User talk:Túrelio

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

---

ATTENTION: Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

noframe

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

---

Please keep discussions together:

• If I was starting a thread on your talk page, please answer there. I will watch your talk page.
• If you started a discussion here on my talk page, I will answer here.

All requests for and notifications of re-use of my images on Commons have been moved to Requests & Notifications.

If you can't find a comment or an older discussion here, take a look whether it is in one of my archives:
Archive1 (latest), Archive2 (2007), Archive3 (2008), Archive4 (2009), Archive5 (2010), Archive6 (2011), Archive7 (2012), Archive8 (2013), Archive9 (2014), Archive10 (2015), Archive11 (2016), Archive12 (2017), Archive13 (2018), Archive14 (2019), Archive15 (2020), Archive16 (2021), Archive17 (2022), Archive18 (2023), Archive19 (2024), Archive20 (2025).

Deletion of Category:Images of Split

Hi, you deleted Category:Images of Split. Please, can you undelete it, because I had in mind to adapt it to: Category:Images of Zagreb and Category:Photographs of Zagreb. By the way, I used the German Wikipedia as a model (Stuttgart, Berlin, Hamburg..). Thanks Vhorvat (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi,  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that. So far, I've analyzed a lot and compared three or four German categories and two Croatian ones. I need to take a break to make some things clear to me. Also, to see if a structure of multiple categories can be created, which is what I have noticed in other countries. I had to simplify some things, for example removing municipalities from the categories, because there simply isn't enough material for them, and we don't have districts. Let this category remain until further notice. I'll definitely be here in one day. Vhorvat (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Though with its current tagging as duplicate it will likely become deleted by any of my colleagues. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I had the old window open so I didn't notice this reply. I thought if this would be resolved positively you would remove the duplicate tag. Vhorvat (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I think I solved the problem, please check. Description: From the very beginning, it bothered me that the categories Cities Photographs and Cities Images are very weakly connected, or rather not at all. But I also noticed at the very beginning that the categories States Photographs and States Images in the German part of Commons, which I consider a model for Counties in hr, are connected differently, simply logically and well. For the City of Zagreb, which has the status of City and County, similar to Berlin and Hamburg, I will wait and see how this goes. Vhorvat (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Aufräumen in bei Kulturdenkmalcats

Hallo Túrelio, danke schön, für deine Aufräumaktionen bei den Kulturdenkmalcats. Bei manchen Cats ist das verschieben aber nicht notwendig zum Beispiel bei Cats wie

• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Einfriedung (Erfurt)
• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Schule (Erfurt)
• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Turnhalle (Erfurt)
• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Wohnhaus (Erfurt)

Die einzelnen objekten haben alle eigenen Eintrag in der de.wp in der de:Liste der Kulturdenkmale in der Löbervorstadt. Mittelfristig bekommen die auch alle einen eigenen Wikidata-Eintrag. Die Thüringer Denkmallisten nutzen eine Vorlage mit Upload-Funktion, diese zieht die entsprechende Commonscat (im idealfall die vom Objekt), dies ist jetzt "nur" die vom Gebäude und nicht die spezifische. Gibt es einen Grund warum du diese Cats verschiebst oder war das ein Versehen. Viele Grüße Z ^thomas 07:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Z thomas, ich habe da einfach das von TOMMES-WIKI gesetzte Skript (badname ...) ausgeführt; die Einzelschritte werden dabei automatisch ausgeführt. Wenn es um die redirects geht, die können bei Reaktivierung der momentan gelöschten Kategorie einfach wieder entfernt werden. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, hallo Thomas

zunächst erst einmal ein herzliches Dankeschön für die Mitwirkung an der Wikipedia.

Die Unter-Kategorien zu den einzelnen Denkmalobjekten hab ich ganz bewusst zusammengefasst. Zum einen um die Kategorie-Pfade möglichst "flach" zu halten und zum anderen (das war für mich der primäre Grund der Zusammenführung) die Auflistung analog der "Denkmalliste der Stadt Erfurt (Stand: 04.1.2022)" zu führen. Hier Werden die Denkmalobjekte adressbezogen mit einer zugehörigen Objektbezeichnung (z.B.: "Wohnhaus + Einfriedung") geführt.

Sukzessiv wäre ich auch dafür die Wikipedia-Listen (u.A. de:Liste der Kulturdenkmale in der Löbervorstadt) dahingehend anzupassen.

Beispielhaft hierfür wäre:

Category:Gustav-Freytag-Straße 6 (Erfurt)

Hier hab ich schon mal die Wikimedia-Kategorien zusammengefasst, ein Wikidata-Objekt angelegt und die entsprechende Wikipedia-Liste dahinhigehend überarbeitet und ergänzt.

Was meint ihr dazu? :-)

Liebe Grüße Tommes

Tommes (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You were wrong about the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v10gRb49jBQ Please check it again and click the filter Creative Commons. Thank you. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi James Kevin McMahon, I assume you refer to File:Glenn McQuaid at DIFF 2026.jpg. While I am surely not flawless, the source-video That's A Wrap! Looking back on DIFF 2026 is definitively not under a compatible CC license. Youtube videos under a CC license usually show that license in the fold-out area (click on: More ..) below the video-frame, which is not the case here. Do you have other evidence? --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I got the same barnstar for tagging the file.
What James appears to be getting at is that when you search with the "Creative Commons" filter enabled the video shows up in the results. Which is very strange indeed. My best guess (speculation) is that YT maybe hides the free license because it detected a song? But they forgot to exclude it from the filtered search results. Guess I found a bug in YT. If the YT review bot was still around it would reject this, I'm not sure how license reviewers deal with this.
I hadn't noticed myself, but James pointed out they spent 4 hours to extract and upload two dozen screenshots from the same video. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Du erhältst einen Orden!

	Der Fleißorden
	Einen anerkennenden Orden für das Kümmern um die Berliner-Orthophotos. Herzlichen Dank für den Einsatz :) PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Цензура в русском рэпе.png

Could you please tell me if I formatted the file correctly and if it can be used in the article? I found free images of individual elements online and combined them into a single image using Photoshop to illustrate the article "Censorship in Russian Rap." I've listed all the sources and the 4.0 license, is that correct? Is there anything wrong? Нейроманьяк (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Will take til tomorrow as I've to check the license-conditions of all 5 element. --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

User:於台北王朝大酒店前抗議台塑河靜鋼鐵廠污染越南海洋的活動

Please go back to the original author's edit history; no one should have damaged that page. --楊中龍 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Chemical socks

If I'm not mistaken User talk:Stephx07 is uploading similar if not identical files to User talk:Emilysophia9. Can you have a look? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Similar type of images, but not overlapping. And as all uploads are in pdf-format, detecting the source is nearly impossible. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey Túrelio

Can you remove File:Ali larinaji in quds day (cropped).jpg since it is crop from a copyvio picture File:Ali larinaji in quds day.jpg Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Launched Roman Catholic church in the village Chystopady.JPG

Guten Morgen @Túrelio.

Bitte gucke dir das nochmals an, das war jetzt wirklich kein Duplikat, sondern ein Crop, besser gesagt eine andere Version, da auch die Bildeffekte unterschiedlich sind. Sollte wiederhergestellt werden und dementsprechend abgeändert werden bei File:Костел часів 1 світової війни.jpg, was ich bereits gemacht habe. Besten Dank und liebe Grüsse, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Den EXIF-Datei nach scheint es technisch ein Ausschnitt zu sein; ist aber tatsächlich so stark bearbeitet, dass man es als andere Fassung betrachten muss. Danke für den Hinweis. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hab Dank. Weiterhin frohes Schaffen und schönes Wochenende. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Danke. Bin z.Zt. in Urlaub und nicht ganz so aktiv. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Prüfung eines gelöschten Bildes und eines möglichen Re-Uploads

Hallo, du hattest vor einer Weile File:John Baptist Antony.png gelöscht. Könntest du prüfen, ob es sich dabei um das gleiche Bild handelt wie die beiden Bilder in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antony John Baptist.jpg? Da scheint was im Busch zu sein... Nakonana (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nein, unterschiedliche Aufnahme. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, danke dir :). Wenn es keine allzu großen Umstände macht, könntest du noch prüfen wie es um File:Stanley George.jpg vs File:Stanley George.png steht? Nakonana (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hier war es eindeutig; nun als copyvio markiert. --Túrelio (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

New GODL batch

Hi Túrelio, I've got a new batch of uploads pending review.

Thank you so much in advance. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done.--Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Help with files

Hello Túrelio, hope you doing well. I nominated files I uploaded some time ago for deletion, and now the main reason for deletion has been resolved with the relevant team, so there is no need to delete them now. How do I cancel the deletion-request?

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Roman_theatre_(Sabratha).jpg
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Entrance_to_the_ancient_Sabratha_Theatre.jpg
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:تمثال_في_متحف_صبراته_الأثري.jpg
4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:مسرح_صبراته_الأثري.jpg

Thank you! -- Aws ^{💬 Talk} 12:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:NLC471-032021208010125-3783 新疆生產建設兵團農八師石河子總場人物誌.pdf

A few years back, you added File:NLC471-032021208010125-3783 新疆生產建設兵團農八師石河子總場人物誌.pdf to the list in Category:Undelete in 2062. Your rationale (given in the deletion log for the file) is that this 2012 work would be out of copyright in 2062. I can't think of any reason its U.S. copyright would expire before 2108. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 23:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course, if it has a known author with a known date of death, that might vary... - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, I have performed this deletion on behalf of the uploader, who had requested it[1] on the day of upload. Therefore, I did take the rationale simply for granted. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing U.S. copyright never crossed their mind. I will move accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Al-suqoor_club_logo.jpg

can you upload please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Suqoor_Club&diff=prev&oldid=1361828421 Эльдар Шукоров (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Эльдар Шукоров,

this file has been deleted after being tagged as copyvio-suspected by another user. You should either try to find a freely licensed version of this image or upload it locally on :en under the fair-use clause, as explained in en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Speed deletion request

Hello, @Túrelio: Please, do you can delete my file Игорь Николаев (2023-04-07)? The reasons for deletion are described there. PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done.--Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

you deleted a file that should not be deleted

you deleted photos of carla azar that should not be deleted. the photographer gave permission to use and went through all of the proper steps to be able to use that photo. Artaudthemadman (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

What file are you talking about? File:Carla Azar Jack White Tour in 2018.jpg, which was deleted in 2025? You had requested the deletion by yourself! --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe these that Krd deleted due to "No ticket permission since 20 November 2025":
File:Carla Azar - 2022 portrait press photo.jpg
File:Carla Azar - 2025 press photo portrait.jpg
File:Carla Azar drummer - official press photo 2025.jpg
File:Carla Azar - 2024 portrait press photo.jpg
File:Carla Azar - drummer 2024 portrait.jpg
@Artaudthemadman, please ask the photographer to contact COM:VRT through permissions-commonswikimedia.org, and follow through this time, thank you. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for restoration

Hi @Túrelio,

Time ago this image was deleted: Puthiya Purayil Sneha. I would like to ask if it's possible to restore it. Puthiya was a key contributor in the research the State of the Languages Report, which analyzes the presence of different languages on the Internet, including Wikipedia.

Please let me know if it's possible.

Thank you, Constanza Verón (WK?) (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Constanza,

sure, it could be undeleted, as there is no obvious legal problem. However, the image should then immediately be used on a Wikimedia project or the encyclopedic relevance of the person should be shown. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for a category restoration

I am requesting the restoration of Category:Joseph ou le vertueux ouvrier. I have been categorizing the uploads of User:Southwold1966 and he has recently clarified the wiki software has added some incorrect titles to his uploads. I have been trying to simplify some of those titles. One of them is the title listed above. I would like it restored. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. But you could have re-created it by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't completely sure that I had not asked for its deletion previously, and so I was cautious. Krok6kola (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Agnus60x60.jpg

Am I correct in understanding that anyone, even someone who is not the copyright holder, can revoke the free license CC BY-SA 4.0 for any file? Lesless (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally not. I admit that I overlooked the editwarring between you and the uploader. I will put the file into a regular DR. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There we are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agnus60x60.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for restoration

Hi Túrelio,

Thank you for reviewing the file File:Lt. General Mainur Rahman obtained from the Bangladesh Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR).jpg.

I would like to respectfully request that you reconsider the deletion.

I am a journalist in Bangladesh, and I received this photograph directly from the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) through its official WhatsApp media distribution together with the official press release.

The Daily Campus was not the original source of the image; it only republished the official ISPR press release.

I also realize that I may have selected an inappropriate license template when I uploaded the file. If that caused confusion regarding the copyright status, I sincerely apologize. It was an honest mistake on my part, not an attempt to misrepresent the copyright or licensing of the image.

My intention was simply to identify ISPR as the original source of the photograph. If the licensing information was incorrect or incomplete, I would have been happy to correct it rather than have the file deleted.

If additional evidence or a different licensing approach is required, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. I am willing to provide any further information I have about the provenance of the image.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Masumsau053 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Masumsau053,

I can undelete the file and put it into a regular deletion-request, which allows a discussion, as the case seems to be complicated. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Masumsau053, Dear, ISPR does not publish any files under a Commons-compatible license. You are not the copyright holder either. Kindly ask ISPR to send permission via COM:VRT, and ask them to include the exact license under which they are releasing the file. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Persongivingthefinger.jpg

Hi - I just wanted to clarify why File:Persongivingthefinger.jpg was deleted. The log summary points to this Reddit post, but that just seems to be a link/image embed of the Wikipedia article where this image was being used at the time. Am I missing something? Thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9,

wrt the filesize etc. I am with you. The problem is that the article on Reddit was posted 4 years ago, i.e. in 2022. But the image on Commons was uploaded in 2024. Regrettably, archive.org nd .is don't have archived any version of the reddit-article.--Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio The issue I'm pointing out is that the image is a thumbnail from the Wikipedia article embed, it hasn't been uploaded to Reddit separately. In fact, it looks like the thumbnail from Wikipedia was generated in 2024, after the image was uploaded and added to the article. It's probably that Reddit refreshed the thumbnail at this point for one reason or another. It doesn't actually originate from that post in 2022. Sam Walton (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

San Pedro de Atacama

Please consider undeleating Category:San Pedro de Atacama (town) and undoing the file moves given this previous discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Cat undeleted. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You hav deleted a lot of categories i think are utiles

Sorry, i supose you are one god or something.. I don't know why you have deleted a lot of categories i had created. Maybe there are some can be deleted, but, there are many i think are good for information about files... But maybe you are good and u have got raison... Thanks you for destroy the work of other voluntaries. Sleep good. --Pitxiquin (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't you express your concern without personal attacks? I usually delete only categories that are empty and have been tagged for speedy deletion by others users. In addition, as categories are usually deleted merely as maintenance and not for legal necessity, they can easily be restored or recreated if necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

File:MP original trailer 2.png

Hi Túrelio. Could you please explain the deletion of this file, given that it is covered by exactly the same licence as all the other screenshots in the Category:Mary Poppins (film) as stated at the time of upload : they all come from the original trailer and are therefore not subject to copyright due to the {{PD-US-no notice}} licence. It seems therefore that there has been an error of judgement and that nothing prevents its restoration. Thanks in advance. Voxhominis (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Voxhominis,

I've temp-restored the file and corrected the syntax of the speedy-template, which had been added by another user. So, now you can read his rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply ! I don’t understand this contributor’s reasoning regarding this particular screenshot. If the licence has been accepted for all the others – which were uploaded in 2008 and have never been questioned since ! – then it should not be removed. Otherwise, the deletion must cover all the trailer's screenshots.

The current justification for eligibility is based on the assumption that « trailers older than 28 years are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted ». If that is not true (and some sources seem to suggest that it is, in fact, a myth), we will need to explain why Commons accepted this explanation for so long, and then carry out a major clean-up of the project!

It should be noted however that US courts have often permitted the use of still images under fair use for film analyses or press articles – which is precisely in line with Wikipedia’s encyclopaedic purpose.

Expert Wikipedians – of whom I am not one – should therefore look into this matter without delay in order to bring the project into line with the law. As an administrator on fr working to ensure that principles are upheld for nearly 20 years, I can only support such an initiative. As you’re a Commons administrator, I’ll leave it to you to raise the issue with your colleagues. For my part, I can alert some French-speaking fellows. Voxhominis (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I do interpret your approach/reasoning that we should try to obtain a meaningful discussion about the general issue. Therefore, I would propose to put this image into a regular deletion-request, which would provide as platform for a thorough discussion (even including other files with the same potential problem) without time pressure. --Túrelio (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There we are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MP original trailer 2.png. --Túrelio (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Check some images

Greetings. Could you please check on these images, and do they violate copyright? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D9%87%D9%81%D8%AA_%D8%AA%DB%8C%D8%B1_404.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D9%81%D9%84%DA%A9%D9%87_%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%A9_404.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%DA%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87_%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AE%DB%8C%D8%B2%D8%B4_404.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C_%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1.jpg WolfCapitan (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi WolfCapitan,

I understand that these are important historical documents. However, they all come from sources which are unfree. I see no chance to host them on Commons. As you want to use them on :fa-Wikipedia, you might check whether :fa does have an exception-policy, likely "fair-use" on :en-Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I discovered there are fair-use uploads on there, which there was no need to upload them to commons. WolfCapitan (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Hello! I noticed that File:Full Mode in Kodachi Dashboard.webp was deleted with the reason "Copyright violation: Screenshot of non free content (likely promotional too)." I'm trying to understand the decision. Could you explain what made the screenshot non-free? Was it because the Kodachi dashboard UI isn't under a Commons-compatible free license, or was there another copyright issue? The licences have been changed so can you please review the licences and specify if I could put them now. Thanks for your time.~2026-41280-02 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the image had been speedy-tagged by my admin-colleague Herbythyme for being a "Screenshot of non free content (likely promotional too)". (The latter is less relevant, the former is.) I therefore performed the requested deletion w/o a deeper investigation. As is see from en:Kodachi OS, the software seems to be under a non-commercial free license, which is considered unfree in the Wikimedia world. A general guidance about screenshots is here: Commons:Screenshots. --Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

But I have the permission from the developer and also he have updated the licences. And this is the message from developer. You may now use screenshots of the unmodified Kodachi OS interface and official promotional graphics on Wikipedia under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Please credit them as: “Kodachi OS screenshot, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.”. Thank you for the fast reply ~2026-41343-95 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I will undelete the image and add "Permission pending". You will please send the received permission etc. to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

can you undelete the others that you have recently deleted. Thank you and will send the permission letter soon ~2026-41382-24 (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Snarky messages

Hi buddy. I received a couple of notifications about my user page, with the last one stating "Commons is not Facebook". Look, I'm just trying to get my artist images to Musicbrainz. It's a pretty convoluted process, TBH. I'm new at this. I believe I have it sorted by creating the category, building the Wikidata page and statements and linking everything together. I removed all of the band info from the userpage. It's just confusing to someone that doesn't spend any time in this realm. The snarky comments are just frankly, unnecessary. It isn't a helpful statement in the least. So if it isn't helpful, why say it? Ultimately, I'm just trying to provide metadata information about my art to everyone out there. I think the purpose of Wiki is to provide information to people. So, if there is still something wrong with the one sentence on my user page, please let me know what I can do to follow the rules. Thanks. The Glass Identity Crisis (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is nothing "snarky" with the message you received. I first tagged your userpage with a lengthy explanation why it is not ok and requires speedy deletion. You then shortened it a bit without really solving the problem and removed the speedy-tag. I didn't block you for that, but tried to send you the message in a more concise manner, which still seems not have been hit.
User pages on Wikimedia projects are NOT "profile pages" like they are on Facebook etc. Their only purpose is to provide other fellow contributors with information about the user that is relevant to their contributions to the Wikimedia project(s). Information about unrelated abilities, services, achievements etc. and especially links to other commercial websites are considered promotional and inappropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'll take a different path to get the info out there. I just don't have the bandwidth to wrestle with something that should be simple. Thanks for the reply. Have a good day. The Glass Identity Crisis (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Plaques referencing 2023 in Malaysia

Hi Túrelio. You recently speedied the above category, but it was only empty because an IP (~2026-39566-79 (talk · contribs)) has been going round randomly removing categories from image pages and then nominating the now-empty categories for deletion (examples: [2], [3]). Could you restore the category please? BigDom (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure.  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. As I've been going back through their contribs I've come across a few more:

Category:Plaques installed in 1952 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques referencing 1952 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques installed in 2010 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques installed in 2011 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques installed in 2017 in Malaysia

Not sure what their angle is, I've left a message on their talk page. BigDom (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Restored. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Does this file violate COM:L?

This file File:GIF of Series 4 of Deutsche Mark Banknotes.gif is partially contain File:1000 DM Serie4 Vorderseite.jpg which got deleted in 26 July 2024 per Commons:Deletion requests/German currency after 1953 because "Above files currently do not have a valid license, since they are using Template:PD-GermanGov-currency which was deprecated years ago (see COM:CUR#Germany). They are also younger than 70 years and unlikely to be in Public domain, due to age (using Template:PD-old-70, Template:PD-anon-70-EU or Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG)." Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll check this up with my admin-colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I've put it into a DR. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I know, thanks! Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of British Airways Flight 38 imagery

Hi, following Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Airways Flight 38 crash aftermath (cropped).jpg (nominated by @Dcs002), two of my images I uploaded, File:British Airways Flight 38 crash aftermath (cropped).jpg and File:British Airways Flight 38 crash aftermath.jpg have been deleted. Now I cannot access the original pages anymore, but at the very least the non-cropped image would have had a clear link to a reply in which the Metropolitan Police expressly licensed those images under the OGL: "I can confirm that the MPS permit reuse in accordance with the regulations and we apply the associated OGL terms which are published here:...". Given this clearly goes against the reason stated in the deletion request, and was linked appropriately on the file page, why were both files deleted in under six hours from the creation of the deletion request? At the very least I'd expect the deleting admin to double-check the permission provided on the files before deleting, or am I asking too much of the deletion request system? Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

when I performed the deletion, both files carried a copyvio-speedy-tag. There was no link to the DR, mentioned by you. I seems the nominator omitted to notify you about the speedy-tags.

After reading through the linked permission, it appears to comply with an OGL license. Restored. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, although does this not also suggest that the speedy deletion process is prone to error? At the very least before actioning a speedy delete I'd expect the permission tag to be checked (as we now know it was included in the description on both the cropped and un-cropped file). Especially when file deletions have wider impact on the rest of Wikipedia, when they are unlinked after deletion, which as far as I know is not automatically reversed when the file is undeleted. FozzieHey (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No - that does not confirm that permission is given. It says it's given by regulation, and the regulation says we have to go to the Met to get their permission. It gives a link to the Natl Archives. In the National Archives website, you will find a list of Crown agencies with delegated authority. In other words, these agencies have been delegated authority to control their own copyrighted material outside of the OGL. We need special permission from the Met Police to use this image. Only a few Crown bodies have this delegated authority, and the Met is one. Our use violates the Metropolitan Police's copyright. (Note that still images are explicitly included in this.) I'm sorry. I wanted this image in the article too! I originally uploaded it a few years ago and had to take it down for this reason. Dcs002 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Seriously, did you even click on the permission link? I am really starting to get a bit concerned about the review process before speedy deletion now... FozzieHey (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did look at that message, and at the link in that message, and much farther than that. I also have an email from the Copyright Team at The National Archives of the United Kingdom, which reads in part:

"As our pages on the UK Government Licencing Framework highlight, the OGL is the default licence for all Crown bodies and is the recommended licence for public sector bodies. However, the Keeper of the National Archives grants some bodies permission to licence their Crown material outside of the OGL. The Metropolitan Police is one of these bodies. Therefore, you should contact the Metropolitan Police directly to discuss using their material."

You have to look beyond the large print pages to find this stuff, like the list of Crown bodies with delegated authority and what that delegated authority covers. I am not "that guy" who goes around looking for things to delete. I want this image in our article, which is why I uploaded it early in 2023. But this is legitimately a violation of the Met Police copyright. Their law covering this is not easy to understand nor is it easy to find, but the link I've provided (the same link provided by the Archives Copyright Team in the excerpt above) shows clearly that still images from the Metropolitan Police are covered under Delegation of Authority, not OGL, and the excerpt above should explain clearly what that means - that permission has to come from the Met, not OGL. I don't take this lightly. I wish we could use that photo, but it's a clear copyright violation, and it was wrong to restore it. I'm sorry. Dcs002 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think I can see what you are getting at so I will attempt to stop being snarky, because at least the issue is not the opening (or non-opening as the case may be) of the permission link in the first place. I think you have slightly confused Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence here. To start with, I completely agree with you that works published by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) are not immediately available under the Open Government Licence because those powers are delegated, as you say. In fact this is the very reason I sent a request under The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 (RPSI) to the MPS in the first place.

Under Regulation 7 of the RPSI, the public sector body in which the request was sent to, **must** permit re-use:

[...]a public sector body must permit re-use where it receives a request made in accordance with regulation 6[...]

.

And through Regulation 12, they **may** apply conditions on that re-use, such as through a licence:

12.—(1) A public sector body may impose conditions on re-use, where appropriate through a licence.
(2) Where conditions are imposed they must not unnecessarily restrict—
(a) the way in which a document can be re-used;[...]

That is why in the MPS' response, they stated:

I can confirm that the MPS permit reuse in accordance with the regulations and we apply the associated OGL terms[...]

The regulations they are referring to is not Crown copyright, nor the OGL terms themselves (because neither are regulations), they are referring to the RPSI in which the request was made under. They are permitting re-use because the RPSI states that they **must do**. The actual important part for our purposes is "we apply the associated OGL terms". Indeed, they are exercising the exact delegated authority that they have to do this. But for simplicity purposes, the presumed licence under Crown copyright is irrelevant at this point, because they have explicitly licensed that photograph under the Open Government Licence.

I really recommend reading the complete version of the RPSI here, because it is fairly compact, and is a really strong piece of legislation which allows us to get documents licensed under the OGL from public sector bodies in the United Kingdom (the EU has equivalent legislation, it was brought in when the United Kingdom was still in the EU), and not many people know about it.

Let me know if that clears it up for you. If not I propose we move to com:VP/C as this is, in my opinion, getting a bit too complex for a user talk page. FozzieHey (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The message from the FOI person at MPS reads as if he's passing on information from another authority, and not the authority himself. "I can confirm to you that my mate says it's okay to use our stuff as long as you follow OGL terms." Has this sort of documentation been accepted as adequate? I'm not going to oppose this image anymore, but this seems rather indirect and informal. (Yeah, that's purely subjective.) "The MPS permit reuse..." reads like a general statement, and not specific to this image. As a general statement, that would be incorrect, which is why I didn't originally give that message any credence. I didn't read that as "The MPS hereby permit reuse of this specific image..."

I remember running into a final roadblock in 2023 where an email permission was not considered adequate here. As this RPSI route is indeed new to me, I'm content to drop my opposition. I do hope this is legit, and if so, thank you for doing the work, and I do mean that. That image really adds a great perspective to what happened. If I've made extra work for you, consider it teaching work, because I've learned something new. :-) Dcs002 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

1 page pdf duplicates

Hi, examining diff is confusing. This is a pdf format file that contains a single image. The duplicate linked is a jpg file that is significantly higher resolution than the pdf containing the same single image. Something like 2,000 similar duplicates have been deleted in the past day. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hang on, I see it now. Weirdly despite the DPLA giving these exactly the same name, they are different pages. That's a headache. Damn, that's *really* bad and misleading. I hope this is a serious exception not a pattern. --Fæ (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, File:Erlandson Story on Tortures - DPLA - 36d70a48f05b4b3d369ac2e0166b54ca (page 3).pdf, File:Evaluation Report on Public Safety Program - DPLA - d0717ba03c70d60a26edc82e26287470 (page 7).pdf and File:GENERAL COMMENTS ON NSSM-67 - DPLA - d0e0c9505d1b35bf1e83b66982207809 (page 2).pdf have again been tagged by bot as duplicates when they are not (wrt content, not file-format). --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The task has a couple of tweaks now. Mismatches will automatically add to Category:DPLA duplicate names but not the same image (yet to happen automatically), this relies on a perceptual hash set at a low level. It also checks filehistory to see if the duplicate tag has been added in the past and gives up if it has so we shouldn't see repeated repasting of the template if someone does not agree.

I think this is a non-issue, maybe there's only a handful, but we really have no way of testing that assumption without going through millions of files... Fæ (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikimania 2026 — Day -1

I do not believe this category was incorrectly named. I am fairly certain it was intended to be the day before Wikimania day 0 (i.e. day 0 minus 1). I did move a few files out of it that needed to be in day 1, but there was a few files I was fairly certain based on the metadata had indeed been created the day before day 0. Izno (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It had been tagged by User:Bodhisattwa and surely was empty when I performed the deletion. Feel free to recreate it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Village pump

Could you please look in on COM:Village pump#Bad action by "Túrelio"? It does look like you made a mistake you should probably fix. I had pinged you (since the initial reporter didn't) but you have not weighed in. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Danke

Auf diesem Wege einmal herzlichen Dank für die schnelle Bearbeitung meiner SD-Anträge. Ich nutze seit Jahren des LRMediaWiki-Plugin um Fotos aus LR auf Commons hochzuladen. Leider hatte ich bei meinem letzten Upload zu viele Bilder ungewollt markiert, die dann alle hochgeladen wurden. Super, dass du das so schnell bereinigt hast. Tuxyso (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Gern geschehn. --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

New batch pending review

Hi, I have a new batch pending review. Please do the needful per your convenience.

This would be all for now. I've some more left which I may list here later. Thank you so much in advance for the help. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you've unintentionally skipped one. Thanks again. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Bitte um Hilfe

Hallo Túrelio,
mir hat wohl Wikipedia in den letzten Tagen zu viel Spaß gemacht und
bin offensichtlich in einige bösen Fallen getappt, aus denen ich mich selbst nicht befreien kann.
Darf ich Dich bitten, auf meiner Diskussionsseite:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orchi.
 die Positionen 38 bis 43 zu checken, wie ich da wieder raus kommen kann.
 

Vielen Dank und beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Orchi,

bei den Hinweisen auf deiner Disku, bei denen der Vorgang (meist Löschung gewünscht) abgeschlossen war, haben ich "Ist erledigt" hinzugefügt. Jeff stört sich wohl vor allem daran, dass du öfter mal einfach den Baustein {{delete}} auf Dateiseiten gesetzt hast. Es ist so, dass dieser Baustein, wenn ohne weitere Parameter benutzt, einen unvollständigen Löschantrag öffnet, der aber nicht regulär bearbeitet werden kann. Wenn du eine Datei gelöscht haben willst, musst du überlegen, ob hier eine "speedy deletion" gerechtfertigt ist, oder eine reguläre ("langsame") Löschung beantragt werden muss. Beispiele für ersteres sind URVs, eigener Upload binnen 7 Tagen und Duplikate, wobei hier aber der vorgesehene Baustein verwendet werden soll, also {{duplicate|1=xxx}}, wobei xxx der Name der Datei ist, die behalten werden soll und von der erstere ein Duplikat ist. Wenn der Löschgrund/anlaß dagegen nicht unter die speedy-Regeln fällt, muss die reguläre Löschung beantragt werden, wozu du aber nicht einfach {{delete}} eingeben darfst, sondern vielmehr in der Werkzeug-Box links auf der Dateiseite den Auswahlbaustein "Löschung vorschlagen" (falls deine Oberfläche auf deutsch eingestellt ist) anklickst. Der Rest ist dann selbsterklärend. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Guten Tag Túrelio,

Besten Dank für Deine Hilfe!!!

Ich gebe gerne zu, dass mir die Angelegenheit sehr nahe gegangen ist.

Ohne Dich als Rettungsanker wäre ich vielleicht hier nicht mehr aktiv.

Heute Morgen wollte ich von meinem IPad Dir zügig antworten, musste aber feststellen,

dass meine IP offensichtlich global seit Ende 2025 gesperrt ist.

Aber dazu eine andere Info mit genaueren Daten.

Ansonsten nochmals vielen Dank, dass ich wieder besser schlafen kann.

Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Du kannst mich notfalls auch per Wikimail erreichen. --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Mayors of places in Ohio

Noticed your entry in the deletion log "One of a great many superfluous categories created by this user. It's redundant to Category:Mayors of Ohio, which has existed since 2008 and is well developed." regarding this category. Just wanted to comment as the user in question, this is the structure of the category on Wikipedia. It's not necessarily superfluous, but I would think a category redirect candidate. It's common for people to copypasta categories from Wikipedia into Commons and leave them dormant; as I see it, redirect categories hold value to circumvent those behaviors. A similar discussion here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2026/05/Category:Mayors of places in Minnesota.

On the topic of me being a repeat offender, I'm open to feedback, I've gotten very few messages on my talk page in my time here. I do not want to seem like a reoccurring offender to admins - I have close to a 1,000 articles written on the english wiki and contribute photos frequently and help resolve uncategorized photos in the Commons, and do my best to follow policy and resolve mistakes I make along the way. Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Engineerchange, while you did not mention the specific deleted category, be assured that 1) the log-text is not by me, but by the nominator, 2) at least I do not consider you an "offender", and 3) deleting categories is just maintenance, whereby deleted categories can easily be either undeleted or recreated (as opposed to copyvios) if needed. --Túrelio (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

"Mayors of places in Ohio" is the category in question. Understood, sorry, just read the comment as somewhat curt. Appreciate the note. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. The cat was nominated by User:RadioKAOS. I would recommend you to discuss the category-issue with them. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

Hello! I saw you deleted a couple of files I SD-nominated.

Now one kind guy helped me renaming 143 files, but because of my non-awareness (I didn't note in time) left (created) unappropriate redirects while doing it.

Can you please delete it without me marking it (what will take hours for me in addition to fighting the abuse filter and guessing captchas) one by one (batch?) with same reason of COM:CSD#G10? Here's a list (sure meant ones marked with prefix "redirect from:" and not media files itself) ~2026-46011-86 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio, up? ~2026-46227-12 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure whether I get that done today. Anyway, I've asked the colleague who created them, whether it's ok for him. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no hurry, it just feels like something started but still unfinished. Thank you! ~2026-46227-12 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio, hello again!

Have to note I'm not rushing you, just curious.

I see you deleted some number of it 2 days ago, but 63 only was effectively deleted. I mean - did something unusual happened you didn't notice or you just had no time to continue that way? If that will speed up (or spread) the process - I still can try to add the corresponding SD header. Have I? ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and efforts! I appreciate it. For now I SD-marked it all now and looks like @Aude actively deleting it now. ~2026-46750-33 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

When I checked again today, it seems all redirs have been deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated for your concerns :)

Can you please clarify is that some automated thing? If yes that can greatly help removing dups from whole the category with no doubt as there looks like only content equal duplicates listed, so main problem there exclusively details difference/lack that needed to be fixed. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be a new addition to the dupe-speedy-script. Never seen/noticed. Might be helpful anyway, as the main duplicate-tagging bot AFAIK does no take care about that problem. Will look into it later. --Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Please undelete Category:Famille Princière; there are files in Category:Héraldique de la Famille Princière that should be moved there. Thank you in advance. --R'n'B (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@R'n'B,  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the files that were miscategorised, sorry for having left the redirect in 2025. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi. Is it possible to delete this png file? File:Titulli "Hero i Popullit".png. I have reuploaded a jpg version of it. Kj1595 (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding a photo deleted due to copyvio

Hi. You recently deleted File:Jan_Ingar_Thon.jpg due to copyvio. I marked it as such, and also marked the exact same photo (different cropping) File:Jan_Ingar_Thon2.jpg as copyvio, but it was reverted by @Wdwd.

Therefore I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Ingar Thon 2.jpg, which I think should be escalated to a speedy delete since it’s the same photo as the one you deleted.

Regards, 1000mm (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Infiltration of Spanish police in social movements in the Catalan Countries in the 2020s

Hello @Túrelio, would you mind explaining the reason for the removal of Category:Infiltration of Spanish police in social movements in the Catalan Countries in the 2020s? Thanks in advance. AlbertRA (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi AlbertRA, the reason was that it had been speedy-tagged for "Empty category, no longer needed", which is a speedy-rationale. So, it was simply maintenance.--Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Túrelio, if it was empty it is because someone had taken charge of "emptying" it without justification, which you can check in the history. Therefore, I request its recovery. The same editor has had the item vandalized on Wikidata and had to stop there. AlbertRA (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Turélio. There is currently an ongoing harassment campaign against individuals, fueled by several Wikipedia projects. This category was part of it, with the distribution of images and personal information, which may violate Spanish data protection law. There is a debate about this on the Spanish Wikipedia. Given that this is a sensitive case, involving a judicial investigation, I believe we must be extremely careful in the face of the organized harassment campaign that some users are promoting. I also mention this because the matter is not only in the courts, but this new harassment campaign that is developing in Wikipedia projects is also going to end up being reported to the police. The user before me will have to answer for their actions, but I think we shouldn't keep making the snowball bigger. CFA1877 (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok. It's always unpleasant when conflicts from other projects spill over to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio, Now that it is known what happened, do you think it is possible to restore the category? AlbertRA (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure. However, as it is currently empty (no content tagged into it), it will be tagged again for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio, can you restore the version of the category from before it was emptied? Thanks in advance. AlbertRA (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. But it is still empty. --Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Odd duplicate

This has popped up for a second time, and Faebot marked the duplicate even though you rejected it last time. I think the issue is that the target image is still there as a duplicate but the image filepage was deleted? So the floating image should still be deleted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Tally_lists_of_shares_of_stock_-_DPLA_-_62571e51bfbdc5883ebd22a4a831ad2d_(page_50).jpg Fæ (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Problem is that what you likely call "floating image" seems to be something "virtual". On its page it can only be created, but not deleted. So, I have no solution for this.
By the way, Faebot puts the duplicate-template always in the lower half of the file-page, which results in additional workload for scrolling down on every to-be-deleted dupe-file. Could you adjust the Faebot to put the template in the upper half half, i.e. above the description-template. --Túrelio (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I'll change the dup tagging before running again. Should we have an AN discussion about deleting that example? It looks like an interesting bug, so maybe has come up on Phabricator before. Fæ (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops, see it's now gone. Fæ (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hello, reaching out here in case you missed the pings at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:Gaia_Octavia_Agrippa_-_persistent_and_prolific_copyvio_uploader_for_14_years. It appears that Militum professio scrinarii abused the speedy deletion process; would you be willing to undelete the files you deleted that they nominated for speedy deletion on 31 August so that they can be nominated with regular deletion requests? Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Erm, ALL the images blatantly copied directly from the Royal Air Force, British Army, and Royal Navy websites are absolutely copyright violations. The ONLY images from the British Armed Forces which can be copied to Wikimedia Commons are (a) when they have been copied to https://defenceimagery.mod.uk, and (b) manually checked by MOD staff as eligible for release under the Open Government Licence, and then placed in a 'Downloadable Imagery' section, found at the bottom of their home page.[4]

The Open Government Licence is not a 'free-for-all' for ALL Crown Copyright works. The OGL must be specifically approved by the relevant UK government department BEFORE uploading to Commons. Gaia Octavia Agrippa has uploaded hundreds of UNLICENCED Crown Copyright images directly from https://www.raf.mod.uk (© 2026 Royal Air Force. UK Crown Copyright), https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk (© Crown copyright), and https://www.army.mod.uk (MOD Crown Copyright), (along with the now defunct Ministry of Defence Main website at https://www.mod.uk). The source for EVERY image clearly shows they are Crown Copyright - NONE are licensed under the OGL, or any other licence (free or non-free). Kind regards, Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I will further add the 'global' copyright notice - found in both the header and the footer of the home page of https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk - copied verbatim below:

“	Defence Imagery Crown copyright - MOD Unless otherwise indicated*, the images presented on this website have been produced by military staff, or civil servants who work for the Ministry of Defence (MOD), and thus are subject to Crown copyright. The MOD has a delegation to deal with Crown copyright material produced by its staff on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO). This is managed by the MOD's Defence Intellectual Property Rights team (DIPR). In order to use images on this website you will need a licence. A licence is a set of permissions that sets out what you can and cannot use images for. Selected, pre-cleared Crown copyright images have been made available for use under the Open Government Licence (OGL). You are encouraged to use these images freely and flexibly, with only a few conditions. These images can be downloaded at high resolution from the "Downloadable" section of this website. The images on this website that are available under the OGL are denoted with this logo next to them: Image available under the Open Government License icon This file is available for reuse under the OGL (Open Government Licence). Any reproduction of these images must be acknowledged in the following way: "Crown copyright" followed by the year in which the image was taken. For example, for an image taken today, the correct acknowledgement is: "Crown copyright 2023". There are other images on this website where the OGL does not apply. These images are denoted with this logo next to them: The reuse of this file is limited. This may be because it contains personal data, may not be Crown copyright or is otherwise deemed inappropriate for use under the OGL. Some imagery is available for the purposes of News and Editorial use only, and are thus subject to use under the MOD Crown Copyright News / Editorial Licence terms. In general, Crown copyright material which has not been made available under the OGL or the MOD Crown Copyright News / Editorial Licence, cannot be re-used or reproduced for any other purpose, unless permission has been granted to you in writing by DIPR. This permission, which is not necessarily guaranteed, will take the form of a written copyright licence from DIPR, and may involve a charge. Images specifically acknowledging the copyright of a third party are not covered by MOD's delegation from HMSO. If you wish to use an image that states the copyright owner is not the Crown (ie it does not say "Crown copyright"), you will need to seek permission from the copyright owner directly, as MOD cannot give you a licence to use someone else's work. MOD customers If you are part of the MOD, and require imagery available under the MOD Crown Copyright News / Editorial Licence. Please send an email request to: admin@photos.mod.uk. Please include the full "filename", and explain your request and the exact use. This will allow a decision to be made on whether or not to grant permission. For more information on Crown copyright in general, please visit The National Archives website, or contact the Information Policy Team at The National Archives by email: information@nationalarchives.gov.uk	”

I hope this makes it perfectly clear why I nominated those images for speedy deletion under copyvio. Kind regards, Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the source URLs I saw before the files were deleted indicated an open licence, @Túrelio, means that this editor's claims of copyright violation are not unambiguous, and that is why the speedy deletions should be reversed. The editor can bring deletion requests for the files they object to. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Another contested deletion

You deleted page "File:Fortificaties van de Atlantikwall gebouwd door Organisation Todt, Bestanddeelnr 28034 014.tif." This was the correct file with the correct title. The other file, that should be the duplicate, "File:Beëdiging van de Nederladse Ambulance voor hun vertrek naar het front op het Binnenhof te Den Haag, Bestanddeelnr 29011 032.tif" is the wrong image for the title. If you follow the link to to the source, you will see another image should correspond with the title. Please undelete the first file, replace the second file with the correct image (when possible) and please be a bit more cautious in the future. Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The deleted file had been tagged for duplicate-speedy by OptimusPrimeBot. There had been no request for duplicate-deletion in the other direction. Anyway, I've undeleted the 1st and corrected the 2nd file.--Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably because that was the older file. Anyway, thanks for the improvements. Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Курсы доллара и евро в Москве в Сбербанке (04.03.2022).jpg

Please restore this file with the name in Russian (!), and delete the duplicate file - File:Sberbank branch US dollar euro exchange rates Moscow (04.03.2022).jpg, which was not created by me, created as a result of errors by User:Wabbuh, as a duplicate. This is my original file, made by me in 2022, made with only description and name in Russian. Please do it promtly. Thanks. Brateevsky {talk} 11:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to get this straight. The file had been tagged by OptimusPrimeBot as a duplicate, upon which I had acted. It seems to me that you triggered this process yourself when you uploaded a new version of your file on September 2nd—a version that is apparently identical to the file File:Sberbank branch US dollar euro exchange rates Moscow (04.03.2022).jpg uploaded already in 2025. Anyway, I've now reverted the dupe-process. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The bot's only criteria to chose which duplicate file to keep and to delete is the upload date. The oldest file is kept, the newest file is flagged for deletion. There is no check related to the filename or wikicode contents. vip (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I simply forgot to mark the duplicate file for deletion. But honestly, I don't understand why User:Wabbuh could not simply upload a new version of the file instead of creating a new one with an English filename (i.e., that differed from the original). After all, I am still active on Commons. Maybe my English might not be as good as it was ~ten years ago, but I would have understood a request to change the photo's color.

To be honest, I was very annoyed by the situation and planned to find my original JPEG file so I could delete both files and re-upload it. Brateevsky {talk} 12:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Deleted file File:11 Stenà tu Nestu, gorges del Nestos (Galani), sender Kromnikó-Galani, plafó informatiu.jpg

I've seen with surprise that this picture has been deleted without any discussion. I left a question on the user page of the proposer (Εὐθυμένης) and he never answered me. This was an image of an information board situated on a public place, to help visitors to make excursions in that zone. And now the file doesn't exist. Is correct this procedure? Deletion without any discussion? Enric (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the reason why this image has been deleted is that the content of the depicted board is above threshold of originality and thereby to be considered copyrighted. Unfortunately, Greece has no freedom-of-panorama exception (from copyright) for works in public space. In such cases, speedy deletion is justified. We can let it go through a regular DR (slower), but the result will surely be the same.--Túrelio (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't seen the answer until now. Well, I'm totally lost with these legal precepts. In this case, I don't know how a public information board intended to facilitate the visit of a certain territory can be affected by that. But I'm not an expert about it. Enric (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, the information board can fullfil its purpose, without its content being under a free license. People can view it and at least media (newspapers etc.) can reproduce it in their articles/reports. It's finally our relatively high "standard", that everything uploaded to Commons had to be freely usable, even for commercial purposes, that prevents us to make such images available. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I didn't know it. Enric (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work

Hi @Túrelio, I just want to thank you for your work. Deleting files is not an easy task, and an ungrateful one. I don't think enough people see the hard work you and other admins do to keep Commons a clean place. Thanks a lot for that. vip (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Model of a three dimensional structure for PrPSc.jpg

From this paper here I think https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3330701/

License says "This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/), which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited."

Wondering if you can restore. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I've undeleted the file, but put it into a regular DR to evaluate its copyright-status, which seems unclear to me: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model of a three dimensional structure for PrPSc.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Bentham is a little bit of a dodgy institution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Suppression par erreur du fichier File:Leny Escudero SLC 1964.jpg

Bonjour. J'ai reçu ce matin 9 septembre 2026 un message de Wikimedia Commons me signalant que l'utilisateur TTSolitaire avait demandé la suppression d'un fichier de Leny Escudero dont je suis l'auteur. Le problème est qu'il a fait sa demande de suppression pour le fichier File:Leny Escudero SLC 1964.jpg que j'ai téléversé le 6 juillet 2014 à 16h39 alors qu'il aurait dû faire sa demande pour le fichier File:Leny Escudero SLC.jpg que j'ai téléversé le 5 juillet 2014 à 18h15. Vous avez ainsi supprimé le 9 septembre 2026 à 9h40 le fichier File:Leny Escudero SLC 1964.jpg alors que c'est lui qu'il fallait conserver. Ce fichier téléversé le 6 juillet 2014 à 16h39 a en effet un léger entourage qui met en valeur le portrait de Leny Escudero que j'ai dessiné à l'encre de chine sur un fond blanc, pour respecter le cahier des charges établi à l'époque par le magazine Salut Les Copains. Merci de bien vouloir rectifier cette erreur. Bien cordialement. Michel Bourdais (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the deletion-request seemed rational to me, as we usually remove all kind of frames from images. (per Google: La demande de suppression m'a semblé justifiée, car nous retirons généralement toutes sortes de cadres des images.) Anyway, I've restored the framed version now. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding File:Nepal flood 2026 before after.gif

Did you delete this image and create the redirect? If so, can you please close the active deletion request too? (cc: Carrylex) Qzekrom (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Qzekrom (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Duplicates - check before deleting

Good day. Please remember to check "duplicates" before deleting - sometimes they have things like more/better categorization, and links to archival TIFs, which are not on a newer higher resolution version, so that information should be copied to the version to be kept first. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I try to do that, but sometimes something might slip through. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Reza Esfahani2.jpg

Image had a valid license and a proper source. Hanooz 12:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The first has been disputed by the nominator: "Marking as possible copyvio because this file is not included PD-Iran parameters (published August 1980)". --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

But was their point valid? "In the following cases works fall into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16): Photographic or cinematographic works." Hanooz 13:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

At least it seemed to me. I temporarily restored the file now and re-checked the original license-template. It requires the author to have died before August 22, 1980. As the image is said to have been published on 9 March 1980, it is at least unlikely that the author died within 6 months after that. --Túrelio (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a photo which was published more than 30 years ago in Iran therefore it's in the public domain per Iran's law. Hanooz 20:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I've now removed the speedy-tag. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

a heads-up

May I draw your attention to Commons:Village_pump/Technical#When_should_redirects_be_deleted... [5]? I didn't specifically name you there. But you are the admin who routinely deletes redirects because they contain "army.mil". Geo Swan (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

If my math is right you deleted the following 56 images, for having "army.mil" in their file names, over the last couple of daysː 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, at this time I'm too tired to jump into a meaningful discussion. Just for you to know, I usually don't delete redirects on my behalf; all these redirs had been tagged for deletion, which seemed reasonable for me as they weren't in use anywhere. --Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I've now commented at VP/T and restored the "index" redirect. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That anonymous IP contributor, who tagged these 56 redirects, has also weighed in at VP/T. I think the consensus there is that redirects with filenames that include the phrase army.mil are not spam URLs and do not violate ADVERT. Unfortunately, the anonymous IP points to your agreement to delete these 56 redirects as an endorsement of his interpretation of policy.

I know there is an incredible backlog. I know this must all seem like it was all a long time ago. I think you were busy, chugging along with a rythym, and completed the deletion requests without deep thought. If you now agree that the mere presence of army.mil is insufficient to justify speedy deletion, it would really help close this matter more quickly if you restored the other 55 redirects.

Thanks for thinking about it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I've started to undelete them. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Bridges over Wupper

diff

Die Seite Bridges over Wupper wurde gestern gelöscht. Normalerweise weine ich keine einzige Gallery-Seite nach ... aber bei dieser doch. Kannst du mir die bitte wiederherstellen und auf meine Benutzer-Unterseite verschieben? Danke.

Um die Seite dann "ordentlich zu haben" müssen Bilder im jeden Abschnitt sein?

Atamari (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Die Begründung für den LA war "no images", also dass es überhaupt keine Bilder in der Gallerie gab. Ich hatte den LA gesehen, aber nicht ausgeführt, weil mir da halt viel Arbeit drinzustecken schien. Siehe User talk:Atamari/Bridges over Wupper. --Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

Hi, just wanted to inform you that I've undeleted File:Tardivet du repaire portrait.jpg. This redirect was created by a file rename, the image was uploaded in March 2023 and moved to new name in Sept 2026. As per FR guidelines, we should be keeping redirects, not deleting them. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of File:PLANO LOCALIZACION DE PARADAS 2026.jpg & File:PLANO GENERAL DE LINEAS 2026.jpg

Guten Morgen / Good Evening / Buenos días:

(en) It has come to my attention that you have deleted to pictures that I have uploaded yesterday. I would like to know what Copyriht law violates when it's a public domain file created by the Council of Bilbao.

Danke Schön for your attention.

(es) He sido informado de que usted ha eliminado un par de archivos que subí ayer, siendo los siguientes: File:PLANO LOCALIZACION DE PARADAS 2026.jpg File:PLANO GENERAL DE LINEAS 2026.jpg, debido a una infracción a la ley de Derechos de Autor, cuando son de dominio público y fueron creados por el Ayuntamiento de Bilbao.

En caso de que se haya cometido la infracción, me gustaría disculparme y conocer su motivo.

Muchas gracias Héctor Suso (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

both files had been speedy-tagged by another user for "© E.G.M. - Bilbao". When I tried to access the source-URL, I got only "Error 403 Prohibido." The same result for https://www.bilbao.eus/. Also, on both pages there was no evidence for the claimed free license. As you have uploaded the files only yesterday, it is a bit strange that the source already today is no longer accessible. --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Need help

Since I saw you just answering an answer about license, could you help me with my uploading problem please? I just want to know how to upload properly. I'd appreciate it. – Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I've replied on Help Desk. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

File:Crossing the Red Line.png

This is a picture of a book cover. I was unable to update the license. Please restore it. SideEffect (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it was deleted as it's considered a derivative of the cover-page and thereby needs a permission by the person who created the cover-page. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-xx related categories need to be restored

Hi! Greetings. Hope you are sound. i saw you deleted this category as unused i am humbly requesting you to restore this category :( this is a tracking category used by our User:PID-Bangladesh-UploadBot and for some issues the bot was turned of now it is running again list of the Categories:

• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-19
• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-20
• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-21
• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-22
• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-23
• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-24
• Category:Bangladesh photographs taken on 2026-09-25

-Thanks R1F4T (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done, except the latter two, as they weren't deleted by me. --Túrelio (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

sorry for the last two I didn't realized they were actually never created. And thanks for restoring the other categories R1F4T (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding a duplicate category

Please, Túrelio, could you check my work on this category? It is a duplicate with a less correct title than this other one, which already existed. Thanks. --Frognall (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Frognall,

I am not sure to understand what exactly you need from me. If the first cat had been used previously used and/or it is likely that people might look for that name, it is appropriate to have the redirect to the more correct cat-title. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

That's okay, then. Since the Move function wasn't working and I added the {{Category redirect}} manually, I was worried I hadn't done it correctly. Thanks for the reply, Túrelio. --Frognall (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Interim USAO Nevada Sigal Chattah.jpg

Hi Túrelio. en:File:Sigal Chattah - First Assistant US Attorney.jpg, uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, looks to be just a different crop of File:Interim USAO Nevada Sigal Chattah.jpg, which you deleted in October 2025. The non-free file is sourced to what seems to be an official US Department of Justice website, but even USGov websites sometimes use third-party content. Was the file you deleted sourced to the same USGov website or some other website? Does this change things for Commons now that the file can be found on an official USGov website? I'm asking because the non-free file clearly fails English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and needs either be relicensed as PD or deleted. Those are the only two options for the local file; so, if it can't be hosted by Commons, it will need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,

the file on Commons was sourced to https://www.justice.gov/usao-nv/meet-us-attorney. However, the user, who tagged it as copyvio, stated "Not by US Government, from 2022 campaign for Nevada Attorney General, see https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2022/oct/18/election-2022nevada-state-attorney-general". The image is still on the mentioned website, which is marked as unfree. As this specific website is from 2022 and thereby predates the hit on the www.justice.gov website, it has likely to be considered as "third-party content", IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi again Túrelio. Would you mind could clarifying at COM:VPC#File:Sigal Chattah - First Assistant US Attorney.jpg why you deleted the photo the first time it was uploaded to Commons under a different file name? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Files of works of Denis Stritovich

Hello. I am currently sorting (example) through photographs of sculptures by Denis Stritovich. The sculptor had granted permission for them back in 2011, but the permission wasn't marked on the files, and many of them were deleted. Could you restore these files? I will check them and add the permission where necessary. They can be marked as "no permission" for the time being.

• File:Валерий Шумаков.jpg
• File:Шумакок.в..jpg
• File:Памятник Шумакову Валерию.jpg
• File:Монумент установле.jpg
• File:Шумаков.jpg (first version or both)
• File:Шумаков В.И..jpg
• File:Памятник выдающемуся хирургу.jpg
• File:Надгробие чугун.jpg
• File:Золотуха 1.jpg
• File:Надгробие.jpg (other version)
• File:Porteti-v-stekle Stritovich.jpg

Insider (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done mostly. --Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it also possible to view a user's deleted contributions (David Paitschadse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)), restore the remaining items deleted in 2010, and get a list of deleted uploads from other years? Insider (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into it tomorrow. --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of cities in Moldova

Compare https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Symbols_of_cities_of_Moldova&action=history and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Symbols_of_cities_in_Moldova&action=history – the former has a longer history and the latter was created basically by mistake. That's why it makes total sense to rename "of" into "in" and deleting the "in" in the process. Please either allow me to do the rename by deleting "in", or perform the move yourself. Thanks! Gikü (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Got it.  Done. However, now you need to "re-categorize" the entries remaining in the old Category:Symbols of cities of Moldova. --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a bunch! Gikü (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Locked account userpage

Hi @Túrelio, just a quick note. Please use {{Indefblocked-global}} or simply {{Locked}} on userpages of locked accounts rather than adding the category. The template autosets the category. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Works on user pages, not talk pages. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

WRT the practice of (1) emptying a category, by moving all its elements to a category you think is better, then; (2) nominating the category for speedy deletion.

A lot of people do this. Even though some people who do it are not newbies, this practice has always seemed to me to be a newbie mistake. I view it as a newbie mistake because it tricks administrators into thinking the category has ALWAYS been empty.

Someone called for the speedy deletion of Category:Alexis Wilkins at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29, because it was empty, and you deleted it. You and I participated in a discussion, at ANI, recently, where the issue of how long a category had to exist, with meaningful content, before it should not be deleted, but redirected. IIRC, several people suggested just a couple of days was long enough.

Well, that category existed, and had meaningful content, for over nine months. So, I don't think it was eligible for speedy deletion.

I think we have two procedures someone should use, when they encounter a category, and they think all its contents belongs in a different category instead. Either choice of calling for discussion of the category, or placing a {{Move}} tag on it, would have given the contributor who started the category (me) a heads-up that someone disagreed that the category was useful. Either choice would have automatically left a category redirect, important to make sure third party URLs don't get broken. And either choice would have relied on a robot to do the actual moving, which is less work for fallible humans.

Who quietly emptied those categories? User:AmorPatiturMoras. I suspect they placed the speedy delete tag. I just checked. Their first edits were in 2016. So, they are not a newbie. However, even though they have been here 10 years, they never use edit summaries.

I created this cateogory, and other similar categories to prevent overcrowding. Suppose AmorPatiturMoras had followed procedure, and initiated a discussion? Maybe people would have agreed with them that the categories I created, to prevent overcrowding, were unnecessary? That would not have been a pointless discussion, as the WMF projects have no formal training. People learn our policies, procedures, and best practices though discussions. I've been contributing over 20 years. But I do remember I am fallible, and try to learn from my mistakes.

If AmorPatiturMoras had followed procedure, and initiated a discussion, and people had weighed in, they might have agreed that the categories weren't pointless.

One of the reasons AmorPatiturMoras should have followed procedure is that, while a robot can empty a category, there is no reciprocal robot that can undo putting all of the files in one category back where they belong, if, upon consideration, emptying the category is seen as a mistake.

Other categories I started, with meaningful content, in November 2025, which you recently deleted, as empty, includeː Category:Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 Category:J. D. Vance at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 Category:Erika Kirk at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 Category:Usha Vance at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 Category:Cindy Hyde-Smith at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 Category:Laine Schoneberger at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-21 Category:Laine Schoneberger at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-27 Category:Laine Schoneberger at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29

Between August 31st and September 2nd AmorPatiturMoras createdː Category:This is the Turning Point Tour Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Logan, Utah) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Minneapolis, Minnesota) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Blacksburg, Virginia) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Grand Forks, North Dakota) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Bozeman, Montana) Category:2026 Turning Point USA College Tour (Athens, Georgia) Category:2026 Turning Point USA College Tour (Columbus, Ohio) Category:2026 Turning Point USA College Tour (Waco, Texas) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Bloomington, Indiana) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Oxford, Mississippi) Category:2025 Turning Point USA College Tour (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)

AmorPatiturMoras may have thought including the venue of the event was better than the date. Nevertheless, if other people agreed with him or her, Category:Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 absolutely should have been a redirect to the category they created that included the location in the category name. Arguably, both Category:Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29 I created, and the location based categories he or she created, should redirect to new category names that include BOTH the date and location.

AmorPatiturMoras seems to have manually moved 500 hundred or more files on those three days. All of them were move silently -- no edit summary, no explanation elsewhere.

User:AmorPatiturMoras didn't explain why he disagreed with having categories like Category:J. D. Vance at a Turning Point USA event, 2025-10-29. Well, consider 75 of the 76 images in Category:2026 Turning Point USA College Tour (Athens, Georgia) are explicitly included in Category:JD Vance in April 2026. I stand by my original decision that it is better to have a subcategory just for the JD Vance images, to make it easier to navigate categories like Category:JD Vance in April 2026.

After I started this note I started Commons:Village_pump#IMO_contributors_should_never_move_all_the_files_from_a_category,_then_call_for_the_deletion_of_the_category_they_emptied,_because_it_isnow_empty...

Cheersǃ Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

File:Rajendra Chola Statue (61729).jpg

File:Rajendra Chola Statue (61729).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD F7 (file is empty, corrupt, or in a disallowed format)

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.

---

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

New batch

Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

---

Thank you so much for doing that lot.

• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi and the President of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the 18th BRICS Summit.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi and the President of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Putin visit the INNOPROM Exhibition on the sidelines of the 18th BRICS Summit at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi meets the President of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the 18th BRICS Summit.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi's closing remarks at BRICS Summit Session on “Inclusive Global Governance and Strengthening Multilateralism” at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi's remarks and statement at BRICS Summit Session in Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi arrives for the 18th BRICS Summit at the Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Leaders of BRICS countries arrive at Bharat Mandapam to attend the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with President Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the 18th BRICS Summit in Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:BRICS Leaders at the 18th BRICS Summit in Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi.jpg
  • File:Xi Jinping in BRICS summit 2026.jpg
• File:Leaders of BRICS Member Countries visit the ‘Bharat Innovates’ exhibition at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi.jpg
• File:BRICS leaders participate in a joint tree plantation at the outside lawns of Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi.jpg
• File:BRICS leaders participate in a joint tree plantation at the outside lawns of Bharat Mandapam on the sidelines of the 18th BRICS Summit.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with the President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Xi Jinping.jpg
• File:18th BRICS Summit family photo.jpg
• File:18th BRICS Summit family picture.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the President of Indonesia, Mr. Prabowo Subianto at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the President of Iran, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Mr. Abiy Ahmed Ali at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Mr. Mauro Vieira at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the President of Egypt, Mr. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Xi Jinping at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
  • File:Xi Jinping meets Modi September 2026.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khaled bin Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
  • File:The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khaled bin Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in September 2026.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the President of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
  • File:Vladimir Putin meets Modi September 2026.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi welcomes the President of South Africa, Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa at Bharat Mandapam.jpg
• File:Bharat Mandapam during the BRICS Summit 2026, in New Delhi on September 13, 2026.jpg
• File:Glimpses of Bharat Mandapam during the BRICS Summit 2026, in New Delhi on September 13, 2026.jpg
• File:BRICS Members, Partner Countries, Outreach Invitees and Heads of International Organisations pose for a group photo at the 18th BRICS Summit.jpg
• File:Leaders of BRICS and Partner Countries, Outreach Invitees and Heads of International Organisations pose for a group photo at the 18th BRICS Summit.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi meets the President of Iran, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi meets the President of Indonesia, Mr. Prabowo Subianto.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi meets the President of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Putin.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with the President of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Putin and the President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Xi Jinping.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi and the President of South Africa, Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with the President of Indonesia, Mr. Prabowo Subianto and the President of Philippines, Mr. Bongbong Marcos.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with the President of Kazakhstan, Mr. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.jpg
• File:The President of Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin is accorded a ceremonial welcome at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.jpg
• File:The President of Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin is accorded a ceremonial welcome on his arrival at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.jpg
• File:The Union Minister for External Affairs, Dr. S. Jaishankar meeting with the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin, in New Delhi on October 05, 2026.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi meets the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin at Hyderabad House, in New Delhi.jpg
• File:The President of Bharat, Smt. Droupadi Murmu hosts a Banquet Dinner in the honour of the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin at Rashtrapati Bhavan.jpg
• File:The President of Bharat, Smt. Droupadi Murmu meets the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin at Rashtrapati Bhavan.jpg
• File:The President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu meets the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin and hosts a Banquet Dinner in his honour at Rashtrapati Bhavan, in New Delhi on October 05, 2026.jpg
• File:Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi meets the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Guy Parmelin.jpg

This batch covers all of my uploads till date. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)