you’re free to do so. Here you’ll find links to audio files and cover art. Feel free to get creative with it if you like - it’s yours -The Band
A picture of a French Colonial governor from a book published in 1941
interesting to note, but the user has no problem with the the entire source page, seemingly because it wasn't uploaded by me
The problem is that the uploader doesn't understand what a simple logo is, provides insufficient evidence of permission and removes deletion templates such as {{Logo}}, {{No permission since}} and {{Delete}} instead of discussing the problems. I didn't see File:Platon et Nouailhetas, Djibouti 1941.jpg as none of the files I included in the deletion request referred to that file.
The Amtrak logo is just a few lines. Compare with the Android logo which is way less complex than the tree logo yet still too complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you're really saying that a tree is too complicated?
A tree drawing is inherently based upon real world trees. Their growth is governed by several constraints, ecological and mechanical in their nature. This means that every tree has no exact twin appearance-wise. Why I'm saying this? It's because any entity working on depicting a tree is bound, is forced to make abstractions about their real-life models. Any human (and AI too, for that matter) condenses depictions of trees known to him into a new depiction this individual is working on. And: this is the quintessence of creativity and root of IP rights. One could easily argue that an ideogram like a kanji for "tree" got simplified in such a way that there's no protectable creativity left. But the drawing exemplified here is definitely in the realm of protection afforded by IP laws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done No wrongdoing on User:Stefan2's part. The DR notices have been restored, and I have warned Scu ba on their talk page that they are not allowed to remove DR notices from ongoing DRs. I've also deleted several of the complex logos they uploaded. No need for admin action at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user reverted all my edits from today, including two talk page comments, without providing any reason. Things unfold as follows: 1) I made report about abuse filter not allowing me to add a category, but my report got reverted, 2) I asked about the revert in user talk, and got got reverted again, 3) I find out that I'm globally blocked as right after first revert a report linking me with LTA case had been made without providing any evidence (fortunately the steward was willing to relook the report and lifted my block), 4) finally I find out that all my recent edits are reverted, e.g. here.
I don't think that I or anyone else should prove that they are not a camel, but nonetheless, here it goes: as anyone can check from editing history of my IP range, I haven't engaged in any activities similar to that of this LTA user. Usually I don't even work on topic areas associated to this LTA user, with the seldom exceptions like disallowed edit to File:Moka 4-OlariPilnik.jpg (an uncategorized image that I wanted to add into a category containing words "road" and "signs"). Also, this LTA user is documented to be from Australia. As you can easily check, my IP address in not Australian.
To me it doesn't seem healthy at all to consider that anyone is this LTA only as long as they make an edit that includes words "road" and/or "signs" (which the abuse filter that I initially reported seems to target). I don't know how much trouble the LTA user in question is causing. If at the end you really must have as restrictive abuse filter then I'm willing to accept that there are a few categories that I can't add. But I don't think that this kind of conduct by Jeff G. should be tolerated.
I believe all my edits from today were legitimate and hence I ask them to be reinstated. I also believe Jeff G. should have their revert right revoked after this obvious misuse of this right. Additionally I'd consider blocking Jeff G. (or any user) who makes this kind of nasty global block requests without any evidence against others users. 2001:7D0:81F8:9A80:AC7F:1A0E:A016:9A8419:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. everything else aside, if you don't have access to the content of the relevant abuse log details, you generally shouldn't be responding to those false positive reports unless it is very obvious. Note also that IPv6 users often float around their /64 range, so the fact that the IP changed is not a sign of any intentional (let alone negative) behavior. Is there evidence that this is Jermboy27, especially given EPIC's doubts? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: Just the filter hits. I usually interact with Эlcobbola regarding these filter hits, but that user has been out of action since October. I'm sorry I overreacted to those filter hits, but it seemed no one else was watching such filter hits. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. I have Commons talk:Abuse filter watchlisted. You usually get to the reports before I do, but I do look at that page often. I mostly don't patrol filter hits without reports unless I'm looking for something in particular. But please don't respond to people about private hits that you can't see: then it's not possible to determine whether there's an issue or not. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User @The Pen Pusher is uploading images for a personal fringe theory to commons and attempting to insert them as new articles or new content to major articles on Wikipedia. All of the images are patent nonsense and can never be used on Wikipedia or any other project, and their multiple attempts to shoehorn them into places where others may see it (a stated goal of theirs on their talk page on wikipedia) probably means that uploading privileges should be revoked before it becomes an even bigger mess of nonsense files to deal with.
Warrenmck (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I deleted all files and the user page, and sent 2 warnings. This user should be blocked if this behavior continues. Yann (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have come here directly without trying to contact HmpxX on their TP. Something needs to be done about this user. They just seem to try to get Confirmed tag anyhow without knowing anything about it. Please see this revision at COM:RFR#Confirmed. They marked their request as done trying to show it as if @Achim55 did it. Ping to @The Squirrel Conspiracy, since you too are involved in that thread. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk11:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if it is a troll or if the user mixed E-Mail confirmation in the registration process and confirmed user rights. GPSLeo (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HmpxX it looks like you are entering your signature manually. When you are done writing whatever you want to, just put four tidles ~~~~ at the end. It will put your signature there. Or use the reply button, to pass this too. Thank you. Shaan SenguptaTalk15:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any malice here or anything that requires administrator action. HmpxX just needs to be explained on their talk page about the functioning of the wiki and that of user rights. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a problem with the reply! 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)HmpxX (talk)
@Trade: you might consider first explaining to the on their talk page why this is a problem, rather than presume they are familiar with copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, what could possibly have given you the impression that people "tried" to explain anything to me? This thread here, and Trade posting onto my WP's user talk a few minutes ago, are the first times in regards to this topic that someone has written me a non-template message. None of the messages posted on my user board have veered away from an unhelpful copy/paste, and what questions I asked people directly went unanswered. I'd love to get an understanding of the issue, if only someone could actually provide a custom explanation. It's quite misleading to be depicted as someone who is not giving a "response" when no one has bothered to talk to me or guide me at all.
For context, I started this trend of uploading logos after looking at the practices of other video game logo uploaders on fr-WP. For example, we have this file for The Witcher 3 and this one for Hollow Knight. Not only have those logos never been challenged by WP contributors, but I've been able to raise these specific articles to Featured Article quality with those logos in the infobox. So, what gives? I'm certainly not denying that I need a refresher on what criteria make something too complex for the originality threshold, but please give me a hand here and don't leave me in a vacuum. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alecto Chardon: I strongly recommend that you read Commons:Threshold of originality, especially the sections relevant to countries from which you are uploading logos. If, after reading that, you still need a "custom explanation," please indicate one or more of the logos you uploaded that were deleted that you think should possibly not have been. - Jmabel ! talk00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that none of this is in fact the users own work, but rather the copyrighted works of their disclosed employer who is paying them to edit at en.wp. I assume they've made the classic mistake of thinking since they work there, they can just release all this material as own work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the files look generally in scope. @Grace at ZKH: we do need to distinguish who actually authored these and who owns the copyright of these files. I have no idea how much you understand about copyright law, but unless you are the photographer, what you stated here is not accurate. Copyright would normally belong initially to the photographer and may or may not have been transferred to the company. At this point we'll need the copyright-owner (or a company representative if the copyright belongs to a company) to go through the process outlined at COM:VRT, and we'd also greatly appreciate it if you could change author information to be accurate. In the circumstances, we need the VRT process even if you are the photographer, because I think the suspicion is reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Last and only edits were on 17 December 2024. There is no point to block it now. Yann (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Info Mitte27 has opened another construction site: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:Polonia Warszawa. It is getting annoying. -- Chaddy (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
album and concert art by a band that has explicitly released this content into the public domain per their bandcamp website: If anyone wants to release these albums, you’re free to do so. Here you’ll find links to audio files and cover art. Feel free to get creative with it if you like - it’s yours -The Band
A picture of a French Colonial governor from a book published in 1941
interesting to note, but the user has no problem with the the entire source page, seemingly because it wasn't uploaded by me_Cover.jpg)
