Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
134, 133, 132, 131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
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
| ||
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.
Request for file deletion due to "unintentional" copyright violation
[edit]Hi, I'm facing an issue regarding a file I uploaded due to a copyright violation. The file can be found at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BArch_Plak_002-009-021_Ermordung_Erzberger_Taeter.jpg
Based on a mistaken assumption (derived from the licensing information of another image file), I cropped an image from the German Federal Archives and uploaded it as a new file to Wikimedia Commons, believing that the release applied to all images from the Federal Archives.
However, I have since discovered that the partnership between the Federal Archives and Wikimedia Germany ended back in 2010 (https://archivalia.hypotheses.org/15398). While existing image files were permitted to remain on Wikimedia Commons, no new uploads were to be made, and third parties are specifically prohibited from publishing new files (see Point 09 of the FAQ at https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/content/hilfe#antwort9).
My attempt to initiate a speedy deletion was converted into a deletion discussion by another user, who argued that "a CC license cannot be revoked."
However, the uploaded file is subject to copyright protection held by the Federal Archives and does not have a valid CC license.
I apologize for my mistake and request that the file be removed from Wikimedia Commons as soon as possible. Danvan25 (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- What is the theory under which this file is copyrighted? It looks to me to be extremely likely to be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 09:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Jmabel, the poster itself would certainly be considered public domain (published in 1921), but that would have required me to take the photograph of the original myself.
- Instead, I "improperly" cropped the photo of the poster held in the Federal Archives (found under https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?query=Plak+002-009-021 with included visible scale bar)—removing the Federal Archives' reference number in the process—and published the resulting file.
- However, as previously mentioned, that photo was not cleared for publication (see the links in my last note) and cannot be considered public domain (it is not 100 years old). Consequently, I am not permitted to simply crop it and publish it without the Federal Archives' consent. Danvan25 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Danvan25: There is no creativity relevant to copyright involved in creating a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional object. They can claim all they want, but there is nothing in what they did here that gives them a copyright. By a great stretch, photographing it next to a scale bar might have been copyrightable, but there is no trace of that in your upload.
- If your concern is that you don't want your account name associated with this upload, say so and I will rework it so that it is under my account name, but I oppose deletion of this PD file. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Thank you for your reply; I am aware that there are significant differences between American and German copyright regulations, so I am concerned about the potential risk of legal action. I would greatly appreciate it if you could edit the file as you offered. However, you would likely also need to change the current CC license, as the license currently in use—indicated in the file description via the {BArch-image...} box and the {Cc-by-sa-3.0-de|attribution=Bundesarchiv, Plak 002-009-021 / CC-BY-SA 3.0} tag—is effectively no longer valid, given that the underlying conditions (the terminated cooperation between the Federal Archives and the German Wikipedia) no longer apply. Thanks again, Danvan25 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
User:GeographBot needs better pre-screening
[edit]@Multichill and Nutshinou: This bot uploaded a lot of Commons:Derivative works from advertisement recently. This is not first occurrence of such problem. If bot operator does not have enough time to pre-screen imports, possible solution could be to involve other people for this task. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
The Return of ‘Daruk CoA’
[edit]On August, 6th, I opened a thread on Admins' board (→ thread), concerning the users Miravo, Alatiara and Heraldyka Kresowa, three socks uploading ‘Daruk’ family's coat-of-arms files, arms which are only cited on some heraldry websites (related DR: Files found with herb Daruk).
Then, on September, 30th, @RexAura: uploaded two ‘Daruk CoA’ files (No. 1, No. 2), but this time AI-generated, while claiming ‘Własny skan papierowego oryginału z 1799 roku‘, on both –i.e., via an online translator: ‘My own scan of the original paper document from 1799‘.
So I could probably have nominated those files SD:F10 –or even G3, at this extent–, but it is no doubt more relevant to report the facts on Admins' board once again. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- @RexAura: — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Pliki są autentyczne , dokumentuję historię rodziny , nie wiem o co ci chodzi RexAura (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- jesteś złośliwym toksycznym użytkownikiem , nie mam nic wspólnego z tamtymi kontami RexAura (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Pliki są autentyczne , dokumentuję historię rodziny , nie wiem o co ci chodzi RexAura (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- pliki zostały poprawione cyfrowo żeby były lepszej jakości RexAura (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk#Files found with Special:Search/herb Daruk 3
- --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC):I want to formally state that I am not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked users, and this is my only account. The file in question is a legitimate representation of my family's historical coat of arms. The image was digitally enhanced and cleaned up for clarity before uploading, which may have caused the user to mistake it for an AI generation. I am a good-faith contributor documenting my family history. I kindly request the administrators to allow this content dispute to be evaluated under the active standard deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk where it belongs, rather than rushing a block here based on false accusations. RexAura (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)I want to formally state that I am not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked users, and this is my only account. The file in question is a legitimate representation of my family's historical coat of arms. The image was digitally enhanced and cleaned up for clarity before uploading, which may have caused the user to mistake it for an AI generation. I am a good-faith contributor documenting my family history. I kindly request the administrators to allow this content dispute to be evaluated under the active standard deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk where it belongs, rather than rushing a block here based on false accusations. RexAura (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)I want to formally state that I am not a sockpuppet of any previously blocked users, and this is my only account. The file in question is a legitimate representation of my family's historical coat of arms. The image was digitally enhanced and cleaned up for clarity before uploading, which may have caused the user to mistake it for an AI generation. I am a good-faith contributor documenting my family history. I kindly request the administrators to allow this content dispute to be evaluated under the active standard deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk where it belongs, rather than rushing a block here based on false accusations. RexAura (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is there any official/published reference that states this coat of arms? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Currently, this engraving comes exclusively from a private family archive located abroad, and I do not have immediate access to published academic armorials or heraldic registries in my current location. I am working on gathering further bibliographical data from family records. I believe the proper place to analyze the historical background and potential source references is the dedicated deletion discussion page at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk, rather than the Administrators' Noticeboard. RexAura (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Status: keep I would like to provide official encyclopedic evidence regarding the historical validity of the Daruk lineage to address the claims of "fake family history." The Daruk family (Даруковы) is a well-documented, historical princely family of Abazin origin (knyaz), who historically ruled the Dudarukov branch. In fact, the settlement now known as Psyzh was historically named "Dudarukov" or "Darukov" (аул Дарукова / Дарыкъвакт) after this very family, before being officially renamed by Soviet authorities in 1929. This history is fully recognized and documented in independent academic and educational resources, including published articles on Wikipedia itself (see: w:ru:Псыж). This proves beyond doubt that the family and its historical artifacts are a legitimate part of North Caucasian/Abazin history and genealogy, not a modern fabrication. I request that the files be kept. RexAura (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%B6
- There have already been long discussions, no references at all -except personal ones-, therefore those files are of no interest here -i.e. out of scope-, as it isn't the place to publish or to process any analyzis of unknown coats of arms or orignal or unpublished works. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Since the reporting user has now dropped the false accusations of "AI generation" and "sockpuppetry," and has pivoted the argument to a content dispute regarding heraldic documentation and references, it is clear that this is not an administrative emergency. This content matter should strictly be handled within the active community consensus process at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with herb Daruk, not on this noticeboard. I rest my case here. RexAura (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- There have already been long discussions, no references at all -except personal ones-, therefore those files are of no interest here -i.e. out of scope-, as it isn't the place to publish or to process any analyzis of unknown coats of arms or orignal or unpublished works. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Writing "‘Własny skan papierowego oryginału z 1799 roku" "My own scan of the original paper document from 1799" while the files are obviously AI generated, and uploading an unknow CoA that the only other people knowing about are 3 sockpuppets, is an administrative question.
- Everything else has already been discussed (no references at all -except personal ones-, etc.) and there's nothing to add there. either.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- CU can check for socks, other than that, done. I mean obviously this is not a historical COA, it was just registered and has no real value on Commons. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 06:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- There seem to be several conflated issues here. Is someone here seeking some specific administrative action or actions? Could they please be specific about that? - Jmabel ! talk 12:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Evidently, Kontributor 2K felt it more important to address the collective nature of the uploads, rather than their in-scope nature (or lack due to F10). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've opened an RCU.--Kontributor 2K ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K| 13:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Evidently, Kontributor 2K felt it more important to address the collective nature of the uploads, rather than their in-scope nature (or lack due to F10). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Update abuse log filters for timed text
[edit]It seems that ever since the feature for creating WebVTT subtitles has rolled out, I, as well as several other users, have triggered the abuse filter for creating WebVTT subtitles. I think it has something to do with the filter checking if the file conforms with SRT file syntax, and since it's a WebVTT subtitle file, it fails the syntax check and thus triggers the abuse filter. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong), I'm not sure anyone has successfully created a WebVTT subtitle file. I would really love to take advantage of the features that are available with WebVTT captions over SRT captions, so I'm hoping that this issue could be more closely examined. Here's a list of reports I could find (both from myself and other users) of edits that triggered filters after trying to create subtitles:
ForeverFlying (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Achim55, Mdaniels5757, Ankry, and see especially Commons_talk:Abuse_filter/Archive_2026/07#Report_by_TheDJ. - Jmabel ! talk 12:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- While I empathize with ForeverFlying and the other users affected, sadly there is nothing I can do. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Partially
Done: I replaced \,by[,.]on Special:AbuseFilter/103. However, the messages of {{SubRipSample}} should be adjusted covering both srt and vtt. --Achim55 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)- Just curious, can the abuse filter rule distinguish between SRT and WebVTT files? For example, having a filter apply only if the page title ends with .srt or .vtt respectivelyin the Timed Text namespace. ForeverFlying (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't distinguish. Someone should rewrite it... --Achim55 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Achim55 Update: I tried adding more complex formatting tags to some subtitles I'm working on at TimedText:The Betty White Show (1954-11-29).webm.en.vtt, specifically the tags <v> and timestamp tags as described at Web Video Text Tracks Format on MDN Docs. I hit the abuse filter again and filed a report at Commons talk:Abuse filter#ForeverFlying 3. ForeverFlying (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Edit to my message above: I was hitting the abuse filter because I forgot to number my lines. Once I fixed that I could add the tags just fine. My bad! ForeverFlying (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- No, these VTT cue identifiers (a number or text only or both in one line) are optional, I removed that part. Thanks for testing! --Achim55 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Another request for a WebVTT-specific abuse filter (and just seeing if this is supported on Commons): could there be rules determining if STYLE blocks are formatted properly (and as an aside, if they are even supported)? I can't tell if I'm just not using them properly but I copied and pasted the example listed on MDN Docs to TimedText:Example.webm.en.vtt and I think it's supposed to show a gradient behind the text, but the captions still look plain. For the aforementioned TimedText:The Betty White Show (1954-11-29).webm.en.vtt, there are some places in the video when there is singing involved and I'd like to take advantage of the timestamp tags and format them using the
:pastand:futurepseudo-classes to indicate what lyrics are being sung at a specific moment. ForeverFlying (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Another request for a WebVTT-specific abuse filter (and just seeing if this is supported on Commons): could there be rules determining if STYLE blocks are formatted properly (and as an aside, if they are even supported)? I can't tell if I'm just not using them properly but I copied and pasted the example listed on MDN Docs to TimedText:Example.webm.en.vtt and I think it's supposed to show a gradient behind the text, but the captions still look plain. For the aforementioned TimedText:The Betty White Show (1954-11-29).webm.en.vtt, there are some places in the video when there is singing involved and I'd like to take advantage of the timestamp tags and format them using the
- No, these VTT cue identifiers (a number or text only or both in one line) are optional, I removed that part. Thanks for testing! --Achim55 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Just curious, can the abuse filter rule distinguish between SRT and WebVTT files? For example, having a filter apply only if the page title ends with .srt or .vtt respectivelyin the Timed Text namespace. ForeverFlying (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Partially
- While I empathize with ForeverFlying and the other users affected, sadly there is nothing I can do. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
File:Capt. Smit Macchar.jpg
[edit]- File:Capt. Smit Macchar.jpg -- can we please get this image reviewed, by an admin, to see if it's truly okay to host on this site?
Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- The license doesn't make sense with the source. I've tagged the file as needing VRT permission. If it's not provided, the file will be deleted in 7 days. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, but, well, that's just too darn bad. Can anyone help to find an appropriate licensed image of this particular individual? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Most likely such images do not exist. Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zJy-fdzzX0
- Thank you, Ymblanter and The Squirrel Conspiracy -- what about this video file from YouTube? It was uploaded by the Government of India. Official YouTube channel of the Prime Minister of India -- "PMO India".
- It has the license given on YouTube:
- Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed).
- Can this video file be uploaded and hosted here on Wikimedia Commons? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that one can be on Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy - thank you! I'm having trouble converting it to WEBM - can someone upload it here? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Princessa Unicorn: See File:PM Modi calls Captain Smit Machchhar, wishes him a speedy recovery.webm. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks so much to Jeff G.!!! If an admin could review the file page, that would be most appreciated! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- A fellow License Reviewer could do that, too. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the license. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- A fellow License Reviewer could do that, too. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks so much to Jeff G.!!! If an admin could review the file page, that would be most appreciated! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Princessa Unicorn: See File:PM Modi calls Captain Smit Machchhar, wishes him a speedy recovery.webm. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy - thank you! I'm having trouble converting it to WEBM - can someone upload it here? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that one can be on Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Most likely such images do not exist. Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, but, well, that's just too darn bad. Can anyone help to find an appropriate licensed image of this particular individual? Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sabrina Bartlett -SheStoopsOrange28.12.23 (5 of 9) (cropped-J1).jpg
[edit]Could an admin take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sabrina Bartlett -SheStoopsOrange28.12.23 (5 of 9) (cropped-J1).jpg? This is a courtesy deletion request by someone claiming to be representing en:Sabrina Bartlett, the subject of the photo. The is a crop of File:SheStoopsOrange281223 (5 of 9).jpg, which is sourced to Flickr and seems to be OK. There is also another crop of the same photo at File:SheStoopsOrange281223 (5 of 9) (cropped-J1).jpg. Only a DR for the one crop was opened; so, it's not clear whether the person who started it cares about the full photo or the other crop, or whether they just didn't know about them. FWIW, only the DR'd crop is being used on any of the different Wikipedias; so, that's might explain only why it got nominated. I don't there's a valid reason to delete based upon copyright, but it would seem quite odd to delete just one crop for courtesy deletion reasons and leave the other two files alone. I was going to post this in the DR, but I thought it would be better to ask about this first. I was also going to post the Bartlett or her representatives could always provide a different freely licensed of her for use instead. There's no guarantee of course that every Wikipedia project would end up using it and there could be local Paid-contribution/COI requirements to meet for the different Wikipedias, but it's an option. The account who started the DR did also upload File:SabrinaBartlettHeadshot.jpg as a replacement, which is a more flattering image of Bartlett perhaps but almost certainly needs some type of license verification (I tagged it as such) because it looks like a professionally taken headshot. Could a Commons admin could explain courtest deletions to the account who started the DR and let them know whether they're ever given in a case like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't notice when I posted the above, but the uploader claimed to the the subject of the photo's husband in their original DR post; they subsequently removed that information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
File:Smit machchhar.jpg
[edit]File:Smit machchhar.jpg - this one appears to be missing permission. And also, asserted by uploader to be author but unlikely to be true... Uploader asserted "own work" and a license. If you think that is false, then either find the "real" source and nominate it as a speedy-deletion copyvio, or start a DR based on your suspicion. (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Princessa Unicorn: Uploader asserted "own work" and a license. If you think that is false, then either find the "real" source and nominate it as a speedy-deletion copyvio, or start a DR based on your suspicion. - Jmabel ! talk 10:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
@Princessa Unicorn: Thanks for the report. File:Smit machchhar.jpg has meanwhile been speedily deleted as copyvio. The photo is commonly credited to Israel's Foreign Ministry/AFP. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Mass-message request for WLM-US 2026
[edit]Hello! I'm one of the organizers for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US. Could the following message be sent out to last year's participants inviting them to this year's event?
- Target: Listed at Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2026_in_the_United_States/Messages/Invitation_to_2025_participants/Recipients
- Subject: Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States 2026
- Body::
{{subst:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2026 in the United States/Messages/Invitation to 2025 participants}} ~~~~~
The body template already includes the organizer signatures, and the five tildes adds the timestamp. Thank you! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, User:Jumpin Jiminy has uploaded a number of files which they have marked as their own work, but seem to be copyrighted images from certain TV shows/movies, for instance: File:Pat_Crowley,_Jeff_Fithian,_Joe_Fithian,_and_Lord_Nelson_in_Please_Don't_Eat_the_Daisies_(1965).jpg and File:Lucille Ball cross examines Lord Nelson as Mr. Mooney's dog in Lucy Is Her Own Lawyer of The Lucy Show 1964.jpg. Due to the number of uploads it seems impracticable to mark them all, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Osarius (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- An addition to note that the user seems to have uploaded multiple already deleted files for the same issue. Osarius (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Osarius: For what it's worth, with VFC it is quite easy to mark a large number of files for a mass deletion request. I believe that was the original purpose of the tool. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Also: when reporting someone to the administrators like this, you really are supposed to inform them on their user talk page (though of course not the case for reporting blatant vandalism to COM:AN/V.) I'll do it for you, this time. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jmabel - I wasn't aware of VFC, but I have now installed it and nominated all relevant files. Osarius (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Is a letter written by an Indian Minister of Parliament to the Prime Minister okay for upload?
[edit]Is a letter written by an Indian Minister of Parliament to the Prime Minister okay for upload?
Namely, this letter = Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora letter.
It appears to be acting within their official capacity as a Minister of Parliament.
Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Request speedy keep - VRT 2026100510014355 - File:BSR Publishing (2026).jpg
[edit]My file File:BSR Publishing (2026).jpg is verified VRT #2026100510014355 CC0 own work. Immediately after VRT restore, nominated again for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BSR Publishing (2026).jpg. I already replied there. Request speedy keep per COM:SK. Thank you. BROTHERSWAGGSTUDIORECORDS Rosecachelle (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- That is a misunderstanding. VRT evaluates copyright-issues. The new DR is a about scope, which is a totally different matter. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
_(cropped-J1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped-J1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}