Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:AN

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks 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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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


  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{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.

Image displaying issue[edit]

I recently uploaded a new version of a file, but it is incorrectly displayed on a page in the history block. Black background instead of some parts of the SVG file. To create the file, I used CorelDraw 2020 ( x64. What should I do? Need instruction or help from experienced project participants. file:RU COA Lunin.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalwizard 2018 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Qiushufang's files in DR[edit]

Today I stumbled upon this user User:Qiushufang. Many files were DR-ed by User:Gun Powder Ma for vague rationales even though the problems are not serious enough for DR. The worse thing is, Gun Powder Ma opened separate DRs for each file, making closure painstaking.

I'll go through the currently open ones and write down the ones to close. Could admins please help?

First off, all files in Category:Binglu should be kept because they are illustrations from 1606 book zh:兵錄. The book title Binglu is in the file titles, the wikitext (the cat) and visible in the images! There's absolutely no reason to DR this batch in the first place.

special:search/deepcat:"Binglu" delete published before 1700. 6 files.--Roy17 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  1. All the illustrations from Category:Soldiers of Ming such as File:Breakoutc.jpg are from 守圉全書, published before 1700. special:search/deepcat:"Soldiers of Ming" delete ~30 files.
  2. special:search/deepcat:"Wujing Zongyao" delete in 1044. 12 files.
  3. special:search/deepcat:"Wubei Yaolue" delete before 1700. 6 files.
  4. special:search/deepcat:"Wubei Zhi" delete in 1621. 15 files.

I just finished going thru all the DRs. You have a gadget that can close one request by a few clicks. I would have to edit two pages by hand. :/ Could you please keep all of the aforementioned ones?--Roy17 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I used the "Nominate for deletion" button to the left that is there; I only later realized that there are, apparently, extra tools that could mark images batchwise. But the structure is straightforward, I gave three different rationales for deletion:
In all those cases where User:Qiushufang named himself as "the author", he makes a claim on the authorship. This means that if he had, say, uploaded File:Mona Lisa.jpg, Commons would credit Qiushufang with the world's most famous painting, not Leonardo da Vinci....! If this is not considered a very serious problem by Commons, then perhaps Commons is not serious enough at all about licensing, but as it is it is very clear about the specifications needed: "This field should not be used to specify the name of the person who is the scanner, finder, or uploader of the image – these things do not make that person the author." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That may be the case, but it is a problem that can be solved by simply editing the file description. There is no need to nominate images of an obviously out-of-copyright book for deletion if there are deficiencies in its file description. -- King of ♥ 13:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Editing the file description to what? "Obviously out-of-copyright" is no sorting category in Commons. Either it is or it isn't it, and in the latter case we need to give the name of the author even if it is an anonymous. As of now User:Qiushufang claims to be the author of hundreds of historic images of which he isn't. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can sysops please close the listed DRs? Each search key is the title of the book in pinyin. They were evidently published before 1700.--Roy17 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This file you list, for example, still lists Qiushufang incorrectly as author. Additionally, pinyin can be pretty ambiguous, particularly without the tones. Why not, like in those cases, adding the title in Chinese characters plus the web link from where the images where taken from, or at least a link to the WP.EN article? This would give some orientation to the vast number of users who have no command of Chinese. Commons:Essential information even seems to require the date on top of that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Right now, I’m replacing "|author=[[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]]" with "|author={{author|unknown}}" and "{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}" with "{{PD-old}}" where appropriate in files uploaded by Qiushufang. This can be done by any user and the input of those knowledgeable about the depicted subjects are especially sought. However something else needs to be done by admins:
  1. Scrutinize with great care all previous DRs affecting Qiushufang’s uploads.
  2. Block Gun Powder Ma to avoid further disruptive DR sprees.
-- Tuválkin 08:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

nudity on front page[edit]

We have currently this file nominated for media of the day Template:Motd/2020-06-02. It will go on the front page in 3 days. In the past I have just replaced random nudity without dicussion. This is a relevant file used in articles. This merits a discussion. What is the policy? @JHenry00:, @Nederlandse Leeuw:. Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no anti-nudity policy on Commons. The video is in scope as it has obvious educational value, being a credible interview with political protestors. In this way it is representative of Wikimedia Commons' content.
If you don't want this on MOTD, it would be more valid to complain that the video is distractingly out of focus, so not the high quality that is normal for MOTD, rather than lobby on anti-nudity or NSFW grounds. -- (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a very low quality video, and you are horrified by nipple?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support prohibiting NSFW content on the Main Page per WP:ASTONISH. While Wikimedia projects are not censored, people visit the site at work and children use the site as well, so NSFW content should be confined to places where it is expected to appear. English Wikipedia POTD seems to have a de facto prohibition in place. We have also implemented an optional NSFW filter at COM:FPC, under the grounds that most images nominated are SFW and hence participants want to be able to view the page at work with confidence that they won't be accidentally exposed to inappropriate content. But regardless, this should be removed for its terrible quality. I suggest swapping in an MOTD from a later date. -- King of ♥ 05:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid turning this discussion in to a vote. AN is not the right place to create a community consensus for MOTD decisions. -- (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
en:WP:ASTONISH is an English Wikipedia policy and not directly applicable for Commons. In addition, the mentioned link does not prohibit such content even in English Wikipedia main page. Taivo (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, the idea that English Wikipedia has some kind of nudity ban on the main page is just straightforward factually incorrect (although we do try to avoid pornographic images that would trigger filters and get the site blocked in schools, and images that would cause serious potential distress to readers for little benefit such as graphic images of crime scenes); we run things like w:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2016 all the time. I think you're misunderstanding w:Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused; it's not a blacklist, but a list of images which don't have an adequate enough article to provide appropriate context—if you look at the history you'll see that when an image does get an appropriate article, it gets taken off that list. To the best of my recollection the only image that would under normal circumstances be expected to appear on the English Wikipedia main page but is blacklisted from doing so is September Morn, and that's owing to a complex set of circumstances which is unlikely to arise very often.iridescent 13:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I fixed your WPFA link. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
* Should we move this discussion to someplace like Template talk:Motd/2020-06-02 or Commons talk:Media of the day? I don't see the purpose of it here. It doesn't actually require administrators to do anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Every normal child has seen bare breasts of own mother, so solely bare breasts is not a reason to exclude content from Commons main page. Taivo (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Can someone point to the actual discussion for nominating it or anything else for MOTD? Are there discussions at all? Commons talk:Media of the day has a single discussion from almost a month ago and the archives are from March. Do we do discussions via the Admin board now? POTD at least requires that it be a featured picture first and that is discussed. Commons:Featured video candidates seems unrelated so maybe we can go to the Village Pump and suggest that be a requirement (for a featured video of the week since there's not that many?) rather than arguing a specific nudity policy instead. We also have 18 featured sounds I think so maybe a monthly one for that as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The only 6 edits by JHenry00 were to blank their user page (so it's not a redlink) and set up four controversial MOTD pages - also see Template:Motd/2020-08-02, Template:Motd/2020-09-02 and Template:Motd/2020-12-02. That is suspicious behaviour. I suggest boldly changing them to better media files. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. While none of the four are objectionable by themselves (for nudity or content), they share a common anti-Islam theme. Given that bluelinking one's user page and editing MOTD templates are not common newbie edits - and they make up the entirety of JHenry00's global contributions - this is almost certainly a POV-pushing sockpuppet. The videos are certainly in scope, but none have out-of-the-ordinary merit that justifies allowing a sock to place them on the front page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Given the context of the video, I don't think there is anything objectionable about it. Yes, in some cultures it may seem inappropriate, but that does not mean it is educational and in scope just like most if not all files on Commons. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 04:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There are different red flags in this discussion:

  1. as the originating account has already gone, there is no action to take forward
  2. the general policy based view is that the naked protest interview video is in scope, but is not of a normal quality expected for MOTD. No specific action to take forward, but nobody is actively defending having it on the MOTD page and there is no policy based rationale to stop any individual from using their initiative to remove it from the MOTD template
  3. it is concerning that the MOTD selection process is very unstructured

I propose that this thread is closed with the outcome to not recommend this video for MOTD on quality grounds and a further recommendation that MOTD would benefit from a community discussion/review of how MOTD selects media as it seems very open to misuse if there is no consensus/selection system, such as an accountable selection panel or a relationship with a "featured video" process similar to featured pictures. -- (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We are T-18 hours away, so I have boldly moved it to Template:Motd/2020-06-18 as a holding cell and swapped in a replacement from Template:Motd/2020-06-16, which kills two birds with one stone. (The problem with the solar one was that there would be another solar MOTD on Template:Motd/2020-06-21, the anniversary of an eclipse, so moving it would give more space in between.) We need to seriously discuss revamping MOTD because currently, the MOTD process is completely haphazard with no oversight. Embarrassingly, four MOTDs in May (Template:Motd/2020-05-08, Template:Motd/2020-05-15, Template:Motd/2020-05-22, Template:Motd/2020-05-29) made it onto the Main Page without even an English caption. Regardless of the nudity arguments, the quality of the video under discussion is very low and nowhere near COM:FVC quality. I recognize that we are nowhere near being capable of churning out one FV a day anytime soon, so we can't require them to be FVs, but I think we should start a process similar to COM:QIC but for videos and require MOTDs to have passed that process before selection for the Main Page. -- King of ♥ 06:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I see some other editors felt it was excessive to consider these breasts might harm souls and arouse guilty thoughts, to quote Molière Clin. This document is not only in scope, it has a high EV, being made by a notorious activist, Maryam Namazie, interviewing two other notorious activists, Aliaa Elmahdy and Amina Tyler, ahead of a notorious protest. Granted Namazie's video skills do not shine here, the document is nevertheless notorious [1] [2], it is extracted from and commented in a notorious TV magazine [3] with 550,000 views on YouTube [4], and I have slightly improved its aspect. — Racconish💬 08:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I posted a proposal at VPP. Please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Turn_MOTD_into_MOTW. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Benjen weird contributions[edit]

Do you guys know this Benjen (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)?

Because, looks like a puppet, from out of blue, several deletions request in short period of time, looks like someone avoid a blocked account to me, and for you guys? This do not raise a flag? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry for the flood of requests, I am Benjen from the italian wiki, I just noticed a few pictures that were not relevant in Category:Streatham and then fell into the rabbit hole. Sorry if I did something wrong!--Benjen (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Benjen, I suggest spend more time here before nominate files to deletion, yes, you made some right points, but several others that are not correct.
Muscat, Oman مسقط، عمان 01.jpg
How about sometime add before remove?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rodrigo, nice to meet you, and definitely happy to learn. Please let me know if I have nominated things that should be kept! I nominated the picture of Muscat because I couldn't recognize any significant part of the city or building. And definitely didn't want to pick a fight by nominating your picture File:London Impressions (130142577).jpeg --Benjen (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"I couldn't recognize any significant part of the city or building"
All parts are important, we do not run by a notability criteria, moreover, we can illustrate that neighbourhood, that engine, areal shots of the city, the terrain...
And you not being able to identify one thing, do not mean that is not important. I can see some installations that could be very important bottom corner of the photo, seems to have interesting facilities.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I made and participated in some DRs when I was new here, and I don't think creating several DRs in itself should create a red flag. I'd say we assume good faith. I suggest that Benjen familiarize themselves with our deletion policy and project scope though if they wish to continue participating in DRs. Hope you enjoy editing here! pandakekok9 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been reading those documents, thanks! Regarding the picture above, I do not think it is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" but we can agree to disagree. --Benjen (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
So you should spend more time around, before request files to a deletion. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, I simply put forward some files that I thought had limited educational value. The worst thing that can happen is that they are kept after a short discussion or improved (like the file you uploaded on London) so no harm done. Having said this, please "assume good faith for the intentions of others"! --Benjen (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Benjen there is a harm, when a volunteer had to spend their time to stop a non valid DR, there is a harm.
Nothing more to add.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi administrators, At Special:DoubleRedirects, some of the pages can be only edited by admins because, either, it's someones's JavaScript or just a protected page. Could someone please deal with the double redirects, I can't. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done All fixed or deleted. --Didym (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Backlog[edit]

Dear Admins, Could you please have a look at Category:Copyright violations as we have a backlog of more than 400+ copyvio images now. Thanks in advance --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I deleted ~40 files. 400+ was actually a MediaWiki bug. They couldn't have been more than ~270 files. Considering that each category page contains 200 files, they were all in one page and less than a half. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving request for an admin[edit]

see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/05/Category:Grotte Chauvet --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving request for an admin[edit]

see Category:Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Huntster (t @ c) 05:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct categories[edit]

Two files should get their correct (changed) categories:

Thanks, NNW 16:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Huntster (t @ c) 05:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin revdel this file to remove the non-free revisions?[edit]

I reuploaded these images originally by Ed6767 to remove incompatibly licensed derivative elements from Pexels, whose license seems to be incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. Instead, I am using MIT/CC licensed icons already uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Aasim 18:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


I created this diagram File:WATU_Raspberry_diagram.svg to illustrate an article. I made lots of modifications for it and there are now eight revisions. Could somebody please delete the earlier revisions? Kurzon (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon, unless there's a legal reason for hiding the revisions, there's no real need to do so. Revs happen, and it could potentially be educational to others to see the steps you took to refine the end product. Thank you for creating that image, btw, the article at was an interesting read. Huntster (t @ c) 05:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
They're vector images so they take little space, but I just see it as messy. Whatever. Kurzon (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Account merging After a Rename in 2013[edit]

Hi, my Former Account Pittigrilli was renamed Years ago to the one With which I am writing here. I would like the contribs of the old one in the current one - at the Moment, I do Not See them. Any help possible? (Excuse typos please). Pittigrilli~commonswiki (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake. I take back my inquiry. Sorry, Pittigrilli~commonswiki (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Simple Mass Rename in Category?[edit]

I just uploaded a lot of pics to the new Category: „BMW M8 GTE - Close-up Photos“ My Uploader swallowed the placeholding „_“ I added after the year 2019 at the end of each Filename, hence it Now looks like ...2019560089, which is bad. Is it possible to add a blank or an underscore at this Position to each file? Can I do this myself? Pittigrilli~commonswiki (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

On that, procedural close here, follow up requester's talk page. --Achim (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

2001:56A:F9B1:AE00:C98A:6B54:E848:239B changing licences to PD-chart and PD-text[edit]

Hello admins,

A user on IP address 2001:56A:F9B1:AE00:C98A:6B54:E848:239B has changed the licences of several files on Commons, despite several showing creative authorship in design and layout. I've left a message to start a discussion on their talk pages before assuming their licences can be speedily changed to public domain. Is that an appropriate action?

cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Re: User:Gustavo 351/modern.js. Every twit can add trash to their .js or .css pages, and an average admin like me can't remove it. --Achim (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted it. Wasn't any valid content, and it was the only edits by the account. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm wondering why I couldn't even tag it for deletion. It's not the first time I stumbled upon that behavior. --Achim (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think deletion tagging works in js/css subpages. Did you try deleting it yourself? I don't have any permissions outside the standard sysop set. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Pi, it's weird. Can you see the history of the deleted User:Gustavo 351/modern.js? I get "Unable to proceed - You do not have permission to view a page's deleted history, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators." --Achim (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, now I was able to delete User:JQuillian-arts/EditCounterOptIn.js. Strange. OK, done for now, thanks. --Achim (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope, I get the same error trying to view the revision history. Looks like it's time for us to open a Phabricator ticket. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Two images deleted from Wikipedia that should be deleted here[edit]

These pictures are a magnet for POV pushers and had been already deleted from En.Wikipedia back in 2017.[5]

In order to evade the scrutiny, this time the user has used Commons to upload the copyright violations.

If any admin is reading this request, then kindly delete the both pictures. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Images deleted and deletion discussions closed. @Aman.kumar.goel: NPOV and actions on other projects are not really relevant on Commons. Our main concerns here are the following: (1) Are the media file under an acceptable free licence or in public domain? and (2) Are the media files in scope? I've closed the discussions and deleted the images because they were neither under an acceptable free licence or in public domain. However, would the images be in scope. Most likely. Please note, for future reference, that there is currently a huge backlog of several months worth of open DRs that need to be closed, and as such, it is unnecessary to notify admins that DRs that need to be closed. That being said, thank you for the notice, and for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 05:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


I am aware that this is not an issue that requires administrative action (at this stage). However, I simply wish not to reach that stage through edit wars. Category:Church Slavonic language is categorized in a "spam" manner. My simple request is that an admin who is already experienced on categorization clean up this cat and therefore keep an eye on it not to permit an unnecessary overpopulation of parent cats again. I could probably take the cat to discussion but it is not the cat itself which is the issue at hand. Please understand my concerns and one of you treat this categorization, it is really a "simple" request. Nothing to discuss. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request for own doubled file[edit]

I uploaded a pic as "Snowboarder during narrow turn while freeriding in deep powder .png" and two hours afterwards a better version, but as a different file with different name. I know overwriting would have been correct, but did not work with my iphone setup.

Can you thus please simply delete/erase the above file? thx, Pittigrilli~commonswiki (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli~commonswiki: I have actually deleted both files. This photo can be found online without a free licence and without a reference to your Wikimedia account. The blog has a Creative Commons non-commercial non-derivative licence, but such content is not allowed here at Commons. So, if this is your blog, please consider changing the licence for the image at your website, or send a permission by email using the process described at COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving request for an admin[edit]

category:Euprepiophis mandarina -- > category:Euprepiophis mandarinus (hint from talk page and per eg [6])--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)