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 | |||
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 |
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.
Question about the Main Page announcement
[edit]Hello, not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but I noticed that the Main Page still has the “Wiki Loves Earth 2025” event announcement, which I believed has ended already. Shouldn’t it change to announcement for the “Wiki Loves Monuments 2025” event instead since the event has just started recently? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- I see Aafi has already changed the announcement. Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC) Ronyecz Emese suzy porno film munkài
[edit]https://www.tuttifruttiparty.hu/tv/506728-Decemberi-Franciaora-a-Gloryban Ronyecz Emese suzy (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for so clearly asking to have your account blocked. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Done indef-blocked - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Unnecessary Deletion
[edit]The user by the name of @Infrogmation unnecessarily deleted my work File:Rick 1985-09-08 1631Z.png. It's deleted now, but it consisted of a colorized image of Hurricane Rick in 1985 made by me. The image was personally processed, plotted, and colorized by me. @A1Cafel said "Satellite images are copyrighted, and very unlikely to be uploader's work". Which this is my own work. Also, @Infrogmation falsely and unnecessarily claimed that I had my own personal satellite. Stating, "I don't believe the uploader had their own personal satellite in 1985." Which is unnecessary due to me never claiming to in the first place. NOAA or NASA didn't make the image that I posted, I did. Please consider reinstating this image as well as looking into these two individuals. Wikimedia is for and I quote, "collecting and sharing knowledge freely". There are other cases of this happening especially with @Infrogmation with cases of edit warring, unfair deletion, harassment, and not engaging in his own talk page. There are other users stating, "the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors is uncivil." Thank you. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Infrogmation is a long-time admin, and I trust their judgement. @MajorHurricaneBlue: what is the original source of the satellite image without your alterations? Abzeronow (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is a GOES image from NOAA CLASS that I have created and colorized, and from what I have seen, this "This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made as part of an employee's official duties." and "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". (See Template:PD-USGov, NASA copyright policy page or JPL Image Use Policy.)". This file seems like public domain to me. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. Could you please link the GOES image? Abzeronow (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am working on plotting the original image before it was colorized by me. I have to use a specific software to plot it and colorize it. The original file is unreadable without the software on most systems. It should take no more than a day. The original image is coming from NOAA and I have to request the image then plot it. Per NOAA, "NOAA'S information is in the public domain and CANNOT be copyrighted". Thank you for your reply MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Here's the image https://www.flickr.com/photos/203466931@N07/54770214941/in/dateposted-public/
- This is the original before I colorized it and it is not that was taken down. The one that was taken down was colorized by me and was called File:Rick 1985-09-08 1631Z.png MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @MajorHurricaneBlue: probably all of this should have been handled at COM:UNDEL, but since we are here, yes, I can see that is basically the same image (albeit differently cropped and colored). I don't think anything you did with color is above COM:TOO, so the CC-zero for your own work is redundant, though harmless. This probably needs {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} plus an explanation of how this was made (what database it plots data from, what tools were used to do that) in the "Permission" section of {{Information}}. If you will commit to taking care of that, I will undelete (or someone might get there before me). - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will commit to it! Just let me know where the file will end up please. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Done. @MajorHurricaneBlue: file is File:Rick 1985-09-08 1631Z.png, in the same place as before, please do follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I made the changes, just let me know if I have to tweak anything further. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @MajorHurricaneBlue: still needs categories and, as I discussed above, in the "Permission" section of {{Information}} it needs an explanation of how this was made (what database it plots data from, what tools were used to do that), basically what was the path from a PD database to this image.
- Thank you so much! I made the changes, just let me know if I have to tweak anything further. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will commit to it! Just let me know where the file will end up please. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @MajorHurricaneBlue: probably all of this should have been handled at COM:UNDEL, but since we are here, yes, I can see that is basically the same image (albeit differently cropped and colored). I don't think anything you did with color is above COM:TOO, so the CC-zero for your own work is redundant, though harmless. This probably needs {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} plus an explanation of how this was made (what database it plots data from, what tools were used to do that) in the "Permission" section of {{Information}}. If you will commit to taking care of that, I will undelete (or someone might get there before me). - Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. Could you please link the GOES image? Abzeronow (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is a GOES image from NOAA CLASS that I have created and colorized, and from what I have seen, this "This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made as part of an employee's official duties." and "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". (See Template:PD-USGov, NASA copyright policy page or JPL Image Use Policy.)". This file seems like public domain to me. MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Convenience links: Deletion listing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rick 1985-09-08 1631Z.png, discussion on my talk page after I closed the listing User_talk:Infrogmation#File_Deletion. Again, there would have been no need for listing and all this discussion if the user had simply bothered to give accurate source information rather than claiming about a 1985 satellite photo "I created this myself." As to further tweaks, please add verifiable source info (eg to a NASA web page) so anyone else can clearly see the original image is public domain. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Request for speedy deletion of my own file
[edit]Hello,
I am the author and uploader of the file: File:Deborah_Polaski,_Wojciech_Parchem,_2016.jpg
I would like to request its speedy deletion. Reason: own work, uploaded in error, and I do not want this photo to be published.
Unfortunately, I cannot tag the file with {{Speedydelete}} myself because my IP range is blocked from editing Commons.
Could an administrator please delete the file on my behalf?
Thank you very much for your help.
Best regards, WP Florestan1950 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your account name here doesn't fit the account name of the uploader. And it's too late by 3 years anyway to request a speedy deletion per COM:CSD#G7. You have to use a standard deletion request and ask for a courtesy deletion. Furthermore, this request should come from the account User:Wojciech Parchem. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Are you the same person as the uploader Wojciech Parchem? The image is in use in two articles on pl.wikipedia. The image was added to one of the articles in 2022 by the uploader himself [1] and therefore it is unlikely to have been uploaded in error. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- * Attention to the uploader of the file, @Wojciech Parchem: , please comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- The response from the uploader is unlikely (they last edited 3 years ago just to upload this file). Since this upload is not very recent, it doesn't merit any speedy deletion even if the requester is same as the uploader (arguably forgotten the password, perhaps). Regular deletion is welcome (though decision isn't guaranteed as delete). Closing this as
Not done from here. Kindly nominate for deletion if you still think this should be deleted. @Infrogmation, sorry for overruling your ping to the uploader but I don't think this was warranted. signed, Aafi (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- The response from the uploader is unlikely (they last edited 3 years ago just to upload this file). Since this upload is not very recent, it doesn't merit any speedy deletion even if the requester is same as the uploader (arguably forgotten the password, perhaps). Regular deletion is welcome (though decision isn't guaranteed as delete). Closing this as
Uploads request
[edit]Hello, I have a previous account that was locked so I can't make requests from there. I uploaded some files to Commons a few years ago that I'd like deleted out of personal preference. Is that possible? Xylo78 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- please see Commons:Courtesy deletions --Isderion (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
BSicon catalogue
[edit]Please some admin have a look at this. Me and Useddenim did what we could. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. Apparently I wasn't notified about this even though I should have been. A timeline of events here for whomever looks at it.
- 1. I nominated a couple of galleries for BSicon icons for deletion.
- 2. Useddenim then combined them all into a single DR for the "catalogue" (whatever that is), redirected the original DRs, and moved my original comments without consulting me or asking if I cared.
- 3. I then restored the original deletion requests, because why wouldn't I?
- 4. Useddenim then canvased Tuvalkin on their talk page and both of them tossed around a bunch of insults.
- The only reason Tuvalkin has anything to do with this is because they were canvassed. Useddenim was also previously warned about not insulting users and I find the repeated accusations that I'm committing vandalism purely for nominating a gallery for deletion to be rather insulting. I fully support them and Tuvalkin being blocked, or at least warned, for the bullying tactics and insults. The DR that was linked to above should be deleted as it's purely a vandalistic attack page that I didn't open or ask for. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I created thousands of BSicon images (one more soon today) and use them daily mostly for pt.wp railway diagrams. I would have noticed these DRs, combined or not, canvassed or not. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- BTW as a side to that, both @Tuvalkin: and @Useddenim: reverted me several times using the rollback tool. I think they should both lose the privilege if their just going to use it to restore their own vandalistic, insulting edits as part of a personal disagreement. That's not what the tool exists for. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Boomerang Tuválkin for his conduct, for trying to play the victim and for trying to create drama per the DR and their talk page. Warn useddenim about their language on the DR and T's talk page. Warn Adamant1 a little bit to be calmer about DRs, no matter how accurate he is, on the DR and T's talk page. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- On User talk:Tuvalkin:
- T-"This user has been in AN/U a few times, for good reasons, and seems to be pinning for one more."+ passive agressive on the DR
- U-"I don't have the time nor patience to deal with this vandalism. Would you mind throwing two cent's worth into the discussion? (This needs to be en:WP:SNOWed.)"
- Note also that while Adamant is very agressive as usual, they follow DR etiquette, whereas T and to a lesser extent U both are disrupting a Commons space page to make a point and create drama. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have time to sort through the sequence of what happened, and it looks like a clusterf**k, but I do think at least some of this has been a misunderstanding. I've worked a little with BSIcons, not a lot; they are pretty arcane, and I'd say that to use them beyond an elementary level is probably a 100+ hour learning process. FWIW I do think Useddenim is right about one important thing (Special:Diff/1082051973: 'The "bunch of broken links" is likely a caching issue on the nominator's computer, as these pages have been stable for a very long time.' @Adamant1: if you think that is wrong, can you give a few examples of actually broken links?
- Also: in general, @Useddenim unilaterally refactoring a deletion request made by someone with a comparable amount of experience to your own is almost always a bad idea, but @Adamant1 so is deleting someone else's comments in a discussion in which you are a party, simply because you thought they made the remarks in the wrong place. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention, @Jmabel: The «bunch of broken links» is explained here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Not a great thing to call something a deeply flawed assessment when the page does not have any documentation or text at all. I mean, that in fact strengths Adamant's point, that these pages look like a mess which should be deleted. Infact, the whole area is badly managed- I was looking at the requests at COM:File renaming a couple of days ago, and the names were incomprehensible to anyone not in the know and some links broken/incorrectly made redirects, so I cannot blame someone for thinking that is a delatable mess, even though it isn't after some explanations that should have been in the pages. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention, @Jmabel: The «bunch of broken links» is explained here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: If you look through a gallery like BSicon/Catalogue/generic roads you'll notice that there's a lot of empty squares in the tables that have links to upload an image. That's what I'm talking about with the "broken links." Apparently according to Tuvalkin that's because the point in the tables is to show what people might need to create. As far as I know though, the point in galleries are to be "curated collections of media on specific topics." That's obviously not being followed with galleries that contain a bunch empty squares for images that people "might create" at some point, but probably won't. Not to say I have an issue with such pages in theory, but they should really be sub-pages of Commons:WikiProject BSicon or one of it's members personal space. Since like DoctorWhoFan91 points out, the whole thing is clearly badly managed, undocumented, and not usable to 99.9% of people on here. Let alone do the galleries follow the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a fully appropriate use of pages on Commons. Whether they'd be better located somewhere under Commons:WikiProject BSicon instead of gallery space is a different question that certainly does not call for so much vituperation on either side.
- BsIcon is really complicated. I have a decade's experience in CAD and I doubt I would ever want to implement something like this as a system of statically stored tiles, but that's what we've got. It's a system that has grown and grown, to the point where it now probably takes 40-50 hours to even start to get your head around it, and five or ten times that to master it. I once got as far as doing a few relatively simple maps like en:Template:Columbia & Puget Sound routemap. I don't feel like I came to understand a tenth of what people who work with this regularly are doing. The audience for these pages is certainly not the general public, so maybe moving them to subpages of Commons:WikiProject BSicon makes sense, but @Adamant1 that doesn't seem to be what you proposed: you proposed deletion, and I can see how that would anger people who have put a ton of work into this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair to A, it's very much undocumented- no one who hasn't used it before would know what's it about- which should never happen, a page should moderately explain what's it about. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Fully agree. We can discuss where these should live - and how to best document them - but they serve an important purpose for those who use them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: If you look through a gallery like BSicon/Catalogue/generic roads you'll notice that there's a lot of empty squares in the tables that have links to upload an image. That's what I'm talking about with the "broken links." Apparently according to Tuvalkin that's because the point in the tables is to show what people might need to create. As far as I know though, the point in galleries are to be "curated collections of media on specific topics." That's obviously not being followed with galleries that contain a bunch empty squares for images that people "might create" at some point, but probably won't. Not to say I have an issue with such pages in theory, but they should really be sub-pages of Commons:WikiProject BSicon or one of it's members personal space. Since like DoctorWhoFan91 points out, the whole thing is clearly badly managed, undocumented, and not usable to 99.9% of people on here. Let alone do the galleries follow the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I reject the idea that anyone "put a ton of work" into the galleries. You can look through the edit histories. From what I saw they have been edited a couple of times a year, if at all, since they were created. This whole thing is a bunch of pearl clutching over galleries that are rarely (if ever) edited and largely empty. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: The content in the galleries is absolutely crucial for anyone trying to work with these symbols. They are not great documentation, but they are what we've got. Deleting them should be out of the question. And I can see why someone who has worked heavily in this area feels insulted that someone who has not comes sweeping in with a bunch of DRs. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I could be wrong about this of course, but as far as I'm aware DRs are just discussions. And anyone is free to start one for anything on here if they want to. There's certainly no guarantee that the galleries would have been deleted. So just saw it as a way to discuss what to do with them since they clearly have problems and me and Useddenim had gotten into it before. They clearly aren't receptive to doing things differently. So why would I care? At the end of the day all he, Tuválkin, or anyone else has to do is vote to keep the galleries and make a suggestion about how to fix the issues. I have zero issue with that. The idea that I did anything wrong simply because I followed the normal process to discuss things is Fing laughable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1:
Pointless, unreadable gallery containing a bunch of broken links that will probably never be fixed or maintained. Galleries don't exist to be rudimentary Wikipedia articles full of broken, non-exiting [sic] images
is pretty close to an attack. "Pointless", not "What is the point" or "I don't see the point"; "unreadable": well, it's arcane stuff, and not easy to understand on a casual look; etc., etc. - Again: you knew and know that this is work done by people with a comparable amount of knowledge of Commons to your own, and under the aegis of a WikiProject. You had several more appropriate ways to start a discussion than a group of CfDs worded in such a way as to strongly imply that they don't know what they are doing and have turned out a bunch of "pointless" "unreadable" junk. When someone behaves this way toward you, you are (appropriately) livid. Why would you expect others not to be. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1:
- @Jmabel: I could be wrong about this of course, but as far as I'm aware DRs are just discussions. And anyone is free to start one for anything on here if they want to. There's certainly no guarantee that the galleries would have been deleted. So just saw it as a way to discuss what to do with them since they clearly have problems and me and Useddenim had gotten into it before. They clearly aren't receptive to doing things differently. So why would I care? At the end of the day all he, Tuválkin, or anyone else has to do is vote to keep the galleries and make a suggestion about how to fix the issues. I have zero issue with that. The idea that I did anything wrong simply because I followed the normal process to discuss things is Fing laughable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: The content in the galleries is absolutely crucial for anyone trying to work with these symbols. They are not great documentation, but they are what we've got. Deleting them should be out of the question. And I can see why someone who has worked heavily in this area feels insulted that someone who has not comes sweeping in with a bunch of DRs. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I reject the idea that anyone "put a ton of work" into the galleries. You can look through the edit histories. From what I saw they have been edited a couple of times a year, if at all, since they were created. This whole thing is a bunch of pearl clutching over galleries that are rarely (if ever) edited and largely empty. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring by Adamant1
[edit]Repeated undo/blanking of Commons:Deletion requests/BSicon/Catalogue:
Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- The section above is already dealing with that, isn't it? Also, you guys have neither notified Adamant about the above report, nor about this one. Nakonana (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: thank you for the reminder (although it has been acknowledged in the past that the notification is merely a formality when the subject editor is already participating in the discussion). Useddenim (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. The notification should have been sent after the first report. It was mere chance that Adamant found the first report
one houredit: in less than one hour after it was posted here. But that's rather something to point out to Tuvalkin since they are the one who made the first report. Nakonana (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. The notification should have been sent after the first report. It was mere chance that Adamant found the first report
- Ok, I see that you have finally posted a notification after my message. But this report is also one-sided because it takes at least two editors to edit war, however, you've only reported one party. Nakonana (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: thank you for the reminder (although it has been acknowledged in the past that the notification is merely a formality when the subject editor is already participating in the discussion). Useddenim (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I could block everyone or no one. I'd much rather block no one and have people turn back to the substance of the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- My(non-admin, just a random person who saw the BSicon thing in a bunch of places) read of the situation says probably no one, all three edit a lot, and a warning(minor or major) should be sufficient to T, U and A. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah well, for my part, see my comment below this. I didn't nominate BSicon/Catalogue for deletion. Know one consulted me about combining the deletion requests and now it looks like I did with the combined request. Josve05a merged them all without asking me or transferring my comments the original requests. The whole thing is just rude all the way down. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
My 2¢ worth
[edit]Apparently the AN/U I started on Adamant1 didn't upload before I shut my computer down for the night in the early hours of this morning, so I will try and redo it from memory:
- Adamant1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Uncivil behavior:
Barely a month after his last block and just days after being in AN/U again, Adamant1 has started another round of disruptive deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/BSicon/Catalogue/branchings, Commons:Deletion requests/BSicon/Catalogue/broad icons, Commons:Deletion requests/BSicon/Catalogue/elevated, Commons:Deletion requests/BSicon/Catalogue/formations, Commons:Deletion requests/BSicon/Catalogue/generic roads). For some misguided reason the nominator feels that it is necessary to delete the BSicon catalog (or at least some of the pages) that has been in use for almost 20 years. I attempted to consolidate the five identical DRs into one (rev. 1082051973) as I expected that the results would be similar to the last time Adamant1 decided that WikiProject BSicon was wrong and his proposal would be en:WP:SNOWed. Instead of en:WP:AGF, the nominator immediately started hurling insults and accused me of "screwing" his DRs.
Useddenim (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- And for good measure, let's add the personal attacks:
- BSicon/Catalogue/broad icons
Useddenim couldn't be bothered to get correct
- BSicon/Catalogue/formations
The idea that this or any other gallery created by this user is regularly updated is laughable
Useddenim (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Responses
[edit]Admant1 has grossly sanitized the situation. Besides pretending to victimhood and acting as if he did nothing wrong, he omits his inflammatory comments on my talk page. The notification to Tuvalkin was made after his talk page posts, when I was angry, tired, fed up with Adamant1's antic, and was done for the night. And as Tuvalkin noted, he would have seen the DRs anyway because of his ongoing contribution the the BSicon project (and likely has the Catalogue pages on his watchlist as do I).
With respect to his accusations of vandalism, I suspect Adamant1 reads as quickly and sloppily as he types: I said that it was close to vandalism, which is hardly an unfair characterization of deliberately disruptive actions. And a consolidated discussion is by no means a vandalistic attack page
.
It's definitely worth bringing this incident to AN/U, but it is Adamant1 who is using inflammatory rhetoric and escalating the situation with his demands for privilege removals and blocking. And previously warned about not insulting users
is definitely the kettle calling the pot black, to put it mildly. In fact, on the DR page Adamant1 is blatantly lying when he says I was told by an administrator to stop insulting me and that they would be blocked if it continued
.
@DoctorWhoFan91: It's interesting that you say that we are disrupting a Commons space page to make a point and create drama
when in fact the only other time that Adamant1 was involved with WikiProject BSicon that was exactly what his actions were doing. Although I will admit to dumping the issue in someone else's lap as – as noted above – I was tired and wanted to go to sleep.
There are several Filemovers who constantly monitor the project and normally take care of BSicon rename requests. There are also some Administrators who are familiar with the nuances of the project. And if someone doesn't understand the intricacies they should probably ask an expert. (For further reference, the file-naming scheme is at BSicon/Catalogue.) You do however make a fair point: there should be some sort of explanatory note and possibly a nav tree at the top of each catalogue page, but you must remember that they have grown organically starting from only one in 2007.
@Jmabel: As all five DRs were identical I did not realize that it was inappropriate to consolidate them (although they probably should have been made as a single DR in the first place).
- But Josve05a has gone and done the exact same thing. Useddenim (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Useddenim (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I really do not see any inflammatory comments on your talk page by A. He acted badly(as usual), you acted badly; Tuvalkin acted very very shittily.
- I mean, you(both)'re creating drama here now, A may have created drama before, idk.
- You wanting to go to sleep does not meet you have get it SNOWed- it's a DR, it takes a week or more for something to happen, not one night.
- Just because it has grown out organically does not mean it doesn't need to be cleaned up- just because there might be a few users who can understand what's going on, doesn't mean the vast majority of users can recognise it as meaning something instead of close to gibberish. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- If the issue is exactly parallel for all of the DRs there are two reasonable ways to handle it (the first, if rejected by the other party does not preclude the second).
- Propose to the person who started the DRs that they be combined for simplicity. If they don't object, combine them.
- Pick one as the master; indicate on the master that the same issues seem to apply to [bullet list of parallel cases]. Indicate on each of the others, "The issues here seem identical to [the master DR, linked]; I will comment there, my comments also apply here.
- Yes, if the issues are really parallel it would have been better to make one big DR in the first place, but almost all of us who make any significant number of DRs know the situation of nominating one thing and then going, "Oh, there's another with the same issue. I'll nominate that. And another…" and sometime by the time you are done you realize it probably should have been a mass DR but… it isn't, because you didn't anticipate.
- It looks to me like all three parties to this, yourself included, crossed some lines. I suggest everyone drop the stick and get back to trying to come up with the right solution, but if people really insist I can be a hanging judge and start throwing blocks around. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've already (prior to the above comment) gone ahead and procedurally speedy-closed all individual DRs and reverted the unmerging. They are now a combined DR. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: I don't really see the point in the merged DR when I didn't nominate BSicon/Catalogue for deletion. But a couple of other galleries that apparently related to it somehow. How exactly you got me, but now it looks like I want to delete BSicon/Catalogue when I don't and it has nothing to do with the original deletion requests. I'd love to know where what guideline, precedent, or anything else an action like that is based on. Since as far as I know people are free to nominate multiple pages if they want to without the DRs being screwed with or merged into a single DR without their permission or feedback. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: BTW, it looks like you merged the DRs without even transferring my response to Useddenim in the original deletion requests. How the hell is that fair? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- The combined DR is not about deleting the whole of BSicon/Catalogue, but the specific subpages listed in the nomination. I’ve adjusted the header accordingly. While there may not be a written policy on merging parallel DRs, admins are expected to perform maintenance and consolidation where it helps discussion stay focused. Since the issues raised were essentially the same, keeping them in one place avoids fragmentation and makes it easier for participants to comment once rather than five times. Nothing prevents you (or anyone else) from making distinctions within the combined DR if you think some pages should be treated differently. As for your concern about comments being lost: I didn’t create a new merge, I reverted the earlier unmerging and closed the duplicate DRs. This is exactly why it’s better to have a single discussion, so that comments don’t get scattered across multiple DRs. If you want your earlier remarks copied into the combined DR for context, feel free to move them over. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: BTW, it looks like you merged the DRs without even transferring my response to Useddenim in the original deletion requests. How the hell is that fair? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: It was only 4 DRs to begin with. I really don't see the need to combine them all with that few deletion requests. There is "maintenance" that needs to be done there. Plenty of people nominate multiple files, pages, or whatever for deletion when they have to do with the same subject and there isn't all this pearl clutching and nonsense involved in it. No offense, but if I were to guess the only reason it's an issue and one that matters to you is because I'm involved in it. I really don't see how me copying 4 different comments to the combined DR "simplifies" things either. Your just doing it because I'm the editor on one end of the disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I got involved in the first place is that your speedy tag on the combined DR was converted into its own deletion request, which effectively created a "meta-DR" about another DR page. So I reverted the deletion tagging of the merged DR and closed the individual DRs, as the situation was now getting disruptive. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: Cool, and none of that would have happened if the 4 DRs weren't pointless screwed with to begin with. I agree it's disruptive but that's because of Useddenim combining the deletion requests when there was no reason to. Your just encouraging more disruptive behavior here by indulging them. All you had to do was delete the combined DR and that would have literally been the end of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Stop framing normal procedural actions as a personal attack. The combined DR only covers the specific nominated subpages, not the whole BSicon Catalogue. Merging parallel DRs and closing the meta-DR was done to prevent fragmented discussion and unnecessary escalation, not to target you. Claiming that this is
"because I’m the editor on one end of the disagreement"
or that it doesn’t"simplify things"
is misleading and combative. This is becoming a tiring pattern: whenever someone does something you don’t fully agree with or understand, you go on the attack and turn it into a personal grievance. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)- @Josve05a: This whole thing is one long personal grievance by Useddenim. Like I can't question why you combined the DRs in a discussion full of endless comments about my actions. It's not like I'm just making comments about your actions in random discussions that have nothing to do with them or you. I honestly don't get how combining the deletion requests makes things any easier or what doing so is based on. Most of my editing on here is doing deletion requests and I've literally never had or seen this happen. I genuinely don't get why you think it was necessary to combine the DRs. It's just weird and I don't buy that it has anything to do with maintenance. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Stop framing normal procedural actions as a personal attack. The combined DR only covers the specific nominated subpages, not the whole BSicon Catalogue. Merging parallel DRs and closing the meta-DR was done to prevent fragmented discussion and unnecessary escalation, not to target you. Claiming that this is
- @Josve05a: Cool, and none of that would have happened if the 4 DRs weren't pointless screwed with to begin with. I agree it's disruptive but that's because of Useddenim combining the deletion requests when there was no reason to. Your just encouraging more disruptive behavior here by indulging them. All you had to do was delete the combined DR and that would have literally been the end of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- The reason I got involved in the first place is that your speedy tag on the combined DR was converted into its own deletion request, which effectively created a "meta-DR" about another DR page. So I reverted the deletion tagging of the merged DR and closed the individual DRs, as the situation was now getting disruptive. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: It was only 4 DRs to begin with. I really don't see the need to combine them all with that few deletion requests. There is "maintenance" that needs to be done there. Plenty of people nominate multiple files, pages, or whatever for deletion when they have to do with the same subject and there isn't all this pearl clutching and nonsense involved in it. No offense, but if I were to guess the only reason it's an issue and one that matters to you is because I'm involved in it. I really don't see how me copying 4 different comments to the combined DR "simplifies" things either. Your just doing it because I'm the editor on one end of the disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
File:Flag_of_Donetsk_Oblast.svg
[edit]A greek editor continues to alter the colors of the Flag with no source provided to those colors even being used, and from what I could tell, just because he personally prefers those shades. WeaponizingArchitecture (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've full protected it. Looks like there's an existing colors discussion but it's been dormant for some time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this? I uploaded the files but I can't request deletion from that account as it was locked ~5 years ago. Xylo78 (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- You filed the request today. DRs typically last 7 days at a minimum. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Xylo78: Assuming you are the same person: you were banned from en-wiki. @Bhinegar: was globally locked, and Gioguch was blocked as a sock. Offhand, I don't see why we should extend you the courtesy of deleting these files for which you granted an irrevocable license and I really don't understand why this Xylo78 account would not constitute block evasion. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel They aren't evading a Commons block, as far as I'm aware. If they were being disruptive on Commons, I'd block them here, but I don't see a need to preemptively block in order to enforce a global lock in this case.
- They're absolutely evading their enwiki ban, though (which I already reported them for), and I assume when the SPI is closed the enwiki CU or clerk will then request a global lock (because they are evading that too). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Well by your logic then the files should especially be deleted because they were uploaded during lock evasion?? Xylo78 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. While we are completely free to delete anything uploaded by a banned user without further rationale, we are not required to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Request to overwrite File:Bank Norwegian logo.png
[edit]
Hi, could an admin please overwrite File:Bank Norwegian logo.png (2018 logo) with the current official logo stored at File:LOGO BANO.png?
Reason: the old logo is no longer in use and is being pulled by external services (e.g., Google Business Profile), causing confusion. The replacement carries the same PD-textlogo licensing and is the official current mark.
If overwrite is not possible, please move/rename File:LOGO BANO.png → File:Bank Norwegian logo.png and rename the 2018 file to something like File:Bank Norwegian logo old.png.
Thank you! Camillaeholt (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Bitte um Überschreiben von File:Bank Norwegian logo.png
[edit]Hallo, könnte bitte ein Admin File:Bank Norwegian logo.png (Logo von 2018) mit dem aktuellen offiziellen Logo unter File:LOGO BANO.png überschreiben?
Grund: Das alte Logo ist nicht mehr in Verwendung und wird von externen Diensten (z. B. Google Business Profile) eingebunden, was zu Verwirrung führt. Die neue Version hat die gleiche PD-textlogo-Lizenz und ist das aktuelle offizielle Logo.
Falls ein Überschreiben nicht möglich ist, bitte File:LOGO BANO.png → File:Bank Norwegian logo.png verschieben/umbenennen und die 2018-Datei z. B. in File:Bank Norwegian logo old.png umbenennen.
