Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
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
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	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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~67
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~18
• No license since 4 November 2025: ~47
• No permission since 4 November 2025: ~33
• No source since 4 November 2025: ~10
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-11: ~189

Other:

• Duplicates: ~205
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~6
• Other speedy deletions: ~45
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~6
• Undeletion requests: ~15

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~35
• Interface admin: ~13
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~8
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Template:Cities of Morocco

This is not a complaint against a particular user, only a request for clarification regarding Commons policy concerning disputed regions, especially in regards to Western Sahara conflict. I created Template:Cities of Morocco with the inclusion of cities in Western Sahara, added a note as to their disputed nature, and proceeded to adding the template in the main categories of all cities (still underway as I write this comment) but @Koavf decided to remove references to cities located in Western Sahara (as well as the note) with the comment "Removing cities not in Morocco" (see diff), and also removed the template from categories of cities in Western Sahara where it was included. My question is: which format is more compliant with Commons policy, assuming it does address this issue in general or in particular? If it does not, how should we proceed? Since Western Sahara cities are administered by Morocco (and considered as urban communes of Morocco), it would be expected that they would show up in such a navigation box, and I think adding a note regarding their legal status seems fair, while excluding them completely seems not. Best regards! Ideophagous (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"Since Western Sahara cities are administered by Morocco" This is true of most municipalities in Western Sahara, but not all of them. For those not familiar with the conflict, it is occupied territory, like parts of Palestine and Ukraine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

"For those not familiar with the conflict, it is occupied territory" => That's just one viewpoint of the issue. Others would regard it as an integral part of Morocco, hence why it's a conflict. Ideophagous (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can view anything as anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Still waiting for an admin to comment on this issue.--Ideophagous (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the administrative issue here? Administrators do not set policy, we enforce it. I don't see any clear consensus as to how to policy here, so I don't see how an admin has any more to contribute to forming such a consensus than anyone else. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jmabel. I'm asking if there's a policy concerning this issue, and if not, what to do next? E.g is there some appropriate page where I can open a discussion about this issue where others can weigh in with their opinion on this matter? Ideophagous (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ideophagous: Template talk:Cities of Morocco is currently a complete blank. You might start there. If I were doing this, I would state my own view and ping every user who has worked on the page. If there is no consensus in 10-14 days, you could link the discussion from COM:VP (describing the questions as neutrally as possible) and note at Template talk:Cities of Morocco that you have done so, so that it is clear you are not canvassing for one particular POV.

My own suggestion for a compromise (this is strictly off the top of my head) would be that the cities claimed by Western Sahara should be in the template but separated from the others, with a brief, clear statement that they are disputed territory. You might want to look at how this has been handled for other similar situations elsewhere in the world. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Info for patrollers on temporary accounts

I think we should send a short information to all active (one edit in the last year) patrollers and license reviewers and inform them that if they need to look at the IP behind temporary accounts they have to request the new Temporary account IP viewer right. We should make this some days before to not have so many requests at the same time. Here is a draft for the message:

Hello User,

On November 12, temporary accounts will be enabled on Commons. The IP of unregistered users will then be hidden for most users. You, as a patroller or license reviewer, are eligible to request the new temporary account IP viewer right, if you need it to continue fighting vandalism and abuse on Commons. If you want to request the right, please file the request here. Please be aware that you also have to accept the Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy in your preferences. For more information about temporary accounts, look at the project page.

Please make changes directly in the text above. I suggest to send this on Friday. GPSLeo (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Support, I made some minor changes to the message. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done message sent. GPSLeo (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Appealing decisions that contravene a set of rules

Hello. Before writing further, I want to clarify that I have no ill intentions, that expressing myself here is not a reason to block me and that English is not my native language.

I wish to appeal decisions that contravene a set of rules, starting with this decision to keep my photos of artworks taken in Belgium in 2012. The discussion with @Jameslwoodward who closed the request only resulted in a threat of blocking if I renominated the files, while requesting deletion is not a reason for blocking either, so I have no other choice but to appeal here. Before the request was closed, those opposed to conservation were in the majority, which was not taken into account. Moreover, the only argument given for keeping is not valid because I have never denied that there is freedom of panorama in Belgium, on the contrary, my will to delete my files is motivated by what the laws for freedom of panorama say, invalidating @Yann's opinion and keeping the files.

I have identified 5 valid reasons for deletion :

1. Keeping my files is contrary to belgian Article XI.192/3 of the Code of Economic Law, which specifies that the reproduction and communication of artworks must not prejudice the normal exploitation of the work, nor cause unjustified harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder, which is incompatible with the commercial aspect of the licenses accepted on Commons.

2. The conservation also contradicts what this page states in the second note about freedom of panorama : « Before 15 July 2016, there was no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art could not be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. »

3. Conservation is also contrary to the precautionary principle which states that we should not prejudge the intentions of the rights holders, thinking they won't file a complaint.

4. Keeping these files is contrary to the F5 speedy deletion criterion (in File, Namespace-specific) since the authors of the photographed artworks have not given their permission for my photos of their work to be published under a license without commercial restrictions.

5. Keeping unused files unnecessarily clutters the site's servers.

For all these reasons I appeal the keeping by requesting the deletion of these files, which I would not have needed to do if these two administrators had fulfilled their community role of understanding and following Commons policy instead of finding @Andy Dingley and me wrong, when we were calling for respect of the precautionnary principle.

I also request the deletion of my other photos of artworks taken in Belgium in 2012 that fall under this case.

I again request the removal of this unused photo of an artwork taken in Spain, which keeping is contrary to Article 40 bis of the Spanish law of 1996 for intellectual property, to the precautionary principle and the speedy deletion criterion F5.

At last, I was blocked because I tried to remove categories from my photos taken in Belgium that have to be deleted. The administrator who blocked me decided, without evidence, that I was deliberately trying to harm the site, when I was trying to make my files less accessible in order to protect myself against potential legal action, to comply with the aforementioned laws and the precautionary principle. Contrary to this administrator's claims, I was not notified of his intention to block me in october regarding the categories. He announced a block in August 2025 without providing any link to what I supposedly did that could be considered vandalism, thus without any justification, which I consider an abuse of power. Then, in October, he blocked me without warning because I removed categories in response to decisions I am now appealing. Considering this block as preventive is difficult since it occurred after the categories were removed, when cancellations alone would have been sufficient to stop me. However, the administrator chose to punish me without considering my good faith, even though I tried to explain my intentions in french regarding my files back in August.

Therefore, I request the removal of this unjustified block from my block log, the resetting of my block counter and the cleaning of my abuse log and what is related to this block of which I would not have knowledge.

Awaiting your response, sincerely. Olga Rithme (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Since July 2025, this user wants to delete some pictures under the wrong pretext of a copyright violations where there is none. Olga Rithme doesn't understand that freedom of panorama in Belgium allows the publication of pictures of artworks in public places without the author's consent. She has done edit-warring, and argued ad nauseam despite explanations by several people in English and in French, and despite multiple warnings and a block. Yet she comes again with the same wrong arguments. Sadly I don't see any other solution than a longer block. Yann (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked Olga for a year. Jim said in his talkpage, that if Olga nominates one of her files again for deletion, then she will be blocked. And that's exactly what happened: in this thread Olga nominated own uploads for deletion. She did not create formal deletion requests, but this technicality is not important, we are not wikilawyering here. Of course I accept position of Jim and Yann: Belgian artworks do not need permission from artist. Olga was multiple times explained our position in that matter, but she refused to hear that. English Wikipedia has policy en:Wikipedia:IDHT, Commons has Commons:Disruptive editing. I understand Olga's good faith, but competence is required as well. In addition: clogging the servers is not an argument, because almost all deleted files will remain in our servers anyway. Taivo (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the commons community should be more lenient (more ready) to fulfill users' wishes to delete their own uploads even after 7 days, when the uploads have not been widely used, especially when the requests were made quite soon after the uploads had been quite recently uploaded.

In this case, I checked https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maison_communale_de_La_Panne.jpg&action=history (uploaded 22 june, requested 12 july, 20 days) and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cloned_paardenvisser,_William_Sweetlove.jpg&action=history (uploaded 26 june, requested 12 july, 16 days). RoyZuo (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am fine to change the rules, but it should be a community consensus. If you think it is needed, please create a proposal. Yann (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion policy#Courtesy deletions Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7.

there is no compelling reason not to respect the user's wishes in this case. those files are still not used now, 4 months after upload and 3 months after user first requested deletion.

and simply fulfilling users' wishes is a respectful and kind way to treat fellow users than blocking them. what harm would it do to delete those images? what harm does it do now to block a contributor? RoyZuo (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: IMO the issue is how to request a deletion. Courtesy deletions may have been fine in July, but not inventing false pretexts and repeating them again and again. This is like good faith: admitting one's mistakes instead of construction of false stories. Yann (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

those files are still not used now, 4 months after upload and 3 months after user first requested deletion — not used now where? On wiki projects? On external non-wiki websites? In print media? They all rely on the irrevocable cc license they've seen on this page 4 months ago. I think that granting a one month period for courtesy deletions might be ok, but it might get tricky regarding protecting reusers the more time has passed since the upload.

The idea of making it clearer to uploaders that they can't delete their uploads seems like a more sensible approach here. Nakonana (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Everyone except User:Olga_Rithme has the same understanding of the Belgian FoP rules. The license is irrevocable. I see no reason to create a precedent by deleting images that can perfectly properly be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The user also is under the mistaken impression that deletion saves server space, they still are on the servers, they're just hidden from the public. I am also in agreement with Jim that these have no good reason to delete them. Abzeronow (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't see any mention of this law being retroactive, which could be a reason the user could use to request the removal of these photographs. (edit) Retroactivity in Belgian law is the exception. Please note that this comment does not constitute support for unblocking the user. Arflhn (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Olga requested unblock. I encourage you to close the request. As this is my block, I cannot do it myself. Taivo (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Contact me off-wiki

Could an admin contact me off-wiki? I'd like to request deletion of a file in a way that's not publicly visible. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I'm available all day - just send me an email. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535, sorry for the late reply, but all I'd checked was my email inbox. I've just noticed someone else dealing with the situation, so I won't need to take more of your time. Thanks for offering to help! Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Ticha Lapointe et Agnès Descamps.jpg

Can an admin please delete the original revision of this image? I've cropped out a 2022 monument (no FOP in France). Thank you. Geoffroi 19:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Attack images

Can an admin delete File:Medal-za-vziatie-zashcheku-foto-24.jpg (it says "faggot" in Russian) and the other uploads of User:Магистр Рудольф and block the account? Thanks. Geoffroi 20:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Are you still around? Geoffroi 20:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And that other file by the same uploader too: File:U-Ej u382aafq 6cEdPnGQ-BeHx-FxNSrK QZWusSAGe7BWh8TK35iUoGk618okdqpSucfKKRvlCb-i8dAhSAHoH.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Anke Brokstra.jpg

Please remove the other versions, replacing images is not allowed + the EXIF notes a different author. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done GPSLeo (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I just got several notifications on Wikipedia in minutes within over half an hour here and on a talk page I did not start or wanted to start. This similar situation happened on Wikipedia several times and I've reported it along with other users. And now the same thing is happened all over again here. Also, there is one message sent saying that it's me when it's not. I responded saying that it's not me. And also, I never intended to start a talk page here and would like that removed if it's possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Please and thank you! Suite1408 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked 2600:4808:9C71:9900:1435:BC1E:8480:5846 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Noiamsanna 019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). No idea what they were trying to do, but all edits were disruptive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers! Suite1408 (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Bastique

• Bastique (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Buenas,necesito que remueva como administrator al Usuario Bastique porque Bastique no público o editó (volvió) en Wikimedia Commons ,la última publicación o edición fue el 24 de julio de 2025 (4 meses). AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Tenemos que atendar 6 meses y mandar un mensaje al usuario. Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok,tienes razón,pinging @Yann and @Jmabel: any opinion? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, Bastique can still come back. Please see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of inactivity. Yann (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, the inactivity period for de-adminship is 6 months. Also, we already have a process for this, see Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy:El estaba inactivo por 4 meses y cuando comenzará una petición en "De adminship"? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22 Per the inactivity section page, the next scheduled run is in February/March 2026. If any admins failed to meet the minimum requirements (5 admin actions in 6 months), then the bureaucrats will deal with the inactive admins accordingly, so you don't need to do anything here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22, it will be okay. I'm still around. I just got busy with life. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Urgent Request for Review and Correction on a negative slur

Hi. I was redirected here by Trimtrent and believe this is the COM:AN noticeboard. I would like to raise a complaint about a negative slur attached to my uploaded file, which states the document was AI‑developed and/or partially developed. This is baseless and without evidence. I require this sub‑comment to be removed from my published file immediately, as it is hurtful and unfounded. I have only used AI tools in a limited editorial capacity — to check factual references and improve grammar and phrasing. All substantive intellectual work, sourcing, and analytical decisions were made and executed by me. Plus I have uploaded many other images I have worked on for the paper and shared it with the public on SA BY 4.0. Regarding whether the actual file is deleted or not, I am happy to wait for due process, but the AI slur on my work must be removed without delay.

Kind regards, Jeeva [Author of File:Dravidian Arc - Reframing Ancient India’s Civilisational Origins.pdf] Jeeva S Sk (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dravidian Arc - Reframing Ancient India’s Civilisational Origins.pdf? If yes, well, the mentioned statement by the nominator is just an opinion, which may or may not be true, but its not an insult/slur. Also, it does not say "the document was AI‑developed ", but "appears likely", which has a different weight. --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Its appears as a slur because its not clearly stated as this objection view is from an external user and most people including myself viewed this statement its coming from a WikiCommon adminstrator. Can you please help to remove the potential AI usage to create the paper as its not correct and gives the wrong impression to public users Jeeva S Sk (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jeeva S Sk I think you, like very many people, misunderstand the role of administrators on Wikimedia Foundation sites. They have no special authority. They are delegated additional cleanup powers by consensus of the denizens of the different sites, but their role is to assist with cleaning up messes. They are truly the janitors here, not people with special authority. Their authority level is equal to yours, to mine and to everyone else's. Even their wielding of the janitorial mop and bucket is subject to the scrutiny of the community. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume that this request is now resolved, as the file has been deleted. @Jeeva, the (now deleted) file appears to me like a scientific paper. If it truely is, Commons is really the wrong place to publish it, and it can even be unwise to do so, because (real) scientific journals always ask whether a paper has previously been submitted elsewhere. So, you should find a suitable (scientific) journal and try to publish it there. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Túrelio I choose not to complain about the personal attack. It is insufficient to warrant action unless they persist, when a warning shot may be required over collegiality, though they doubled down on it elsewhere, too. From my perspective this can be closed and archived. @Jeeva S Sk may not check this board again so I have pinged them in order that they may comment if they wish to.. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you @Túrelio as it wasn't properly explained like you have done. I understand the research paper parts: abstract and overview (uploaded ) cant be posted on Commons - simiilar to WikiSource or WikiPedia- which I wasn't aware of before until last night. Jeeva S Sk (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Please take care in judging whether content is AI generated. I have not seen the deleted file, so I cannot speak to its appearance, but I am sympathetic to the harm of associating someone's research with AI content when that is not the case.

@Jeeva S Sk: As others here are saying, Wikimedia Commons is generally not a place for hosting preprints or academic files. However, if you are patient, and if you wish to try using a new service, and if you can collaborate with all the volunteer editors, then I invite you to try publishing your preprint at Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities. WikiJournal is a project within the Wikimedia platform, and it is a new option for publishing research. It is a place that can accept comments on preprints, and if you wish to advance your publication there, then it has an editorial board to provide peer review. This is an uncommon new service which is still being tested, and most reviewers for Wikimedia Commons are unfamiliar with it.

WikiJournal is a place where people are more accustomed to checking for AI submissions for academic research. I recognize that you have had some friction in editing Wikimedia so far, but if you want to give a try there, then editors can take your submission. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

File name swap

Can an admin do the renames requested on File:IE road sign RUS-059A.svg? Thanks. Geoffroi 21:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done; @Geoffroi: please check my work. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Problema Blacklist durante caricamento file: progetto fontana Milano Centrale 1988

Buongiorno,

sto tentando di caricare un’immagine relativa a un progetto per la **Stazione Centrale di Milano** (proposta/bozzetto di fontana, anno 1988). Anche tentando nomi descrittivi e dettagliati, ricevo sempre l’errore di **“nome file inserito nella Blacklist perché troppo comune o non informativo”**.

Nomi file provati

• Milan Central Station fountain project - 1988
• Milan_Central_Station_fountain_project_1988.jpg
• MilanoCentrale_fountain_project_1988.jpg
• Render_fontana_Stazione_Centrale_Milano_1988.jpg
• Proposta_fontana_Milano_Centrale_1988.jpg

Contesto

• L’immagine è un render/proposta storica di una fontana progettata per Milano Centrale, anno 1988.
• Lo scopo del caricamento è documentare un progetto storico/architettonico.

Licenza / autore

Mia opera creativa

Richiesta

Chiedo cortesemente:

1. Di verificare se la **TitleBlacklist** sta bloccando i nomi file in modo eccessivo.
2. Se si tratta di un falso positivo, suggerire eventualmente un **nome file sicuro** da usare per consentire il caricamento.

Grazie ObservatoryDigi (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment The first (with no suffix) makes no sense as a filename, but the others all look reasonable to me. Still, given those titles, it is hard to imagine that they would not be copyrighted: are you saying you are the person who designed this fountain, and that the renderings are your original work? We'd almost certainly need still to go through the COM:VRT process for you to verify that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• I can't find anything in the logs. Does someone know where I should be looking? Also, has "filter log" been renamed when starting from user contributions (I don't see that anywhere; I see "abuse filter log", which has no hits for this user). Nor can I find anything starting from the history of these files. @ObservatoryDigi: Did you attempt to upload these using this account or another account, and were you using Commons:Upload Wizard or some other upload tool? (Hai provato a caricarli utilizzando questo account o un altro account e stavi utilizzando Commons:Upload Wizard o qualche altro strumento di caricamento?) - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

File:Orc mask by GrimZombie.jpg

The uploader have on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orc mask by GrimZombie.jpg stated they wish for their user account to be hidden from the file Trade (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

VRT ticket #: 2016052210013951

@Trade: I believe that miscategorizes what is on that DR. The Commons uploader is not who asked for anonymization, it is the source/author information for which that was requested, and that has been done. I will hide the history where that is revealed. If they want their pseudonym also suppressed, that would require that we rename the file; I think it is too late for that to be a reasonable thing to do, but won't object if I am overruled on that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This file was uploaded in 2016 and is widely used. Geoffroi 22:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)