User talk:SecretName101

This is SecretName101’s talk page, where you can send messages and comments to SecretName101.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

User page

Go to my User page

Talk Page

Leave me a message.

Contributions

What I've done.

Sandbox

The testing zone

Guestbook

Please do sign

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Packers at Fisher House (54440412397).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Krd 04:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celebrating Defeat of President Trump 84 - Time to Build Peace and Heal 2 (50582367051).jpg

File:Celebrating Defeat of President Trump 84 - Time to Build Peace and Heal 2 (50582367051).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicolas Sarkozy, painted portrait (29904467231).jpg

File:Nicolas Sarkozy, painted portrait (29904467231).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill morneau's office (49560788663).jpg

File:Bill morneau's office (49560788663).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

Selfie

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Cyberwolf (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vancouver, BC, -RejectFear (16648714789).jpg

File:Vancouver, BC, -RejectFear (16648714789).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vancouver, BC, -RejectFear (16647259458).jpg

File:Vancouver, BC, -RejectFear (16647259458).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victoria, BC, -RejectFear (16846083852).jpg

File:Victoria, BC, -RejectFear (16846083852).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:OM-DiscoverAward-10 (54336056865).jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, Krd 07:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Real Fresh Mocha Latte Cafe Breaks Pudding (26948175876).jpg

File:Real Fresh Mocha Latte Cafe Breaks Pudding (26948175876).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Solomon203 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upload restriction

As an experienced user, you are expected to properly curate your uploads. This means accurate and useful filenames, descriptions, and categories; it means accurate licenses; it also means checking for duplicates, copyvios, and other issues. You have long failed to properly curate your uploads, which you have been warned about before. Several of your recent edits that came across my watchlist had significant issues. These issues include:

Uploading duplicate files (ex. 1, 2)
Uploading numerous files with PDM without then fixing the license (ex)
Uploading files previously deleted at DR (ex)
Uploading obvious copyvios of recent US sculptures (ex. 1, 2)
Using highly generic filenames (ex. 1, 2)
Using generic filenames and descriptions for all files in an album, even when they do not accurately describe every file (ex)
Using nonsense filenames (ex. 1, 2)
Importing useless descriptions from flickr (ex. 1, 2)
Adding broad categories when specific categories are clearly available (ex. 1, 2)
Adding redlinked nonsense categories (ex)
Adding completely incorrect categories (ex. 1, where you added a category for a building years before it was built, and 2, where you added categories for the wrong city and wrong campus - even though the actual identity is written right on the building)

All of the above examples are just from the last six hours. Every single file you uploaded during that time has one or more significant curation issues. I have blocked you from uploading files until I am sure you can be trusted to do better. In order for you to resume uploading, I need you to demonstrate that you understand proper curation by fixing these issues with some of your uploads and committing to fixing the rest. I also need you to explain how you are going to avoid the issues I highlighted above in future uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535

You seem rather unversed on the limitations of transferring files from Flickr. For instance, your objection to redlinked category names seems not to recognize that Flickr2Commons does not inform you prior to upload whether a category name target exists or not, and that placeholder (redlinked) category names are preferable to no categorization.

I'd urge you to be mindful of the fact that some uploaders have different processes for adding large batches of files to Flickr. Some such prefer to have the files fully-uploaded in a batch first, before spending a subsequent period improving categorization, descriptions, etc. on those files. That's my process, I prefer to have them added to the project first before perfecting their descriptions, categorization, and improving titles. That is in part because of experiences with having computers/browsers crash before I can finish improving individual file descriptions and categorizations when I had in the past tried perfecting prior to upload. There is nothing worse than spending a long period on work and having it instantaneously lost.

Your examples of purported copyvio were files that highlighted larger architectural spaces, and which I intended to after upload (and flickr bot verification of license) re-upload with new crops. One was photo broad interior space that included a sculpture within it; the other was a building exterior with a sculpture in one corner of the photo. Each with a case for de minimus. Particularly if the images were re-cropped, as I fully intended to do.

Flickr2Commons automatically PDM marks for certain licenses, even if you add with the correct additional license tag. I apologize for not being an bot myself capable of instantaneous remedy of that, but I am not. I am a manual editor. Unless you know of some tool I do not, this is the byproduct of Flickr2Commons' shortcomings. If you know of such a tool, I'd love to be pointed towards it.

Also, Flickr2Commons did not produce any warning about a previously deleted file you pointed to. In that instance you are faulting me for not knowing something I had no means of knowing. I was not part of that prior deletion discussion, as far I can recall. No notification was flagged that this was a previously deleted of the file.

"wrong city and and wrong campus" seems unfair, as in the next edit (less than a minute later) I corrected for that. I hope we are not being faulted for errant edits that were remedied by ourselves in less than a minute. Not clear what do you mean by "wrong campus", when that is indeed a building on the campus of Harvard University as I tagged it in the corrective edit.

I ask you to remove this bloc. SecretName101 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to comment whether this was a good or bad block.

While F2C has limitations, maybe upload into smaller batches (something that is workable, where you fix one batch before uploading the next for example), use Commons to see what categories exist or maybe attach a maintenance category (e.g. Category:Batch files uploaded by SecretName101 requiring clean up) so you can fix files that require categories, license fixes ect? Bidgee (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem rather unversed on the limitations of transferring files from Flickr. I have transferred more than 4,000 images from Flickr; I am well aware of the limitations. But every single one of those images is properly curated (save for a few GLAM images in dedicated cleanup categories). The difference is that I take the effort to clean up images after upload.

That's my process, I prefer to have them added to the project first before perfecting their descriptions, categorization, and improving titles. But you don't do that. You upload them with default information, add a category or two, and move on to uploading other files. Can you show me a recent mass upload where you have made significant changes to descriptions and filenames after uploading?

Your examples of purported copyvio... This entire paragraph is flat-out untrue. In both this image and this image, the artwork is undeniably not de minimis. You uploaded dozens of files from different sources in the hours afterwards, yet you did not crop these images. In this image, the entire subject of the photo is a copyrighted band logo.

Flickr2Commons automatically PDM marks for certain licenses, even if you add with the correct additional license tag. This is why you need to actually look at files after you upload them. It would have taken just a few seconds per file (or a minute total using VFC) to correct the licenses after upload. I've done both myself plenty of times.

"wrong city and and wrong campus" seems unfair, as in the next edit (less than a minute later) I corrected for that. Again, that's not true. When you added Category:May 2023 in Boston, you did not remove the incorrect Category:2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This building is not on the main Harvard campus; it is at Harvard Medical School. It took me about ten seconds to go from reading "Harvard Medical School" on the building to identifying the already-extant category it belonged in. Why were you not capable of doing that?

Everyone makes errors; this block is not just because of a few errors here and there. This block is because of a long-term trend of improperly curated mass uploads that you never go back and fix, and because your rushed pace consistently results in an excessively high rate of errors that you do not fix. If I go back a year from this week, I find dozens of filenames like File:100907-a-bb665-1017 48701243828 o.jpg and File:6b7a5679 53453173946 o.jpg, and descriptions like Photo_199 and Photo_62. If I go back two years, I find dozens of filenames like File:Laptop 420 (22100832).jpg and File:Not Sure (22101457).jpg, and descriptions like A shot of a hill, just for you. and Laptop 118, and useless blurs like this and this. If it has been years and you haven't fixed these basic issues, why should anyone trust that you will fix your more recent (and future) uploads? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond quickly to portions of this

The purpose of blocks is to prevent harmful, not innocuous, concerns

While the examples at Commons:Blocking policy are not an exhaustive list, it is worth noting that there is no example remotely approaching the vein of sub-optimal (but innocuous) naming, descriptions, or categorization. Blocks are here to prevent actual harm.

File naming

The naming guideline is a guideline, not a policy. This means that it outlines the best practices, rather than the minimally-required practices. Imperfection is not what blocks are here for. Again, blocks are here to prevent conduct that is genuinely damaging to the project. The upload of a useful file (categorized usefully, finable in searches as a result of its categorization) under a name you find sub-optimal is not to the inherent detriment of the project.

And while outlines are best practices, the spirit of Wikimedia projects dictates that common sense is an equally important point of guidance. When files such as File:100907-a-bb665-1017 48701243828 o.jpg are categorized into hyper specific categories such as Category:Army Black Knights at Michigan Wolverines football (September 7, 2019) and Category:Army Black Knights cheerleaders, common sense would dictate that a hyper-descriptive file name becomes less essential to aid in finding the image. This is because when placed into those categories, categorization allows that image to appear in searches related to the date, game, football stadium, state, football teams, cheerleading team, etc., since the photo is located in a category that is itself a sub-cat (or sub-sub-sub-cat) of those aspects. For instance, that photo is finable as a result when one searches on commons for the term "Army black knight cheerleaders 2019” or "Army cheerleader Michigan". Strong categorization is very arguably a more important step in ensuring that files are findable, as it groups similar files together, allows for multiple aspects of a file to be attributed to it (more than file titles permit), and also impacts search queries. And few editors have dedicated more man-hours to categorization than I have. Common sense would dictate that it is even more useful to title and categorize images descriptively, but that hyper-categorization alone can eliminate the concern of making images findable.

It is also worth noting that over the years, at Commons talk:File naming numerous editors have urged the guidelines be minimal and being of lesser importance to categorization @Tony Wills: for instance expressed, [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:File_naming&oldid=50957985

I think guidelines on file naming can be minimal...The only time I find the filename useful, at all, is if there is no description and no categorization

descriptive filename is not necessary nor particularly useful for locating a file…. Searching should put an emphasis on the file description or categories]

.

Nowhere in the discussion on that talk page does it seem the editors that formed the guideline envisioned that suboptimal but innocuous file names would be a severe enough concern for blocs, particularly when files are uploaded with useful categorization. If optimally descriptive titles were seen as such a non-negotiable and paramount concern, the project would have never permitted User:US National Archives bot to operate.

Also it’s a bizarrely high standard to argue that File:Neponset River (53927241312).jpg is a non-descriptive file name. Besides going further and adding the year, that’s a rather descriptive title of what is photographed. It is not my own photo nor geotagged, so I could not describe the photo much better with certainty of accuracy.

I will also note that with sources like Flickr (where authors might delete or re-license their images more restrictively), it is often better to add useful media to Commons and have Flickrbot verify licensing in the present rather than procrastinate and risk the media being deleted or re-licensed on Flickr (rendering them no longer usable on Wikimedia).

Descriptions

Pretty much the same as above. Files you named like File:Ezekiel Elliott (51787125794).jpg have descriptive titles and hyper-descriptive categories. They are findable without a description. A detailed description is nice, but arguably redundant (duplicative of information available by looking at the title, categorization, and date of the image). Blocks are for preventing harmful edits.

The standard is not perfection, and blocks are here to block harmful not innocuous concerns

The standard here is not perfection. No editor would want that to be the standard, as all (even you) fall short of that.

For instance, if we want to pick bones with other editors' uploading style, one could point out how files you have uploaded such as File:Fruitvale Village, May 2025.jpg (which you uploaded this week) have rather weak non-specific and non-descriptive categorization (Category:May 2025 in California Category:Fruitvale, Oakland, California being the only categories that was placed into by you, I was able to immediately recognise four obvious existing categories you failed to categorize that photo into). The description of that file also gives us next-to-nothing. What is "Fruitvale Village"? Is it a mall? What is visible in the photo? If the minimally-required standard is detailed descriptions and categorization on every photo, you have fallen short in file uploads like that.

De minimis discussion

If you had read my comment, those two photos (once their licensing was confirmed by Flickrbot) were going to be overwritten with crops rendering any copyrighted images indisputably de minimus. That’s an example of why deletion nominations and talk page discussions are useful, you would have learned that had you gone that route first.

Nutshell

To repeat: @Pi.1415926535: The purpose of blocks is to prevent harmful, not innocuous, concerns

While the examples at Commons:Blocking policy are not an exhaustive list, it is worth noting that there is no example remotely approaching the vein of sub-optimal (but innocuous) naming, descriptions, or categorization. Blocks are here to prevent actual harm.

SecretName101 (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An ex post facto ping of Pi.1415926535 will not work. Per mw:Extension:Echo#Usage, you must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit (or mention their user page in your Edit Summary) in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: SecretName101 00:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting out of your reply is that:

You don't believe that you should have to follow the file naming guideline, despite it being approved by the Commons community
You don't understand that filenames, descriptions, and categories have very different functions, all of which are important
You don't understand that issues with mass uploads are more disruptive than similar issues with individual uploads because of the effort it takes to correct them
You don't understand the difference between "using the most specific category in a given category tree" and "adding every possible category"
You aren't willing to do basic research when the Flickr information is vague. (It took me one minute, using only Street View, to identify exactly where the Neponset River photo was taken.)
You aren't willing to admit fault even for unambiguous errors or commit to actions that would reduce them
You have no intention of changing your behavior if unblocked

Given that, I see no reason to unblock you. Your editing behavior has been consistently harmful and it needs to substantially change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 the guideline is the best advisable practices, not the required minimal threshold. That is why it is a guideline and not a standard. It serves to settle the dispute of what a better title is, not what a permissible title must be. SecretName101 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your belligerence is not appreciated. Creating strawmen arguments that are derived nowhere from what I actually said is not comporting yourself in good faith here. For instance,

What I'm getting out of your reply is that....You don't understand the difference between "using the most specific category in a given category tree" and "adding every possible category"

That is a blatant mischaracterization of my reply. That is a not characterization of my reply, but rather a straw-man of your own creation,

Another mischaracteriation

You aren't willing to admit fault even for unambiguous errors or commit to actions that would reduce them.

Pointing out (for instance) that several of the errors you are citing as grounds for a block had been near-immediately remedied and innocuous is not refusing to admit fault. It is merely contesting that a block is necessitated by them.

It is clear you have a personal preference for extreme neatness by others (one you often have fallen short of), but your personal preferences are not ratified as the community's minimal standards for the project. If you want to raise the minimal standards required, you need to subject your heightened standards to a formal proposal for consensus. Being an admin does not give you a fiat to impose your on fancies and whims. If anything, it places a greater burden on you to respect the processes for building consensus. SecretName101 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not your decision for an unblock at this time since you are involved. Your actions here are questionable and an administrative review is in order at this point Cyberwolf (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a good block per secrets comments Flickr to commons has limitation and in my opinion this is just punishment for mistakes and placing inappropriate blame on secret who used software with limitations. If you have a problem with this please go open a ticket on phabricator. This block isn’t helpful blocking a user from completely uploading is punishment. If it wasn’t a punishment it would be an upload limit 2-3 images.
Second issue. Blocking without discussion. one thing that irks me about administrators on commons and the English Wikipedia is how they go straight to a block every time i had to deal with it. There was no discussion and i will place money on if there was a discussion an agreement and conclusion without a block. This user is/was more than willing to discuss. Cyberwolf (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "Administrator and I may have different styles in how we upload, which I believe has led to them misunderstanding files uploads that I had not finished curating as being files I did have any further designs on improving the curation of. I hope I can alleviate some of that concern by highlighting the limitations of Flickr2Commons, and letting them know that these files are process of being further curated (further categorized categorized, re-tiled, etc.) rather than in their final state. SecretName101 (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)"[reply]

Decline reason: "Procedural decline as the block now is not partial. Please fill a separate unblock request. --Bedivere (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)"[reply]

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ Simple English ∙ svenska ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

So curate them. Now. Before you are blocked. Show that you can do it and are willing to do it. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? Cyberwolf (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberwolf: I am imploring the user to curate his uploads. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright a curation process application should exist tbhw Cyberwolf (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it would be great if we could have a cat-a-lot style tools for adding new descriptions; amending/revising the name of files; and adding/removing license templates and PDM templates.

Right now there’s only a cheat-code for adding license templates (you add multiple cats at once with Cat-a-lot with the license template sandwiches between, and then immediately remove the nonsense categories you sandwiched the template between). but no way to do anything else I named.

It would also be great if we could use cat-a-lot on search results, so that we would not have to categorize batches of similar un-categorized images manually one-by-one. SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend batch task? Cyberwolf (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can not blame the lack of some tools for working bad. The only demands towards you are to give files a descriptive filename, a description and usable categories before uploading. Uploading with a nonsense filename and moving after the upload is not an option. If you have a descriptive filename just copy it to the description or the caption. And add at least on category that is always the most accurate one currently available. Only upload files with correct licenses and no copyright problems. If you got a license wrong correct immediately and stop every new uploads until the problem is solved. I would give you a last chance after you cleaned up all past uploads. If you continue with such problematic upload behavior the next block will not be partial but entirely. GPSLeo (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to do quick batch fixes VisualFileChange.js So this can help you can use it like cat-a-lot Cyberwolf (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that VFC is actually meant for this sort of thing, much better than tricking some tool meant for other purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName, if you are unblocked, will you agree to dealing with either sorting out your past uploads or nominating them for deletion before doing any new uploads (with the understanding that there might be something where you need to upload a redacted or cropped version of a file you've already uploaded)? - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im open to help them
sort it out Cyberwolf (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel

I will commit to making an earnest effort to go back and review (and improve) uploads that I have made from months and years back.

However, as for your specific ask of committing to not make any new uploads before I have done that to an unspecified/ambiguous extent? I don't think that is a reasonable ask; and I have concerns the ask itself creates bad precedent that is not in keeping with the community consensus of treating blocks as preventative and not punitive. So I cannot make that specific commitment.

As to why I find the specific ask you made objection and something I cannot to, there is several reasons:

It is overly-vague. It is not clear whether you are merely asking me to make an earnest (but not overly-intense) effort to go back and improve some my past uploads; or if you are asking me to review all 444,000 uploads I have ever made one-by-one before adding a single other? That is utterly unclear, and either could be reasonably (mis)understood to be the ask.
I cannot promise to complete a task that has no defined threshold for completion. If I did, there is the possibility that the actions I might (mis)understand to meet satisfactory completion of the ask and what you intended for satisfactory completion to look like could be miles apart in either direction.
The ask (of making absolutely no additional uploads if my privileges were restored) would impede on my ability to take care of any tasks that involve uploads (even overwriting files with better quality ones or creating appropriately-sized crops; uploading new quality media of subjects in need)
This ask concerningly encroaches on treating a block as a punitive measure and not preventative one. Blocks are meant to prevent future detrimental behavior with the blocked permission, not to coerce other editing behavior (as latter would encroach on rendering blocks punitive). The metric in restoring blocked permissions is whether there is a belief that the block is no longer necessary to prevent detrimental actions (which community consensus has established to be harmful enough to warrant blocks). Administrators have been entrusted with the power to impose blocks with the community's trust they will impose them preventatively and not punitively (and that is clear and unambiguous directive to admins backed by bold-letter consensus).
This ask almost appears structured in a manner akin to offering a "plea deal", which again renders a block punitive rather than preventative.
An agreement to completely abstain from using a permission/tool for an extended amount of time is in effect identical to a block itself. It is a difference without a distinction: an identical restriction, with the sole difference being that it is governed by an honor code rather than imposed through admin tools. The ask is is to agree to impose an identical block on myself in exchange for having the administrator imposed block lifted. That creates bad precedent, seemingly skirting how blocks are supposed to be treated.

SecretName101 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for over writing and cropping in my opinion it should be allowed. I’ve already started to rename files most likely i will apply to the file mover role Cyberwolf (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you can use visual file changes Cyberwolf (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, the admin seems to take issue with even descriptions they find under-specific.

For instance, a Flickr photo of Harvard's campus (a location I have never visited, and am not myself hyper-familiar with the architecture of) under a tentative name of "Harvard", or an the a description or name name of an event being the name of a file (even tentatively). That's not non-descriptive, it's just not hyper-descriptive. And you and the blocking admin seem to go well-beyond community consensus of what the minimal expectations for uploaders are. Either make a formal proposal for heightening minimal expectations to promulgate a clear policy, or refrain from imposing policies that are not agreed to through consensus.

Admins were assigned to administrate, not to legislate. Admins must also seek consensus the same as all others must, they are not given a fiat to impose their personal doctrine as though it were consensus. SecretName101 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: I didn't ask you to completely satisfy Pi.1415926535. (I think quite a few of his points are valid, but few of them merit a block.) I asked you to commit to getting licensing sorted out [to the best of your ability] before you do more uploading. Poorly described content is just a failure to provide value to users. Incorrectly licensed content places reusers at risk. If you cannot work out (with a reasonable level of confidence) the licensing status of the "bycatch" in a big upload, you should be nominating it for deletion yourself.

Yes, I do think you should put more effort into description and categorization. I would not want to see you blocked over that, but I would want to see you put more work into addressing it. It can place a large burden on other users to clean up behind you, and content that cannot be found does not provide a lot of value. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Definitely agree about licensing being important to flag, and will nominate for deletion any past uploads that catch my eye as concerning 👍 SecretName101 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The files you upload for the green line need to be fixed Cyberwolf (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberwolf addressed using the VisualFileChange.js tool you pointed me towards.

Still figuring it out. It cannot amend or overtwrite file titles, can it? SecretName101 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im unsure Cyberwolf (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so Cyberwolf (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFC won't do a mass rename, though with some cleverness on regexes, it can be used to request multiple renames. User:Jeff G./massrename is probably more relevant for that purpose, assuming you have the relevant rights to use it. - 05:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Also (just to have it for the record), did you mean to type "would not" rather than "would" in the excerpt "I would want to see you blocked over that, but" SecretName101 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Typo (or brain-o), now fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss of how to install the User:Jeff G./massrename . Anyone able to offer/ point me to step-by-step guidance? SecretName101 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this edit at Commons:Administrators for why when Pi says my larger batch uploads do not have sufficiently descriptive titles to meet their preferences....it is often because of lack of information to create more descriptive/accurate information. For example, many files I upload are of in-scope of NCAA DI and professional sports events that are either my own photos or Fickr photos in which their creator had not made clear which athlete is depicted in any given photo. My titles will describe which match/game/tournament is depicted. Also, many photos of these events depict large groupings of athletes rather than one or two in a single shot. SecretName101 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling us that you do not (or did not) know enough about the content of File:250118-f-nu281-1112 54291818121 o.jpg to give it a more mnenomic name? (Based on the categories you added within minutes of upload, why not something like "South Dakota State Jackrabbits at Air Force Falcons wrestling" plus a sequence number of some sort?) Or am I misunderstanding? - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Cyberwolf (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel I had to manually download the Flickr album to my hard drive as files and then upload those files on uploadwizard, for reasons described in the link I shared. I don't have a tool to amend/change hard-drive file names. And on uploadwizzard, the only option to rename all files as a single action is to overwrite their existing names (no option to amend). If I did that, then I'd lose the ability to identify the Flickr link from which each photo originated (for instance, that photo is [1] as indicated by its final series of numbers). I figured retaining an ability to identify the exact photo on Flickr was important enough a reason not to overwrite those names.

In the future I will probably copy and paste a new description at the start of such file names (tedious to do manually in large uploads, and not functionally necessary since the photos are already grouped in a category which describes the event at which they were taken and which makes them appear in relevant search results –but I guess I can do it even if doing so does not actually improve/change function due to the category having the same effect of placing it in searches that a title would have). It just seems that the time spent on manually copy and pasting for large batches can be spent better on other tasks within commons, especially when there is no functional improvement gained by doing so (for the reasons outlined here) and I'd argue an insistence on that being done does not seem based in concerns of function as much as a possible obsessive-compulsion about the way titles look (since, as I noted, function is already addressed due to the category taking care of search results function, and the files would still initially having identical prefaces in their names until better-identified)SecretName101 (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn’t you just use Flickr2commons? Cyberwolf (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the files are inherently public domain (such as US Air Force photographs by an Air Force photographer), if the Air Force uploaded their album without a public domain or commons license in the settings, Flickr2Commons is rendered a non-option. SecretName101 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t there be an exempt list? Cyberwolf (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberwolf Perhaps, but there is not one currently that I am aware of.

But indeed, perhaps certain accounts (military academy accounts and other federal government accounts that exclusively upload their original photographs; Massachusetts governor's office and AG office accounts that upload their original photographs that are similarly inherently public) should receive an exemption from that.

I've been working with the tools I was given, and their limitations, and up to now that's been one. SecretName101 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't have a tool to amend/change hard-drive file names." What OS is your computer? - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Linux Cyberwolf (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really rather have an answer from SecretName themself before I make possibly irrelevant suggestions. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kidding kidding sorry Cyberwolf (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel primarily Mac (occasionally use a Windows), and just now am learning that there is seemingly a way to prefix multiple existing file names (retaining all or some of existing portions of names, while adding a new prefix) that I had never learned of. Will check to see if this works once I am in front of a computer. If this does indeed work, that is totally awesome and useful for me. SecretName101 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Mac. On Windows, PowerTools (free download) has a very good PowerRename. In *nix systems, it varies from one to another, but I think they all can do this with sed. - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel I tried in on my mac, it works. Yay! This will be greatly helpful for future uploads (if my unblock request is approved) SecretName101 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This and the VisualFileChange.js tool that @Cyberwolf pointed out are helpful means that (I previously was in the dark to) that will allow me (in any future uploads) to more easily address many of the limitations that had been the reason for certain upload behaviors Pi noted concern concerned about.

Anyone able to walk me through how to install User:Jeff G./massrename ? (I think that might be extremely helpful for working to compensate for other limitations/ issues Pi has cited concern about, but won't know until I can install and test-run it).

So definitely, a number of Pi's concerns would be of far lesser frequency and severity if I am able to upload again going forward. Though, some limitations persist or are not perfectly-remedied, so obviously all-encompassing perfection would not be obtainable. SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you just copy it to your user space, as I did at User:Jmabel/massrename.js. I don't think there were any other steps involved. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mark Kelly for US Senate.jpg

File:Mark Kelly for US Senate.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

SelfCloak (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metra 614 (5598453176).jpg

File:Metra 614 (5598453176).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

LostplanetKD73 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:250118-f-nu281-1100 54292055164 o.jpg

File:250118-f-nu281-1100 54292055164 o.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Bedivere (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama 100 7998 (2264628558).jpg

File:Obama 100 7998 (2264628558).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obama 100 8113 (2263941875).jpg

File:Obama 100 8113 (2263941875).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Bedivere (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All i did was for nothing great Cyberwolf (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy you’re on your own now Cyberwolf (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user has asked to be unblocked.

Request reason: "I can see that that was perceived as an attempt to bother Pi.1415926535, which is why soon after Pi expressed feeling bothered by that I promised that I would not comment again on their talk page. I am sorry to have left the impression of meaning to bother them.

I was not intending to harass or intimidate the admin. I had not regularly interacted with this admin in my recollection, so I wanted to understand who they were and how their area of focus on commons might differ from mine in ways that could be putting us on different-pages in terms of understanding each-other. I skimmed their userspace. I saw two discussions I thought I might be able to add a note to that could be helpful and did so. I was not at the time thinking about how it might look from Pi's perspective that I was commenting on their talk page. I apologize for that.

I can see that from Pi's point of view, it seems to have felt peculiar or targetted in a harassing manner. I can understand how it felt from their point of view, and I respect those feelings. Hence why I promised that since they felt that way I would promise not to again add comments on their talk page. That was a promise that I fully meant to honor. And I reaffirm that pledge here and again.

After their upload block on me, I had in earnest worked with others to identify steps to take and tools to use to remediate the upload concerns in the earlier discussion, and had in the meantime set out to start some re-categorization efforts (and I had a mental list of further categories I was going to improve sorting for). I hope that demonstrates and counts for something.

This should be lifted because: Blocks are to be a "last resort for behavior that has the potential to damage" and not be punitive.

A year ban from all editing on commons seems punitive and not preventative in this instance.

Not preventative: I had promised (in honesty) not to bother Pi with any new comments on their talk page, so that was taken care of. There was not an intent to harass them, and I had (and have) promised to respect their feelings going forward by not commenting on their talk page. As for the second cited concern of copyright violations, it does not necessitate an elevation from upload block to complete block.
Not a last resort: would a first-resort for the "harassing concern" not have been to allowed grace (Commons:Assume good faith) and seen whether I followed through on my promise not to comment on his talk page, or did anything else of similar concern?
Excessive: a year span again appears punitive"

Blocked editor

Please note that trolling or otherwise abusing your ability to edit your talk page will result in that ability being revoked.

Administrators

If this request is declined, it should be replaced with: {{unblock declined|1=reason for request|2=decline reason ~~~~}}
If this request is accepted, it should be replaced with: {{unblock granted|1=reason for request|2=grant reason ~~~~}}
Do not unblock users without consulting with the administrator who placed the block, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases. Blocks marked as {{checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a CheckUser.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（香港） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

Comment a year seems very excessive here. Have there been problems? Yes, but there seemed like a pretty serious effort on SecretName's part to work to a solution after the initial partial block. Was some of the subsequent interaction on their part clumsy, or even ill-considered? Yes. Does that merit a block of a week or two? Probably. Does that merit a block of a year? In my opinion, no, not even close when compared with how many other cases have been handled. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I’ve gotten indefed for less Cyberwolf (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes i wish this much questioning happened with my block on en.wiki Cyberwolf (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberwolf: Your block on en-wiki is not a Commons matter, please don't discuss it here, especially in a context that has little or nothing to do with you. You are distracting from getting anyone to address my question about the matter at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: could you please address the unblock request and my remark? - Jmabel ! talk 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Festival of Faiths (33842031844).jpg

File:2017 Festival of Faiths (33842031844).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

MediaNICJR (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]