Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

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

Vandalism
[new section]
User problems
[new section]
Blocks and protections
[new section]
Other
[new section]

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


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


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


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

Archives
16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

LosPajaros Rapidly Uploading Copyrighted Image[edit]

LosPajaros has been rapidly uploading images, all of which appear to be copyright violations. A number of them have been removed as copyright violations already, but they don't seem to have stopped. I posted to their talk page, but that doesn't appear to have stopped them either. Don't want to jump the gun or bite a new user, but maybe a short block is in order to get them to pause, so there's less to clean up? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. User blocked for 3 days, after he/she uploaded another copyvio even after a strong warning. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Túrelio, they're at it again. I'll go through and tag the pictures for removal as copyvios, but a longer or indef block looks to be needed.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now blocked for month. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppet spreading cross-wiki hoaxes[edit]

I've recently chanced across a user who has been engaging in what seems to be an extensive agenda of content falsification across several wikis (including en-wp, Wikidata, Commons and others), probably a quite elaborate deliberate hoax. The editor in question is User:Sibinia, together with several IP socks that are almost certainly the same user ((e.g. 2a01:598:a970:6051:d504:1ad7:9cab:a04d, 93.133.11.192 and others). They are probably a sock of User:Kriestovo Nysian, who was globally locked for similar "cross-wiki abuse" in 2020.

The hoax agenda is all somehow related to the Silesian town of Nysa (Neisse) and Silesia in general, as well as alleged connections between it and early Slavic Christianity. In particular, Sibinia has been pushing the claims:

  1. that Nysa was ruled by "Prince-Bishops of Nysa" (a false claim, because there never was a bishopric of Nysa; the prince-bishops that ruled the area where the bishops of Wroclaw (Breslau), while Nysa was a principality that formed part of their secular possessions)
  2. that Clement of Ohrid, the 9th-century apostle of the Slavs, was one of the alleged Prince-Bishops of Nysa (a nonsensical claim, because neither the principality of Nysa nor any bishopric in the area existed during Clement's lifetime)
  3. that a certain old Slavic manuscript of which she has been posting images (File:Wyznanie Klemensa1.jpg, Category:Wyznanie Klemensa) represents a original text authored by Clement while working in Nysa (Sibinia has steadfastly refused to provide sourcing for this manuscript, though she has claimed it is from a certain library in Dresden; it may or may not exist in that library, and it may or may not be related to Clement, but I see no evidence of any connection between it and Clement's alleged activity in Nysa)

Pursuing this agenda, Sibinia and her IP socks have

  • changed multiple references to the bishopric of Wroclaw into references to the non-existent bishopric of Nysa [1], [2]
  • manipulated multiple item and category pages on Wikidata, and category pages on Commons
  • posted the image of the alleged Clement manuscript in multiple places [3], [4];
  • posted images of another old Slavic manuscript with the claim that it was in the "Silesian language" from en:Opole (Category:Silezki_Apostol), when the source [5] describes it as a Serbian work from en:Jazak, Serbia.
  • posted photos of a 16-century coat of arms seen on an object of the rulers of Nysa, claiming without any source that it represents a letter of the early Slavic Glagolitic alphabet (see File:Koffer Bischöfe von Neiße 3.jpg)

These falsifications are probably only the tip of the iceberg. I'd strongly recommend blocking this user and nuking all their contributions, both uploads and category edits. There may be many contributions that look prima facie legitimate, but as the above examples show, we have to expect multiple forms of subtle falsification in the sourcing, titling, categorization and descriptions of items, which would make it quite difficult and time-consuming to sort out the legitimate from the abusive. Fut.Perf. 19:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked a few edits, and they were either hoaxes or outright vandalism or at the very least pushing some fringe POV. I blocked them indef, but a large effort is needed to clean up their contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Obvious sock (or impersonator) User:$ibinia now continuing the abuse. Fut.Perf. 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the two images on WCommons the vandal has uploaded should be deleted, as they are likely fake. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear All,
Yesterday I came upon one or two of such uploads and thus I AfDed the first one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nauku Czytania i Rozumienia Pisma Slonsko Slowenskogo Gotow.pdf and commented on the latter: Category talk:Silezki Apostol
Today I spot-checked some more and thus I am pretty sure it is the case of the regional POV pseudohistorians, see: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbos%C5%82owianie, the (in)famous "Turbolechites".
Here is a sample FB from where they spread their THETRUTH: https://www.facebook.com/maciejcharyszyn11/posts/120917363575075 with one of these files.
In short, their campaign is much similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon: a mixture of (Panslavic) ideology, religion, and Righting Great (Historical) Wrongs.
Expect more of them here and in individual wikis. Zezen (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Serial fake image metadata and copyvio problems[edit]

Nearly all the image of Shaan Vinoth (talk · contribs) are suspect - not able to examine all but there is little of value to fake metadata particularly when it comes to images of life forms. Shyamal L. (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. All his/her uploads are nominated for deletion due to different reasons. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

I have tagged several uploads by User:Aneeq7775 as copyright violations, and will assume that all the rest of their uploads are as well. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of their uploads were copyvios or low-resolution duplicates of Commons files. I converted one of your speedy requests into a deletion discussion and deleted the other uploads. Aneeq7775 Please stop uploading photographs that you did not take yourself. Downscaling or upscaling existing photos does not create a new work for you, nor are you allowed to use images for a collage without permission of the copyright holders. If you continue to uploads such images, your account may be blocked. De728631 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A rude user[edit]

Hello, after having launched a deletion procedure for a dozen pictures with obvious no valid permission (all declared as own work) and corrected a couple ones (all of them uploaded by User:Redbeard1965, a user who think (I quote) «that this copyright rule for uploading images in Wikipedia is so stupid!», I received on my talk page some personal threat. --Malvoört (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef'ed and revdel'ed. Thanks --A.Savin 21:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Shariar 375[edit]

User:Shariar 375 has been uploading images which they claim are usable under a Creative Commons license, but without evidence that the copyright holder permits i; user is adamant that no evidence is required. I have been marking some of the uploads for deletion, with the user removing the associated tags/templates. Based on interaction on my talk page, I think it's just a matter of incomplete appreciation of copyright matters. Nonetheless, at this point I am reluctant to continue engaging them since they've come to believe that I'm just harassing them.

I request that another party examine all of Shariar 375's uploads for copyright issues, and perhaps provide that user guidance on these issues which I could not. RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a quick 12-hour block of Shariar 375 for them to read our policies. They keep removing the deletion tags, even if they have been told to stop and put their opinions on the DR instead. pandakekok9 06:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I blocked them for 1 day for file ns only so they can edit the DRs if they like. --Achim (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

NZ Flag Maven[edit]

This user is obstructing their images from being categorised, removing the applicable category I added to each of them. I have contacted them twice. The first time, they gave a nonsense response about how "My reasons are my own" and then blanked the page. The second time, they blanked the page without any response. Fry1989 eh? 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The user also has received a final warning for vandalism.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • They're allowed to blank their user page.
@GPinkerton: on this. Their uploads are clearly WP:OR. Now there has been recent discussion on what is a "proposed flag" and how does that fit within COM:SCOPE? (COM:SCOPE is a policy here, WP:OR isn't). Opinions vary as to where Commons should draw a line. But these seem to be their proposals for flags, they don't indicate that they're flags which any other off-WMF group has advocated for. As such they're either outside of or pretty close to it for COM:SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Why have I been pinged here? What relevance has this dilation on other websites' policies to me? GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You have previously been vociferous on the subject of fictional flags. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that you now agree that Commons policy applies to self-made artwork as the policy itself states and that such material is out-of-scope? Are you notifying me to tell me you will be changing your vote in deletion discussions where you have argued the exact opposite or what? GPinkerton (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Blanking their page in and of itself isn't the issue. The issue is that they are doing it to ignore a reasonable question about why they do not want their images categorised. As for their images, I have made my position clear in the past that I believe on-wiki user proposals should be treated no different than off-wiki proposals, so long as there is a legitimate public question about the status of the national flag. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, there is. Fry1989 eh? 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This position is completely against policy. "A legitimate public question about the status of the national flag" exists literally everywhere; how is one to judge whether or not someone's personal view of what some place or other's new flag should be is "legitimate" or otherwise? The fact that some countries generate more rejected national flags than others is no reason whatsoever to add to the huge numbers already in existence by dreaming up still more! Just the opposite! All these images should be deleted at once; there is no point in trying to make excuses for or to seek to "legitimate" this flagrant and systematic abuse of the website. GPinkerton (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Wanda Tiga[edit]

Keeps adding nonsensical deletion requests to files after being told not to do so. Discostu (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned, DRs closed, copyright violation deleted. We need a close watch on this user, seeing the large number of nonsense DRs. Yann (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wanda Tiga. Yann (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nguyễn Hữu Duy Khánh[edit]

Continously (re)uploads unfree files and false claims to be own work. Unnamed UserName me 04:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

License removed[edit]

One user continues to remove licensing information from File:Jan Eliasson 2010-06-17 002.jpg. It may be that this user is holding a grudge against me and I would prefer if somebody else reverted this user's edit. User's user page has some information about the background. Thuresson (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I've reverted them and then read their userpage which seems to suggest the CC licence isn't valid ?, I have no idea and am about to head out - If anyone disagrees with my revert I'm more than happy for it to be reverted.
The content at [6] states "License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, By: Daniel Holking, WaterAid Sweden" however it may not be as straightforward as we think (at least if you read their userpage anyay). –Davey2010Talk 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was nominated for deletion last year but kept. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Eliasson 2010-06-17 002.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment User warned. The source still gives a CC license today, so the author's argument doesn't hold much water. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
My apologies Thuresson I was obviously unaware of the DR etc. Indeed licences are irrevocable so Mr Holkings wishes are irrelevant. Also I'm running on less than 6 hours sleep so not all with it today so apologies. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, the same page as the image is sourced from also says "OBS! Bilderna upphör som pressbilder den sista augusti 2012 och får då inte längre användas fritt", which effectively revokes the license after August 2012. Whether this is valid or not is probably debatable, but since it appears this disclaimer has been included on the page from the beginning, I think the original creator has a valid complaint. Now, this is probably arguments better suited for a DR but I think it's kind of disingenuous to just ignore this disclaimer. It's correct that a Creative commons license can't be revoked after the fact, but like in this case, where it's been clearly stated that the license is only valid up til a specific date from the image was first published? I would say it's not quite as clear cut. TommyG (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Chetatata[edit]

User:Chetatata has uploaded a lot of photos of Philippine birds, most (but not all) attributed to other photographers. I suspect this is a case of genuine innocent misunderstanding of copyright, rather than deliberate copyvios; it is even possible they have the permission of the photographers, but there is no proof of this. Could someone with a good deal of tact (which I fear I don't have!) check the situation, please? Note there is also one old book illustration (currently #3 on the upload list as I type) which is OK as it is copyright expired. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Opened DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chetatata. I've deleted the book illustration as a duplicate and left two alone which were credited to "Cheta Chua", which I assume is the uploader (and found no contradictory evidence online). -- King of ♥ 20:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: many thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiLoverFan1007[edit]

WikiLoverFan1007 (talk · contribs)

New editor, straight into bulk deletion nominations for invalid reasons. I hear quacking, but I don't personally recognise the accent. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

They seem to be taking an interest in Polandballs, BFDIFan707 (talk · contribs) and Russavia (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, obviously not a newbie. Vandalism only account. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Seeing this, this account is probably a sock of User talk:Wanda Tiga (see above). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wanda Tiga. Yann (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Onukrit[edit]

First edit appears to be a revert of a speedy deletion notice of Achim55 and then has reverted my edit on putting a copyvio tag. I suspect that this is a sock of Ssr0197 since the first edit to the file appears to be far too random. To add on top of this, the user's first edits on simple were promotional. SHB2000 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

And now it appears that this user is blanking this thread. SHB2000 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Appears that Achim55 has now blocked the account, so I guess that this is ✓ Done? 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) SHB2000 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ indef: Socking SPA. --Achim (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User is making thousands of errors with an automated script, refuses to discuss[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_86#User_making_rapid-fire_semi-automated_edits_with_errors_in_them.

He's still at it: User_talk:Sarang#Script_error. Will someone please stop him from breaking templates and removing information over and over again? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: I notified the user, as you are required to above.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sarang should either revert all problematic edits they've made or be blocked indefinitely for causing unnecessary disruption to the project. For instance in this edit Serang amongst other things removes the "1=" parameter from Template:En even tho this is a default parameter (Whether this parameter is needed is a discussion for VP/Proposals).
Everyone is responsible for their edits made with scripts and in general editors should not make pointless and unnecessary edits that make no improvement to the Projects. I really don't see any way around this other than revert or be blocked. I'm all ears. –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The En template even says "Please prepend "1=" to the text", and it's a potential booby trap for people who change the text and don't add 1=. Removing it is of at best questionable value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Why not revoke the templateeditor flag? SHB2000 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't stop them from the issues (e.g. removing "1=" from language templates and software used and removing categories) that are happening on the photo page, templateeditor flag is for editing protected templates in the template space (e.g. {{Information}}). It is concerning that they seem not to be taking on board the issues people have raised on the talk page and here. I think a short block might be required if they do not engage and address the issues raised. Bidgee (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I sadly have to agree. While blocks are only used as a preventative measure, it seems that discussing collaboratively with the user has failed. Or if something less harsher, then a block from editing the template space (although blocks used on a certain space are rarely used). SHB2000 (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If the user is using an automated script, they should be using a different account for that. Otherwise, the user deserves to be blocked until they acknowledge and fix the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question If I understand Template:En#Parameter_#1 correctly 1= is only required if there is a = in the text. I personally prefer simpler (without 1=) codes. Pure source-codes edits without visual effects should not be done, but that's imho not the case here (because adding {{Igen}}).
@Koavf: Please specify why 1= should not be removed? According to Template:En#Parameter_#1 {{en | some text | }} will be understood but {{en |1=some text | }} not. That might be a reason to remove 1=.
I currently don't see that there is a public decision on this problem, there are reasons to add it and reasons to remove it and reasons to not allow any change.
I think this issue should not be discussed under User problems, it should be discussed and decided person-independent. (e.g. at Template_talk:Internationalization_template_doc)
As soon as there is a decision, and someone ignores the decision of the community (independent if it is illegal to remove or add or even every unnecessary change (in both directions) of 1=), then it can be discussed here.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 07:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC); small change at 07:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
{{en | some text | }} is wrong. It should throw an error, since it's it's silently ignoring a pipe character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not at all true that me or all the other users of the script are "making thousands of errors".
When there happens a single error caused by the script, it will be repaired immediately!
It is a false accusing that any template became broken, or a single information is removed.
Depending the edit mentioned above as an example (there a better one), I cannot see any "project disruption".
In 2015 and 2016 Perhelion, an administrator, began to develop the scripts to clean the file description from obsolete ballast and errors (erroneous formats, e.g. of date). Often unexperienced users describe simple facts with much too complicated constructs and the wrong templates (or using templates in a wrong way), making it difficult to read. Often users don't care for a correct and proper supply of the Information parameters.
In all the years, users are reacting differently when a file of them had been cleaned. Most send a 'thank', some became angry when their file had been touched, some are asking when they do not understand. Very seldom a user cannot understand the explicating answers and just in one case, that of Koavf, insists in fighting.
About the Language templates:
When a positional parameter is provided without the positional number e.g. 1=, and somebody changes it, he will see imediately at the preview when he causes an error by inserting into the text an equal sign without adding the positional number; as always, a user is responsible for his edits, and for his errors.
It is a silly argumentation that using all possible positional numbers will help anybody; when Wikipedia does not need them they are obsolete - not disturbing but also of no use, even not clarifying anything. On the contrary, when an erroneous pipe might be written the number can cause an error, as explained at the {{docu}}. Five years ago, Perhelion removed these and other obsolete parts from the file descriptions.
Many templates, esp. elder ones, are provided with a lot of default parameters. For example, Information bears the empty |permission= and |other versions= parameters, but when a description contains the license description in the == {{int:license-header}} == paragraph the permission parameter will never be used; therefore it is removed by the Perhelion-script. (When somebody wants to use it, it can always be added again and provided with a value).
Conclusion:
When people give really rational arguments that the "1=" part should be kept, I will try to get Perhelions script changed – as I will try to fulfill the wishes of others (whether I understand them or not, whether I see any advantage in them or not). And of course it can be dicussed again whether the adding of the SVG image generation is "pointless and unnecessary edits, making no improvement".
At the moment I just see that a user uncapable to understand simple correlations is acting hostile against work that I would call useful. -- sarang사랑 07:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me Bidgee but you are talking definitely nonsense that I had been told previously!
  • No "software used" had been removed there - it had been corrected, and
  • no category had been removed there - the categories coded in each one of the single 16 pillar files had been moved to the category of them;
Perhelion just removes since five years the obsolete category "Location not applicable". But Koavf inserted this disputeable category again, and into any one of the 16 single files instead of once into their category, as it would be good habit of users common with wikipedia. -- sarang사랑 08:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Really? Originally it had "This text-logo was created with Inkscape-default" to "This text-logo was created with an unknown SVG tool.", why did you change this? Your edit summaries are lacking and anyone who has valid questions, you become passive aggressive. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bidgee: You are talking from things you seem not to understand. "This text-logo was created with an unknown SVG tool" is a deprecated tag because the necessary tool had not been defined with {{Igen||+|s=tl}}; it will create a red box and categorizing to a maintenance category, the assuming of Inkscape is mentioned but not verified. My edit occured after the SVG code had been checked by the script which found that Inkscape had not been used. As a fact, no creating tool could be detected, therefore the only correct tag is "... created with an unknown SVG tool". This correction cannot be called an error! Sorry again, but nonsense does not come true when repeated. Your question "why did you change this" I answer: when something is wrong I try to correct it. -- sarang사랑
@Prosfilaes: Be aware that you cite half of a sentence putting them a bit out of context. The hole sentence is Please prepend "1=" to the text, otherwise any "=" characters in the text will break the template. And the reson given does not apply for Sarang's edits, therfore it is imho questionable to not applicable if the sentence can be applied here. Also it should be mentioned that imho User:Koavf never mentioned Template:Internationalization_template_doc#Usage as a reference.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 08:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
If I tell you "please don't go into the backyard, there's a dog out there", don't give me crap when you go into the backyard and step on a rake. The template says "Please prepend "1=" to the text". Why change perfectly good, working pages to go against what the template recommends?
As for "as always, a user is responsible for his edits, and for his errors" that's manifestly user-unfriendly. As always, users provided with a more trap filled system are going to make more errors, and that's going to make for a worse Commons. If a program provides good output, there's only two reasons to change the input; to make it easier to work on the program, or to make it nearly impossible to work on the program. The only reason to make these changes on Commons is reason one, so people making future changes to that page have an easier time doing so and are less likely to make mistakes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: "it is imho questionable to not applicable", yes it is: the template says that 1= is required. Did you see the documentation? Note also that these descriptions are dynamic: anyone could add an equal sign to any of these templates at any time. If you are using these templates that are intended for arbitrary running text in any language, then use 1=. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: 1= should not be removed because the template documentation says so: it's required. The reason it's required is for compatibility with certain characters that may cause a problem with the functionality of the template. There is no reason to remove it and there is a good reason to retain or even insert it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarang: Fixing the description of SVG diagrams and identifying the actual tool used to create it is helpful. However, removing the “1=” part of the {{En}} template is not. The use of “1=” follows the best practice recommended in the corresponding documentation to avoid errors whenever a “=” is inserted (happens often enough by including links). Please make sure that “1=” is not removed by the script you are using. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking that this should be discussed at the Language templates whether the 1= should now become mandatory. I never heard if a problem because of the missing 1=; of course, it can give a problem when the parameter string is changed and gets an equal sign that it did not have before, and the editing user forgets to add the now necessary 1=. Yes, it can become a trap, but there are many other traps when other templates parameters are changed ignoring side effects. Honestly, I never heard about problems from a change of a language text string, and it seems to me that this is a discussion of a mere hypothetical error possibility without any consequence in reality. -- sarang사랑 10:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, this is to be discussed here as you remove the “1=” constructs in great number using automated scripts. Such mass edits using scripts against documented best practice require a consensus which does not exist. Please begin to listen here. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

replacing inkscape to unknown at File:Aduno Gruppe Logo.svg[edit]

The change from Inkscape to unknown is an error in a previous version of the skript, everything unknown fall back to inkscape, see Special:Diff/300080503. So Inkscape has been an Skript-error, which was corrected by Sarang. If you check the source-code it is not the output of inkscape it might be a Template:Inkscape-hand, but since it is unknown {{Created with other tool}} might be the best option. Anyway the source is a pdf so Inkscape is very likely wrong, it would be {{Extracted with Inkscape}}, which does not mean that the pdf-file was created by inkscape, but only converted by inkscape. @Bidgee: please check the sourcecode of view-source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Aduno_Gruppe_Logo.svg then you should notice that is not saved by Inkscape.

I think this issue of correcting SVG-tool can be closed as missunderstanding Sarang's edits, by non-svg-users.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Regarding this subtopic of Special:Diff/591937115: I think everyone agrees that Sarang's edit was correct, but not well enough explained  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

removing 1=[edit]

I think the explantation why 1= should not be removed is not done adequatly to User:Sarang, I tried it now at User_talk:Sarang#Erklärung_der_Meinungen. @Prosfilaes, AFBorchert: as I said earlier {{en | some text | }} works but {{en |1=some text | }} not, therfore it is opinionbased what is superior. And genererally it is unusual to write "1=". The reson given at the template does imho not apply to sarang's edits, which makes it imho unclear if the sentence is applicable. The text at the template imho need to be discussed and might need to be revised.

I have the feeling that both sides do not fully understand the other side.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody needs to write “1=” for the first parameter of {{En}} if there is no “=”. But if it is there, it should not be removed by automated scripts. Automated scripts should be conservative in their action, they should not impose some new standard. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
{{en | some text | }} is wrong, IMO. I can see the argument for fault-tolerance, but there's a random character that's getting ignored there. It's not a winning argument for me.
Along with AFBorchert, it's okay for scripts to change code to adhere to strict code formatting standards; it's one way to work with people butting heads about code formatting in a programming environment. It's not okay for random scripts to change things that don't matter where there's no consensus that they should do so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I am not convinced of the necessity to have the 1= in language templates just for the possibility that somebody will later change the text and use an equal sign; when a link template, or any other template with an equal sign is used, it won't disturb the main tamplate! Only adding "free" signs, outside of any template, will break the template when not also the 1= is added.
@AFBorchert: The script checks whether the text string contains a "free =" and of course does not remove the 1= when it is necessary.
I always try to keep things as simple, understandable and readable as possible; when it is really a heavy threat that the missing 1= make problems because users are adding free equal signs to existing text, I will change the script, that with the next transfer of my sandbox to Perhelions version the danger won't be spread. -- sarang사랑 10:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 - Agree entirely with AFB - Personally speaking if I were adding English manually then I probably would use "{{en|English text}}" (because when using templates that's what I'm used too) however the system by default adds this parameter so from my point of view by removing this parameter with a script you're not gaining anything because come tomorrow over a thousand or a million more files would've been uploaded meaning the default "1=" parameter would've been added ..... You're essentially fighting a losing battle .... hence why I suggested Commons:Village_pump/Proposals up above. –Davey2010Talk 10:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sarang: Sigh, please listen. Keeping “1=” follows the documented best practice. If you want to mass-remove it, you need a consensus for it that you do not have right now. Please change the script or obtain consensus. It is that simple. We will surely not tolerate a continuation of script-based mass edits against current practice. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
O.K., the next transferred script will stop to care whether the "1=" is necessary. It will neither remove obsolete nor add necessary "1=". I will need some days until I can ask for another transfer of the script. I have no tool to insert again the "1=" into files where the script had removed it. Is that sufficient? -- sarang사랑 11:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sarang: Thanks, that sounds good to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there a consensus of not removing "1=" from {{En}}, as long as not decided differently at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals and not blocking sarang if they follow this rule in future?
I assume Sarang would take a (short) time to fix this issue in the script, since it was added by User:Perhelion.
It is still unclear if adding "1=" is allowed? (not sure if we need now a consensus here)
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: to make it clear: the script does not add the "1="; any user may write language templates with or without unneeded "1=" as preferred, in future no automated removal will occur by the script.
IMHO this issue is not worth a discussion whether it should be allowed to remove it automatically in the progress of a general clear & SVG treatment.
I thought it a good idea but when the "1=" is so much loved I can leave it. -- sarang사랑 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
sarang you should undo your edits where you removed the parameter given people above disagree with this. Undoing these edits and not repeating them in the future would certainly be a step forward. –Davey2010Talk 12:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Demanding they be undone sounds like the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's clear it's not trivial for sarang to do that, and it really doesn't matter if it's not being done going forward.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I spoke against Sarang, also the explanations of both sides were valid and imho equally justifiable.
@Davey2010: I'm not sure if adding "1=" should be forbidden, therefore undoing Sarang's edits should undisputed not be done, see the first paragraph in Help:SVG_guidelines#SVG_sourcecode_edits_without_visual_change. Sarang imho never only changed the 1 in the language-template, they always did a visual improvement.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Prosfilaes & User:JoKalliauer - As I said given the parameter is the default here there's nothing to be gained by removing it - If it actually causes issues then Sarang should go to the Proposal venue and seek to have it removed. The removal of said parameter should be forbidden - They've made what I can only describe as unnecessary changes and like I said the software adds this by default so removing it manually again is a losing battle.
The following should happen:
  1. The parameter should be restored (IE Sarang should readd the parameter back manually)
  2. Sarang should then go to VPP and seek consensus to have this parameter removed from the internal software
  3. Once consensus is formed Sarang can either manualy remove these themselves or a bot can be created and it can remove these at a much quicker rate.
  4. Problem solved.
In regards to the SVG changes - No idea if these are an improvement or not but my main and only gripe is the removal of a very much used parameter. If the system by default didn't use it then fine I would 110% agree with Sarang edits (as anyone would) but if the system is using that parameter by default then no no one should be removing it until they have consensus to do so in which case if they did then a bot should do this anyway. Also apologies for sounding like a broken record but yeah trying to get the point across, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It has always my doing, and I agree with JoKalliauer that useless edits with no visible change - and no change in the workflow or performance - should be avoided. The guidelines forbide me and others by good reason to make edits as Davey suggests. When there is an error I'll repair it - but there is none. Disagreement of people with other ideas is not a reason. -- sarang사랑 14:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Regarding "1=" I think Sarang agrees to not remove it any more (after fixing the script). Undoing those edits should not be done see User:Krd's explanation at #source_code_standardizations.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Their edits should be undone and if no one does this by Friday then I will undo the lot and I will seek to have Sarang blocked from the project. They either undo the damage caused or they no longer get to edit here - It's as simple as that Johannes. They made the mess so they clear it up or failing that be shown the door. –Davey2010Talk 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

source code standardizations[edit]

Looking for example at Special:Diff/592377971 I have difficulties to see what is the actual content change, as it is cluttered in a lot of surplus changes. There is no reason in changing field names to lower case, changing the field order, removing empty fields, changing category order, converting user name to template, etc. Please stop it. --Krd 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Krd: If something is not defined on Commons I try to follow the rules of Wikipedia. (Except there is a reason or tradition to make it different.) In the german Wikipedia User:Aka has the most edits (3.2 million), and in most of his edits he does syntax-standartizations (replacing underlines with spaces in Wikilinks, removement of trailing spaces, adding spaces after *,...).
I see syntax-standarization as desired, as long as it is not pure source-code-edits. The order of the info-template should imho be standardized to find the according values, when editing. If categories should be alphabetically ordered is disputable. I personally would not support it, also least it avoids double categorization twice into the same category. (withdrawn  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC))
I would like to generally discuss source-code edits of SVGs and of description-pages at a more general place, but imho there is no consensus about it. I know SVG-editors that do thousands of pure source-code-edits, and often break SVG-files (Vulphere, Thomas_Linard), which is much worse and leads to dataloss, and never improves something (only file-size-reduction with the price of dataloss). However I have no rule to warn them, therefore warning Sarang about not-pure source-code-edits, with improvements, seems to me a bit warped.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You are mistaken at all points. Aka does correct typos that are visible to the reader, and source code cleanup that is visible to the editor and does help the editor. The edit in question is nonsense because there is hardly any editor for a file page at commons but the uploader. We should respect that the uploader formatted the file page in a way they prefer, and even in Wikipedia there are rules that prohibit to change one allowed and valid variant to another just for the sake of itself. Even if there were consensus for such cleanup, they should be done by a bot and not by user showing up on watchlists with incomprehensible edits. --Krd 16:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
They should also not be done to pursue an arbitrary editcount.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree to User:Krd's argumentation.
@Jeff G.: Sarang also adds/replaces {{Igen}}, that is visible to the reader, so the additional source-code-standartization is not increasing the edit-count of Sarang, or do you mean the picture-counts of User:Vulphere and User:Thomas_Linard which I mentioned earlier, but that would be a different discussion.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Virtually all of my edits are visible to the reader. -- Regards, aka 17:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I echo everything Krd and Jeff have said above. Please self revert your script edits or the next step should be a block. If i introduced controversial edits and refused to do absolutely anything about it I would expect a rather long block for my edits so the same should apply here. –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding source code standartizations: I would like to hear @Sarang:'s opinion on that.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Source code (may be HTML code, an article of Wikipedia, SVG code, template source, the parameter-supported description of a file or template documentation - or anything else, as a table description, ) has always to follow some standards. Standards can be helpful for the creator and for following readers and editors. But never should be an obligation to follow strictly only the standards! As wikipedia says: there are recommendations but no rules. When there are rules, it is always allowed to disregard them when there is a good reason.
In my personal opinion more standards would make work easier - but nobody should be forced to follow them regardless. Of course, where free format is allowed, everybody creates his own style and it is more difficult to recognize. It will be nice when users keep their output readable for others, but it is not conditio-sine-qua-non.
About Special:Diff/592377971 and similar, I see that missing Image generation had been inserted, and by the way some cleaning occurred. May be when sombody feels the need to check the alterations it will need some time, but in general is my opinion: when a file must be touched and edited, to make also some cleaning in that progress is a good idea. Or is it not always good to change redlinks to real links? Ok, others may have another view for that; but nobody can call cleaning a bad thing which has to be forbidden. -- sarang사랑 09:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

copyright violations from User:Thopo Hembram[edit]

Hi, User:Thopo Hembram is uploading multiple low quality images collected from different websites. I have tagged them for copyright violation. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants a block yet, I've given them a cease warning, so a block would be warranted if anything is uploaded after that waning. Also you should notify the editor of this discussion per the notice at the top of this page. Bidgee (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Block is now warranted, uploaded 8 files four minutes after the cease warning, with more still being uploaded. Bidgee (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
And he is not stopping. I am tired of tagging his uploads for copyright violation. Its wasting all my time which is required for other fruitful work. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for two weeks by User:King of Hearts. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Now blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you receive my article?[edit]

I submitted an article titled ELECTRIC VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS

I am not sure of the submission date, but I think it was 8/15/21

So far I have heard nothing about this article. I don not know if it was accepted but not yet put on to Wikipedia or rejected or just lost?

I still believe that it would be a good article for Wikipedia and would like it published.

Pleas let me know what is happening and what I should do.

Thank you

Stephen Tubbs <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasman3 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Gasman3 This project is the Wikimedia Commons, where we host media like photos and audio. If you submitted an article to Wikipedia (likely the English-language edition), you'll have to inquire there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd assume this is in relation to File:ELECTRIC VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS.pdf and File:ELECTRIC VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS AWARENESS BULLETIN.pdf. clpo13(talk) 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gasman3: Your articles were uploaded successfully, but we do not automatically give feedback or povide a peer-review service for new uploads. Moreover, neither Commons nor Wikipedia will publish original research papers and essays by the uploader. E.g., all Wikipedia articles are summaries of facts of findings that have already been published elsewhere. Also, PDF documents that are essentially raw text are not within the project scope of Commons, so your files have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gasman3. If you would like to create a new Wikipedia article on the subject, please read Help:Your first article first. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)