Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

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
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • 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.

Bull-Doser[edit]

Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

Uploaded copyvio File:Billy Woods au Ritz PDB — 1.png after final warning. 172.59.211.202 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was actually MY photo! It ain't no copyvio! I used my iPhone X to do it! I used the screenshot subject to crop after my Ritz PDB photos! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bull-Doser: You would have done well to say something at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billy Woods au Ritz PDB — 1.png during the 12 days it was open. And you might want to make an undeletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bull-Doser: What about File:Annika Chambers.jpg? 108.58.166.134 11:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to have the administrators examine the user's work regarding c:Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Canada. Many pictures illustrating people show signs of having being taken surreptitiously, or were notably taken that way, while under Quebec law, a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject. Other examples of candid photos include File:Rachel Therrien au Bourgie.jpg, File:Marie-Lyne Joncas dehors les studios Bell Média radio Montréal.jpg, File:Jocelyne Robert (Salon du livre Montréal 2015).jpg, File:Suzie LeBlanc chez la salle Bourgie de la MBAM.jpg, File:Jean-Michel Anctil chez le Monte Carlo à Charlemagne.jpg, File:Isabelle Cyr chez la cabaret Lion D'Or.jpg, File:François Maranda dehors les studios de CIME-FM.JPG, File:Viviane Audet au La Sala Rossa.jpg, File:Yolande Cohen.jpg, File:Véronique Béliveau au SLM 2019.jpg, File:Solon McDade au café Résonance.jpg, File:Gilles Laporte au centre culturel Notre-Dame-de-Grâce -- 2.jpg, File:Monic Néron au Chez Roger.png, File:Patrick Lagacé au Chez Roger.png, File:Élise Guilbault au bar Chez Roger.png, File:Sophie Deraspe et Nahéma Ricci au LSEEJ.png and many, many more ― I picked these while browsing through user's upload at random dates. While these seem to be problematic on many levels regarding COM:SCOPE (especially regarding COM:EDUSE vs image quality), they strike me as lacking explicit consent. Candid photography of people seem to have taken roots in the users' modus operandi. Some subbjects or their representatives have explicitly asked for removal due to lack of consent on their behalf : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christian Chamorel dehors la chapelle historique du Bon-Pasteur.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samuel Archibald (SDLM '16).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cynthia Girard-Renard au Stewart Hall.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flore laurentienne au festival Santa Teresa 2021.png and, once again, many, many more.
Considering the systematic nature of the problem. I think the situation is beyond recovery and that a simple warning would have little to no effect. Webfil (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a block is in order. 108.58.166.134 13:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These people are individuals of public interest, photographed during public presentations/appearances, and permission is not required to publish photos of persons of public interest taken in public places, even in Québec.
However, it is true that a lot of these photos are of poor quality. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: The subject user has been known to license for commercial use and misidentify illegally posted photos of regular people as being of persons of public interest. See also this advice from the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa. 108.58.166.134 13:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Licensing for commercial use (in the sense of a copyright license like CC BY-SA) is not what is restricted by the law. It is the use of a person's likeness for certain commercial purposes which is restricted. That's a matter of personality rights; the copyright in the image belongs to the photographer alone. That's what we have the personality rights template for.
  2. If the people are misidentified, that's a different issue. I'm only talking about when the people depicted really are who they're supposed to be.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller. I doubt taking pictures of a person driving their own car, dining at a restaurant or obviously trying to escape the photography/photographer (1, 2) is what the Supreme court justices had in mind in the Aubry case, when talking about the public interest. The decision defines the questions that must be asked in order to determine if the public interest prevails over the right to image :
  • Is the subject of the picture engaged in a public activity? e.g. an artistic event, politics, a matter within the public domain such as an important trial, a major economic activity having an impact on the use of public funds or an activity involving public safety;
  • If not, does the individual’s own action, albeit unwitting, accidentally places him or her in the photograph in an incidental manner? e.g. in a crowd at a sporting event or a demonstration.
  • If not, is the individual an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals in the photograph? The observer’s attention would then normally be directed elsewhere than towards the individual.
These four pictures no doubt escape the exceptions to the right of privacy as ruled by the Supreme court : in these, the subjects engage in private activities, they remain the main subjects of the photographs, they are not anonymous elements of a "bigger picture". Webfil (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could request deletion of these pictures. I would at least support deletion of poor quality pictures when not used. Yann (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, File:Jean-Michel Anctil chez le Monte Carlo à Charlemagne.jpg doesn't looks like dining at a restaurant; it looks like some sort of banquet event, because pretty much everyone seems to be looking the same direction. And the latter two don't look like trying to escape the photographer, they look like rapid snaps of someone walking past. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Greatjaipurupvc and User:Ravish80375[edit]

Both reuploading advertising PDFs almost simultaneously after previous deletions and warnings. Given the similarities in behavior, one's almost certainly a sockpuppet of the other. Omphalographer (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Both blocked. Yann (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Youhavemegabigc9ck[edit]

inappropriate username 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Screenshots of Creative Commons videos by GMN TV[edit]

The photos in this category are from à YouTube chain (https://www.youtube.com/@socialmediagmntv) and I am wondering about their real copyright status. The uploader is claiming Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 but I cannot find this on the website. Pierre cb (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pierre cb: could you be more clear about what you are claiming? Where in the chain is the problem, and can you indicate a particular file that raises concerns?
  1. Video is where the uploader says on YouTube
  2. Image is in video
  3. YouTube page offers the relevant license
  4. Owner of YouTube page appears to have the right to offer the license
For the first one I looked at (File:2022 Renilde Corte-Real da Silva.jpg, I have not checked #2, and have no idea for #4, but #1 and #3 are clearly fine, and I thought from what you wrote that you meant #3, so I'm circling back before I put more time into this.
Also: this page is normally for reporting users with behavioral problems. If that was your intent, I'm not sure how this is a behavioral problem, unless you are presuming (without spelling it out) that this is deliberate uploading of copyrighted images with no valid license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand what is the problem. The link to each video, which was used for screenshots is given. Below the video, you can find the license link in blue, which leads to CC BY 3.0 JPF (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not know where else to report and I do not say that it was deliberate, maybe I am at the wrong place. All I said is I cannot find the permission text on the YouTube chain claiming its free copyright status (#3). If they are really CC BY 3.0, the link to the permission text should be clearly indicated in the Description at parameter "permission", as it is in {{PD-US-Gov}}, not only the link to the source. Pierre cb (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the photo in the video and the license on the video. Does GMNTV have a license for the photo, since it appears to come from https://www.hatutan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Renilde.jpeg as displayed by https://www.hatutan.com/2022/09/20/falur-rate-laek-sei-nomeia-veteranu-ida-substitui-renilde-ba-xefe-kaza-militar/ ?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now looked into File:2020-06-04 Angela Freitas - GMN TV.jpg, File:2020-06-14 Auszahlung 300 Dollar-Hilfe in Holsa.jpg, and File:2022-01-30 Anacleto Bento Ferreira.jpg. In all cases, #1 and #3 are fine. Again, I have not checked #2 or #4, because Pierre cb seems to be saying that the problem is #3. All four YouTube source pages I have now looked at say clearly "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". That would be CC-BY. It is true that they don't specify a version number explicitly, but they link to https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468, which links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode, which specifies CC-BY 3.0. As far as I know, this is the normal way to indicate a CC-BY license on YouTube, so I don't think there is any need for a further explanation in "permissions".
@Pierre cb: admittedly, I've only looked at four of the files, but they were all fine. Is there one you can single out that you believe is problematic?
Jeff G. brings up a different issue, #4 above for the specific frame in question for one of the photos, File:2022 Renilde Corte-Real da Silva.jpg. I have no opinion on whether there might be something problematic about non-free use of third-party materials within a particular video, but if there is, that would be a copyright issue, certainly not a behavioral problem. Frankly, any user could be forgiven if they were to err because they failed to notice that a freely licensed video from a seemingly legitimate source had not, itself, correctly cleared its use of third-party copyrighted material. Yes, eventually people should learn to watch out for that, but it's not a conduct problem.
I am closing this discussion here because there is no admin issue involved. If anyone thinks particular images here have a problem because the source videos made use of non-free content, start a DR, or start a discussion at COM:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: A DR was started at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2022 Renilde Corte-Real da Silva.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


new account[edit]

please block Hamed Mirani singer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , this account belong to these two Hamed officiiali (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  / Hamed Mirani Media (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and delete all uploads non of them is his works Luckie Luke (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely and deleted all his contributions as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fabrizio Romano[edit]

Can this be considered as sabotage? The DR close with "delete", and both files (this and the cropped version) have been reuploaded by the user. Still no evidence of authorship, and the reason given is... well, not very accurate IMHO, to say the least. Ganímedes (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the DR was closed as "delete", but the file was not deleted. I don't see a "re-upload" on this file. This was uploaded 15 October 2021. Yes, the link to the DR was removed with a misleading comment. @Infrogmation: you closed the DR, so you are probably the best one to sort this out. I'm guessing "the cropped version" means File:Fabrizio Romano 2021 (cropped).jpg, and similar comments apply. - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, they were not reuploaded; I've requested undeletion to verify the ticket. My mistake. So now it's understandable the comment, even still is not accurate. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:神蔵蓮[edit]

The user has uploaded multiple copyright violations. Already reported at the jawiki administrators' noticeboard by User:Yfujisony (ja:Special:Diff/99308552). フランベ (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. I warned the user. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kumarguptanikhil[edit]

Kumarguptanikhil (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Upload advertising files with phone number. メイド理世 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Indef. Multiple warnings, spam only. Yann (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:70.68.168.129[edit]

This IP, which has already been blocked multiple times, is engaging in behavior that can only be described as showing a complete lack of competence, specifically:

Nonsensically claiming to be an admin (this is almost certainly not true because they seem to have absolutely no idea how Commons works):

Baffling vote argument that patently makes no sense in context:

I think they should probably be indeffed for obvious reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yeah, right. Blocked for a year. Claiming to be an admin which is obviously not the case... Yann (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical Wishes[edit]

I have been active on Wikipedia Commons for several years. My activity mainly revolves around Category:Noble families of Poland and concerns taking care of the aesthetics of this category, appropriately placing files in subcategories, etc. Before I started dealing with this category, many names were written in a random form, so for aesthetic reasons I chose the form "XYZ family" in the category naming (example: Category:Ankwicz family).

After some time, I realized that it was my mistake and I shouldn't have named these categories that way. People notoriously confuse families of noble descent with regular families with the same surname and mix up files related to two types of families with the same surname.

Since changing these categories manually will take me a lot of time, I am writing here to ask someone to use a bot to change the names of these articles from the form "XYZ family" to the form "House of XYZ" (example: Category:Ankwicz family reduced to Category:House of Ankwicz).

Category:Noble families of Russia has been using the "House of XYZ" provisions for a long time and in my opinion this is the best possible option to achieve order and aesthetics.

Thank you for understanding and for help. Heroldicas (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

own work[edit]

non of these files are own works of the uploader. all taken from google Images or social media such as twitter, Instagram. please delete all.Luckie Luke (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use {{Speedydelete}} with the X/Twitter, Google images, Instagram URL/link to the violating works. Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kynnap[edit]

Despite repeated requests, slowly escalating toward statements of exasperation, from User:Billinghurst and myself, User:Kynnap continues to upload images of relatively obscure Estonians and then leave it to others to do the categorization. His typical modus operandi is to create a category with no parents, which then shows up in Special:UncategorizedCategories, which leaves people like Billinghurst and myself to try to make sense of Estonian-language sources to work out who these people are and try to fill in parent categories. For the record: I'm good with languages, and Google Translate is often useful, but obviously it is tremendously more effort for me to work out who these people are than it would for the Estonian person who is photographing them, and presumably (1) already knows more or less who they are and (2) reads Estonian. It is absurd that the person who can easily do this task is leaving it for others for whom it is far more difficult. But, basically, we are left with a choice of cleaning up after Kynnap or leaving around a bunch of parentless categories, which get in the way of finding and fixing the ones that are created by inexperienced users who legitimately don't know better. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I agree, but I asked them to {{Please link images}} anyway.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I can tell, though, that is rarely the problem. The problem is the user adding nonexistent categories, then creating what is basically the illusion that those categories exist by creating an absolutely empty (blank) category page, with no parent categories. The result is that Special:UncategorizedCategories is the only place where this rings any alarm bells. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment I will also add that many of these people are not notable, and that there is little likelihood that the images will ever be used, so one has to challenge their addition to WikiCommons as their being educative. We are not a personal photo archive, there are many sites that can do that. There has been additional commentary added by some users reflecting the categories are for people who should not have Wikidata items as outside their scope. I am not seeing the value in >> 3 quarters of the uploads.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment The problem arose over category:Anu Saagim (en:Anu Saagim). She is notable in Estonia, just like Kim Kardashian in USA, being famous for ... being famous. I categorized the category. Generally please do not delete uploads of Kynnap, at least without regular deletion request. His photos, even if they depict non-notable persons, are often made in 20th century and have historical value. I'll write him in his talkpage. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taivo: would you be willing to take on adding parent categories to the many blank categories he creates? - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Forn Sior[edit]

Hello. For information I tagged all upload from this user as copyright violation. All pics are from the site https://fornsior.com/ which is uner copyright since 2019. Supertoff (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Last warning for copyvios, SCOPE and abuse of COM:WEBHOST. All files deleted. These were probably out of scope, just for promoting their own book. Yann (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Creampussy[edit]

@Achim55: Please ban, too? Based on edit history (100% of it) and maybe inappropriate username. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked indef. Might be a sock of Headlkamp30 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). --Achim55 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Βολταίρος Χέμσγουόρθ[edit]

Βολταίρος Χέμσγουόρθ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) New batch of blatant copyvios after warnings and deletions. Quick1984 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, long overdue. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:IllyStar and User:Eron Lushaj[edit]

These two users are confirmed sockpuppets of one another - they're both blocked on enwiki for related activity. More concerningly to us, they have a pattern of uploading misattributed or entirely falsified content on topics involving the military of Kosovo; for instance:

I don't know enough about the military of Kosovo to fact-check all the uploads by these users, but something really fishy seems to be going on here. Can someone take a closer look? Omphalographer (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is understandable for you not to know much about the force as already many other admins of Wiki don’t. But it is not right to delete and remove anything that has to do with “Kosovo Air Force” without proving right or wrong, there are so many links of social medias that I can not use as a reference in Wikipedia unfortunately. About “Militrex Kosova Defense” of course you will not found info about this new company, that’s exacly why Wiki is being used to share the info for this company. Hope for understanding, Best regards! 185.179.31.72 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Both blocked, long overdue for massive copyvios, etc. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IllyStar and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eron Lushaj. Yann (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann: Thanks for that, and for blocking the IP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Sangeethkumar07[edit]

Sangeethkumar07 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  repeatedly uploading deleted images. AntanO 12:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am uploading the images that are my own work there is no copyright issues for my work.I Will ready to submit the raw working files. I can't understand what's the reason for this deletion can I know about that.explain that Sangeethkumar07 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to verify that you are the photographer or have permission from him Trade (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what is the format for getting permission Sangeethkumar07 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are indeed the photographer, you should follow up with the process on COM:VRT. It will probably take some emails back-and-forth but, yes, if you can send them an example of a raw working file for a couple of these photos, that will probably satisfy them that you are who you say you are. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit-warring to remove Cumbria from geographical categorization?[edit]

Fifty years ago, the English counties of Cumberland and Westmorland were merged to form Cumbria. Accordingly we now have a large category tree for Category:Cumbria, including topics like Category:Churches in Cumbria. Ambleside is an important town in Cumbria, so we have categories and children for it such as Category:Ambleside, Cumbria, Category:Buildings in Ambleside, Cumbria, Category:Houses in Ambleside, Cumbria, Category:Churches in Ambleside.

Commons uses categorization into Category:Westmorland as well. Some of this is historic, some is less clear. I've largely been against this, as many of them have been anachronistic. For some long-term examples, such as Category:Houses in Ambleside, Cumbria, there's obvious overlap. I wouldn't add this, but nor would I remove it.

@HwætGrimmalkin: is now removing the '<> in Cumbria' parent cats from children though. They did this in November, I raised this with them but got nowhere: User_talk:HwætGrimmalkin#Cumbria. Today though they're now 3RR edit-warring to remove Category:Churches in Ambleside from Category:Churches in Cumbria:

Removing Category:Churches in Cumbria in favour of Category:Churches in Westmorland is just wrong on many counts (as above, I wouldn't object to having both). Westmorland hasn't existed for 50 years, Cumbria does. Cumbria is the relevant county as a parent. It meets COMMONNAME, it's consistent with our other navigation and article structure, it is what our readers would expect to find, and where they would expect to find it.

Westmorland is wrong. The county has gone. There is now (since 2023) a unitary authority area of Westmorland and Furness which represents local government within the ceremonial county of Cumbria. British county structure is convoluted and confusing, as there are multiple overlaid divisions for different purposes. We have the civil parishes too, such as Category:Lakes (civil parish) (These are almost unknown by anyone outside local government, but it's how Geograph content gets imported to Commons, so they're a huge issue for those working on categorization of UK geography). But do not make a pejorative judgment that a 'ceremonial county' is something meaningless. HwætGrimmalkin seems to be regarding this as justification for replacing Cumbria with Westmorland. However there are several problems to that:

  • This is not Westmorland. Category:Westmorland et al. refers to the pre-1974 county. They have not used Category:Westmorland and Furness.
  • Westmorland and Furness is not a replacement for Cumbria. It is a local government structure, not the county that is what our readers are expecting, per COMMONNAME. We need to support Cumbria as a navigational path, it's part of our core function.
  • There is no Category:Buildings within Westmorland and Furness structure. Commons has (rightly) used Cumbria for its structure instead.
Our nav bars are set up in terms of Cumbria, with Cumberland and Westmorland as historical counties. 'Westmorland and Furness' is not part of any such.
Ceremonial counties of England: Bedfordshire · Berkshire · Buckinghamshire · Cambridgeshire · Cheshire · Cornwall · Cumbria · Derbyshire · Devon · Dorset · Durham · East Riding of Yorkshire · East Sussex · Essex · Gloucestershire · Greater London · Greater Manchester · Hampshire · Herefordshire · Hertfordshire · Isle of Wight · Kent · Lancashire · Leicestershire · Lincolnshire · Merseyside · Norfolk · North Yorkshire · Northamptonshire · Northumberland · Nottinghamshire · Oxfordshire · Rutland · Shropshire · Somerset · South Yorkshire · Staffordshire · Suffolk · Surrey · Tyne and Wear · Warwickshire · West Midlands · West Sussex · West Yorkshire · Wiltshire · Worcestershire
City-counties: Bristol · City of London
Former historic counties: Cumberland · Huntingdonshire · Middlesex · Sussex · Westmorland · Yorkshire
Other former counties:

There should have been discussion of this, probably within a bigger group (although subject project teams have largely disappeared from WMF projects as editor numbers dwindle) and there's no obvious platform for that. But when their only talk: comment was "[Westmorland is] a historical county (from that angle, it never ceased to exist)." (this is just plain wrong), it's hard to get much further. And now they've just switched to edit-warring anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is evident that a factual correction is required here: I never removed "Cumbria" from the items (or started "edit-warring" — nothing rude or protracted has come from my end thus far). For the nth time: the subcategories I was adding to and removing the parent category from were immediately under the Cumbria one — because both are districts of Cumbria. Allow me to repeat for the nth time (since Andy Dingley evidently has yet to understand what I am saying) — shifting a category or file to an immediate subcategory is not "deleting" or "removing". Insisting or keeping the parent categories causes over-crowding — refusing to allow the application of subcategories to a category as large as "Churches in Cumbria" causes exactly that over-crowding.
I'm not sure why they have only mentioned asides in their comments — it appears that over half of what I said somehow got cut off, given how they have been quoting me. However, even were that not the case, our exchanges (if you can even call them that) have been exceedingly brief. For the first "exchange," when I objected to their initial objection, I never got any response, until today, that is. That second "conversation" hadn't even gone that far when they "reported" me. Regardless of whether I've been right about which categories should be used for what, please recognize that no misconduct has occurred on my end. HwætGrimmalkin (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Alone GTO $$$[edit]

Alone GTO $$$ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hello, The user Alone GTO $$$ came back and uploaded copyrighted material after being blocked. Could you please advise? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a month, all files deleted. @CoffeeEngineer: Your DR was badly formatted. Please check how to create DRs. Yann (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seemed strange to me that the template did not upload this time. I will pay more attention next time. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ocantoral1996[edit]

Ocantoral1996 (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has continued to upload non-free images after the warning. --Ovruni (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marcelo Rodrigues da Silva Estêvão[edit]

Marcelo Rodrigues da Silva Estêvão (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) has a long history of copyvio. On Feb. 6, 2024, he was given a final warning. Today, they uploaded an image taken from Instagram. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week, files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=854773052"