Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.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
24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

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 via their user talk page(s). {{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.

User:カトーポッポー

カトーポッポー (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

User kept insisting on removing DR tags from these images ([1] and [2]) with DR currently opened, even though I already explained to them in the edit summaries [3][4] and once again at their talk page here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

これ以上の行為は荒らしとみなします。日本国の法律では、著作物は、日本国著作権法第十三条により、パブリックドメインの状態にあります。同条は、同法第二章の規定による著作の権利の目的となることができない著作物として、次の著作物を列挙しています。

一　憲法その他の法令

二　国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人（独立行政法人通則法（平成十一年法律第百三号）第二条第一項に規定する独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）又は地方独立行政法人（地方独立行政法人法（平成十五年法律第百十八号）第二条第一項に規定する地方独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）が発する告示、訓令、通達その他これらに類するもの

三　裁判所の判決、決定、命令及び審判並びに行政庁の裁決及び決定で裁判に準ずる手続により行われるもの

四　前三号に掲げるものの翻訳物及び編集物で、国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人又は地方独立行政法人が作成するもの

まずは、Tvpupp氏がこれを読んで理解すべきです。この内容を読まずに削除依頼を何度も出すことは、議論を破壊しようとするだけでなく、単に荒らし行為です。合法のものを何度も削除しようとすることが理解できませんし、あなたは、私の返信に意見を返していませんCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by カトーポッポー。これは非常に問題であると考えます。wikipediaでは、腕ずくで解決しないとありますが、あなたは自分の思い通りにならないからと言って、腕ずくで削除しようとしています。カトーポッポー (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Google翻訳) 削除に関する議論が完了するまで、削除に関する議論通知は削除しないでください。ファイルを保存すべき理由に関する議論は、削除に関する議論で扱われます。ファイルが保存された場合、この通知は自動的に削除されます。

(Original: Do not remove deletion discussion notices until the discussion is completed. Arguments about why the file should be kept belong in the deletion discussion. If the file is kept, the notice will be removed automatically.)

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)修正カトーポッポー (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file is legal. Please do not delete the file, which constitutes vandalism. (In the Japanese public domain, the file falls under those created by national or local government organisations, independent administrative institutions or local independent administrative institutions. カトーポッポー (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider any further actions of this nature to be disruptive behavior. Under Japanese law, the works in question are in the public domain in accordance with Article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan. This article lists types of works that are not subject to copyright protection under Chapter II of the Act:

The Constitution and other laws and regulations;

Notifications, instructions, circulars, and similar documents issued by the national or local governments, or by institutions such as independent administrative agencies and local incorporated administrative agencies (as defined in the relevant laws);

Court judgments, decisions, orders, and rulings, as well as decisions and determinations made by administrative agencies through procedures equivalent to judicial proceedings;

Translations and compilations of the above-mentioned works prepared by government agencies or the said administrative bodies.

User Tvpupp should first read and understand this legal basis. Repeatedly submitting deletion requests without considering this information not only undermines constructive discussion but constitutes disruptive editing. I cannot understand why you are repeatedly attempting to delete content that is legally permissible. Moreover, you have not responded to my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by カトーポッポー. This lack of engagement is very concerning.

Wikipedia is based on consensus and not on forcing outcomes through persistence or brute action. Yet, your repeated attempts to force deletion simply because things are not going your way appear to be exactly that — an attempt to impose your will rather than seek consensus. カトーポッポー (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have blocked them from editing the file namespace for 1 month. They don't seem to get the message that regardless of whether the file is ultimately kept or deleted / regardless of whether they are right or wrong, the deletion notice needs to stay on the file page until the discussion concludes. Hopefully this will solve the issue, as while they were edit warring, I don't think a full site block is the best solution here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy I just noticed User:Justppw (account created today) had reuploaded some of the speedy-deleted images of User:カトーポッポー, see logs of [5] and [6]. I suspect this to be a sockpuppet attempting to circumvent the file namespace block implemented above. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Blocked the new account and deleted the uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload the file in question. To begin with, given the way images have been unilaterally deleted, isn’t it possible that someone else uploaded it? The reality is that files are being removed solely at the discretion of users such as The Squirrel Conspiracy, Tvpuppy, Netora (who previously deleted my work without proper justification), and Krd—none of whom appear to have a sufficient understanding of Japanese law. As Jeff G. has acknowledged, the first step should be to restore the files that were removed without proper discussion, including File:Masao Tachiki.png and others. カトーポッポー (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: FYI, none of the files you have requested undeletion seems acceptable with the information you have provided. Please read COM:L before accusing others not to understand copyright law. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: could it be that you're operating on some misunderstanding? You're repeatedly asking to discuss the copyright status of some files. But exactly that was underway and you should be aware of that, as you removed deletion request templates! The relevant redactional processes are actually the deletion requests! The wording may be not truly pinpoint to that effect. But it is the usual way to open a deletion request when you want to challenge any kind of legitimacy in a media file in Commons' repository, be it on copyright grounds, project scope or whatever else may be a justification to delete under the Commons:Deletion policy. But these deletion requests are, by design, open-ended and the place to argue whether any file is legitimately present. Deletion requests aren't an actual menace that compulsorily end in deleting something, but a standard quality-assurance tool. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand-Duc:I’ll return your words to you, verbatim. Could it be you who’s operating under some kind of misunderstanding? You’re unilaterally deleting works that are clearly in the public domain under Japanese law—and even going so far as to delete my original creations. At this point, it’s hard to say that Wikimedia Commons is functioning properly. Deleting someone’s original work? That’s absurd. What kind of rationale do you think justifies that? What you’re doing looks a lot less like policy enforcement and a lot more like censorship and authoritarianism.thank you.カトーポッポー (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann:"You’re not going to mention the fact that someone who can’t read Japanese and doesn’t understand Japanese domestic law is arbitrarily deleting my work, are you? Of course you won’t—because it would be too embarrassing to admit that Yann’s actions were wrong all along. I suggest starting with studying Japanese. Then, try actually reading the text carefully. Thanks, lol."カトーポッポー (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: there is literally no circumstance under which it is OK to remove DR notices from file pages while the DR is still under way. This is simply a process issue. It has literally nothing to do with the merits of the DR. Even if the DR is nonsense made up by a vandal, which will result in a rapid close of the DR as "speedy keep", the notice of the DR should not be removed from the file page before the DR is resolved. Do you understand this? Because your comments above suggest that you don't. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However, I cannot stay silent when only I am being restricted from posting, and even my own photographs—which are clearly free of copyright issues—have been deleted. Netora and EugeneZelenko, who initiated this dispute, have not faced any restrictions or penalties. In particular, Netora has gone so far as to delete my copyrighted works, which is an outrageous act. This is something that should be recognized by the administrators present here as well. Moreover, Netora has been avoiding the discussion altogether.カトーポッポー (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

----

カトーポッポー (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: You must stop your antagonist attitude right now. Please listen to people who are experienced users. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: QED with "You’re unilaterally deleting works that are clearly in the public domain under Japanese law". I am technically not even able to delete works, that's a software right for administrators to which I do not belong. I'm often doing things like opening deletion requests; this kind of editing is possible to anyone, even those without registered accounts. Please inform yourself about Commons:User rights and in general, how our media repository operates. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netora&@EugeneZelenko&@Jim:I'm not here because I have business with you. What I want to address is the behavior of those with authority here, as well as the individuals who irresponsibly fueled the fire—Netora, whose command of Japanese is questionable at best, and EugeneZelenko, who jumped into the conversation uninvited. Netora, for his part, has been dodging the discussion entirely, while EugeneZelenko seems to have vanished into thin air, possibly because he was completely refuted.

The confusion only escalated when you mistakenly inserted yourselves into the exchange while I was dealing with them. Let’s be clear: the real issue lies with Netora (who deleted my copyrighted works), EugeneZelenko (who proposed deleting photos that are legally unproblematic under Japanese law), and Jim—who, during those very discussions, took it upon himself to close them unilaterally and forcefully, apparently after being logically defeated. He didn’t even bother to read or understand Japanese law before pushing through his decision.

And that, for the record, is what I want written down here.カトーポッポー (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー Please be careful with your tone that you may get blocked if you continue to argue that you are right. (w:WP:BOOMERANG) 〈興華街〉📅❓ 03:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@カトーポッポー: How can Netora have deleted any of your copyrighted works without Admin privileges? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.First, how about restoring the copyrighted image of mine that you requested to be deleted before making any comments? That’s the first thing you should do.カトーポッポー (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

photos that are legally unproblematic under Japanese law must be clearly described (sources and license tags). They were not and you preferred to escalate conflict instead of just fixing issues. If you still do not understand what need to be done, please ask help of Japanese-speaking administrator or user who understand Commons policies. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I blocked カトーポッポー for 2 weeks. They continue to be unnecessarily antagonist despite a warning above. Yann (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked should probably be extended with talk page access removed, as they are resorting to insults on their talk page. Yann (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked indef. by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A S M Jobaer

User: A S M Jobaer (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user categorizes his photos using very general categories, such as Category:Asia for pictures of his cats, even though he has been asked not to do so. He submits technically very weak photos to QIC and ignores comments about them, continuing to nominate images with similar issues.

He created a mess on the FPC page by removing his withdrawn nominations himself (even though this should be left to the bot), and did so after being warned by another user. Yesterday, he tried to reject a photo on QIC simply because the subject did not interest him.

When I posted a message on his talk page, he started leaving reviews, such as lack of categorization, on properly categorized images.

@Yann, A.Savin, and Poco a poco: pinging administrators I know involved with QIC and FPC -- Jakubhal 06:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check also this 'nothing interesting' review -- Jakubhal 06:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify A S M Jobaer of this section first. --A.Savin 07:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have wrote to him again -- Jakubhal 08:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the usual message to A S M Jobaer's talk page, just to be sure that this cannot be overlooked. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thanks. Technically, this is not "the Administrators' noticeboard page", this is a subpage of that one. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The link within the message is correct. So what is wrong? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Sorry, I should have directed that to @Jakubhal about Special:Diff/1039269371. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not using the template. I don’t write here often (and I hope I won’t have to), but I’ll remember for next time. -- Jakubhal 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am new here and trying to learn new things. truly I am very noob in categorization. If you explain about my mistakes and give me solution ,I will solve them. And also aware in future. Thanks A S M Jobaer (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A S M Jobaer, I would like to kindly ask you a few questions:

Do you understand English well enough to take part in this discussion?
Do you read your user talk page? I posted a comment about categorization there before.
Did you read the help page about categorization that I sent to you?
Did you understand my message that you should use the most specific categories? If yes, why do you still add very general categories like "Cats" but also unrelated ones like "Asia" or "Bangladesh" to photos of cats or school uniforms?
Why do you add negative reviews to QIC photos, such as "not interesting," even though I explained this is not correct, and others also told you this on the QIC page?
Did you notice others telling you this on the QIC page? Do you read comments on your reviews and images?
Do you think it is fair to reject photos at QIC for incorrect or missing categories, when you wrote here that you do not really understand categorization yourself?
Do you think it is OK to review 10-20 photos per day (often with negative reviews), when you have big problems getting QI badges for your own photos (few QIs out of many, many nominations)?

I am asking to better understand your point of view. -- Jakubhal 18:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand English (as a second language).Fist of all so sorry about my opinions on QI nominations because I was practicing. Secondly, I have removed those categories like as Asia and Bangladesh. Besides I have noticed others telling on this page. And lastly I have learnt some of guidelines of QI, VI and FI nomination. Next time I will aware of this things. A S M Jobaer (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of work to do with your categorization. It is important to have a look at Commons:Categories and especially on COM:OVERCAT. Therefore, please chose the most specific categories within a category tree that could be applicable to your photos and avoid the addition of more general categories from the same category tree. E.g., your photo File:Beauty in Bloom 03.jpg has four categories assigned to it: Category:Asia, Category:Bangladesh, Category:Dhaka and Category:Helianthus annuus. Dhaka is in Bangladesh and Bangladesh is in Asia. Therefore, Category:Dhaka would be the most specific category among the first three categories. The other ones are overcategorization. However, Category:Dhaka contains a warning that it is too crowded and that subcategories should be chosen if they are appropriate. Therefore, I suggest the subcategory Category:Nature of Dhaka as a (hopefully) better category instead of Category:Dhaka. In addition, Category:Helianthus annuus could be replaced by the more specific Category:Helianthus annuus in Bangladesh. So all of your four categories should be replaced. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice A S M Jobaer (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The categories were still not what I told you above. I changed them once again. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Robert Flogaus-Faust for carefully explaining the problems with categories in your photos. I hope this time you understood and will follow the advice.

As for your reviews at QIC, your explanation is not entirely satisfying to me (and you also did not answer some of my questions). What directly prompted me to open this thread was your mass review at QIC just after I wrote to you asking not to post reviews like "not interesting" - especially the one review where you repeated almost exactly these words.

I understand that everyone can make mistakes, and I would support closing this thread. However, I would like to ensure that you will not continue this behavior. So far, when we wrote to you on your talk page, you replied with things like “Thanks” or “I’m still learning,” but then kept doing the same things. You should be aware that after this discussion, there will likely be no further leniency regarding the matters we have discussed here. -- Jakubhal 20:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned from your feedback regarding photo categories and my QIC reviews. I understand my past responses weren't enough and that my actions, especially the "not interesting" reviews, were frustrating. I apologize for not meeting your expectations. I'm committed to improving my behavior and will be more diligent with categories and provide thoughtful QIC feedback. I understand there will be no further leniency and I'm prepared to show my commitment through my future contributions. Thank you for this opportunity to improve. A S M Jobaer (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that answer. From my point of view this thread can be now closed. -- Jakubhal 21:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before closing this thread I would recommend to have a look on the newest nominations of A S M Jobaer on QIC and to see how he will react to my notice on his talkpage Kritzolina (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to improve categories for a few of the photos, but overcategorization and too generic categorization are not the only issues. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was concerned about, as it was the same with the comments left on the user's talk page - "Thank you," but then the same behavior continued. In any case, at this point it is probably up to the administrators to decide what to do next, as so far none have commented in this thread apart from some procedural remarks. -- Jakubhal 04:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a block from uploading until the categories are fixed on the existing uploads and they can demonstrate an understanding that they need to appropriately categorise their uploads. Bidgee (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

I am reluctant to report this, but I think it is clear forum shopping. We currently have two deletion requests for the This Is Fine meme. The discussions are well underway, but now Prototyperspective has opened a new thread on COMMONS:VP/C#Are these derivatives?. This seems to be a very clear attempt at forum shopping. I would like the VP discussion moved to the deletion requests at the very least, because it’s fragmenting the discussions for no real benefit of anyone.

could an admin please intervene here? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What even is forum shopping and why are you making a thread at AN/U for asking a valid reasonable copyright-related question on the discussion board about copyright where there may be experts in copyright? It's not fragmenting any discussion. Have you read what this page here is about? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. I believe you have done that in this instance as discussions are well under way on both files for deletion.

It would have been acceptable to reference the deletion requests in a message on VP, but you have instead opened a brand new discussion and are trying to debate the merits of the images on different forums.

I am asking for the thread to be closed and the discussions to be continued on the deletion requests. There are already people knowledgable about copyright who have been discussing the images. By all means bring attention to the deletion requests, but trying to start a new discussion to fragment and gain an advantage for your views is disruptive and or at all helpful for commons. Let’s centralise the discussion on the the deletion requests themselves, where it is most appropriate. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking experts on a subject a difficult or apparently potentially difficult question on the subject is what these VP pages are partly there for and just improves the basis of discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point of the deletion requests themselves. There are already detailed and reasoned discussions on both the requests, and you are an active participant. I feel you are trying to gain an upper hand and being somewhat tendentious by the way in which you have opened the VP thread.

I am now bringing this to admin attention with a specific request to close the VP thread with a reference for participants to discuss at the deletion requests themselves. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking input on a copyright question on a forum about copyright. You apparently think people should be silenced instead of freely debating and asking others of the project and that 3 or so people in some buried niche corner of Commons – that you for absolutely no explained reason take to be people knowledgable about copyright – should decide tough copyright questions. That is fine for you, but these Commons forums are made so that people can discuss complex questions relating to the project. It also doesn't affect just these two files. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except you aren’t asking for wider feedback about derivative images, you are asking about those two specific images. This isn’t wider discussion around derivative images - and we have a policy about that already which is reasonably clear.

Anyway, I’ll let others decide if your actions are reasonable, which is why I have brought this to ANU. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because those two images are early and possibly the first cases thereof. And it doesn't matter either way. It is also wider discussion about images that illustrate memes but look substantially different. Experts on copyright there could just as well conclude it's totally derivatives. One shouldn't crush down on free debate on complex questions on this website. No, that policy is not clear on such cases which is in the question there and why it's asked there in the first place. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren’t I’m afraid. There is an entire policy around derived images - it didn’t spring from nothing :-) there have been many derivative images and a policy was carefully formulated to address the issue. To determine if an image is derivative, it must be taken to a deletion request, which is what we have done.

The appropriate forum for discussion about the images is the deletion request. You didn’t ask for a wider review of policy, you specifically asked about the two specific images that are being discussed to determine whether they reverted, so you can’t actually claim you are asking for wider input on the policy itself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tough question in some deletion request can still be taken to the discussion page about copyright questions if the subject is a matter of copyright. It's not "wider review of [the] policy", it's wider input on the question and what the policy means. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a convincing argument had you referenced the two existing deletion requests or even made an attempt at stating the substantive arguments against your position at VP. It would have also been appropriate for you to mention the new discussion about the two images on the deletion requests themselves, but you did not, so your argument that you were looking for wider input from the community as a whole is really very weak. I was only made aware of the discussion when another editor mentioned it on the deletion requests. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: for the future, given that the DRs were already open, if you wanted to get further attention from the people who frequent COM:VP/C, the approved way to do this would have been to post on COM:VP/C with as neutral a statement as you could make of the issues at stake, link the DRs from COM:VP/C and invite people to comment on the DRs, and indicate on the DRs that you'd made the post to COM:VP/C. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Salmaci123

Salmaci123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (new account)
Taricksalmaci (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) (previous account)

User:Salmaci123 has stated they're en:Tarick Salmaci at en:Talk:Tarick Salmaci which is almost certainly the case, but all of the files they've just uploaded to Commons have previously been deleted as copyvios or for otherwise questionable licensing. (See User talk:Taricksalmaci for some examples of this). Several attempts were made at explaining what the issues were regarding the previous uploads and possible ways those issue might be resolved at both en:User talk:Taricksalmaci and User talk:Taricksalmaci, but they never really led anywhere.

The four of the five files (File:Tarick Salmaci w Hall of Fane Trainer Emanuel Steward (1992 Olympic Trials).jpg, File:Tarick Salmaci in action on The Contender Season 1.jpg, File:Tarick Salmaci pro debut w Muhammad Ali (1992).jpg, File:Tarick Salmaci at age 10 with Muhammad Ali.jpg) appear to be re-uploads of previously deleted files, while File:Tarick Salmaci 2025.jpg looks new but probably needs VRT verification since it appears to be professionally taken. The uploader still seems to have problems understanding what COM:Own work and what COM:2D copying means, and that physical possession or appearing in a photo doesn't necessarily make one the copyright holder of said photo.

Would a Commons administrator take a look at these files? If they're OK, then fine. If, on the other hand, they have issues, perhaps an administrator could explain things to the uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I deleted these files, and warned the user. Obviously not own works, and no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

debate over target of redirects

me and a user, @Wikiwerner have had a debate over the target of two redirects File:Chess bbl45.svg and File:Chess bbd45.svg I believe they should link to File:Chess bbg45.svg and File:Chess bbd45 1.svg while they think it should link to File:Chess t45.svg you can read the debate so far on my talk page here but in short I argued that for them a new redirect would be easy to create and work just as well but not for me while they argued that I should change it Sense there redirect was older so I should find a new redirect. we went back and forth a while but never got anywhere so we think arbitration is required. PharaohCrab (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should also mention that you built a new system in May, while our system at Dutch wiki exists since 2021, so users are used to it. Wikiwerner (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altair Netraphim

Altair Netraphim (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

All uploads should be checked closely; (example File:Lorong Sanatorium Pakem.jpg, claimed as own work) fake EXIF data has been addressed before, and User was blocked for a week. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 122#User:Altair Netraphim.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir/Madam,

First of all, I apologize. In the past few weeks, we have only just begun rechecking the uploaded images, as there are quite a lot of them. Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural service (Dinas Kebudayaan). We are making efforts to establish partnerships with cultural heritage communities, relevant institutions, and agencies responsible for cultural heritage. However, the old images they provided have unfortunately lost their metadata. This is why I have only recently started reviewing each of the images that have been flagged on my talk page, one by one. Altair Netraphim (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altair Netraphim: Kindly review faster than you upload, so as to catch up. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir, thank you. I have revised some of the licenses. I have also requested expedited deletion for some of the images. I am alone in running this review process among our team. Altair Netraphim (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altair Netraphim „ Many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, and some were uploaded by other colleagues on various platforms, including Facebook and cultural services (Dinas Kebudayaan).“ What exactly is this supposed to imply? All I can detect in this previous example is incorrect EXIF data for an image that was already on Facebook in 2021, including a caption "ARTABABZ", which was cut out. COM:PCP? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention and response. Regarding the statement that many of the images I uploaded have lost their metadata, what I meant is that most of these files no longer retain complete EXIF information—either due to compression processes or because they were re-uploaded across various platforms, such as Facebook or websites managed by the Department of Culture. Some of these images were also not uploaded directly by me, but by fellow members of the cultural heritage community in Sleman as part of their collective documentation efforts.

As for the image with the caption "ARTABABZ" that was previously uploaded to Facebook in 2021, I understand that its EXIF data may be inaccurate or truncated. This aligns with my earlier explanation that many images no longer contain their original or complete metadata, likely because they have circulated across different platforms. Some of the images were provided to me by members of the cultural heritage community; we requested them legally and communicated directly with the contributors, who, to my knowledge, uploaded them themselves. If any of those images contain incorrect EXIF data, and this is considered problematic, please feel free to remove them. Altair Netraphim (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image was heavily edited. An iPhone 11 Pro doesn't normally take images like this, nor do they produce pixelated ones like the two other images I discovered were copycat. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There are further points to consider: COM:FR seems not to have been fully understood. You're specifically using it to renumber images. Why, for what reason? Renaming isn't intended for that purpose; it's not a Crit 2 error, an incorrect number is not meaningless if the rest of the filename is correct, nor is Crit 3, the number doesn't bother anyone, and especially Crit 4, is being misused. Remember: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set." זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I understand that the iPhone 11 Pro generally produces high-quality images, and if there are photos that appear to have been heavily edited or show pixelation, it is most likely due to reprocessing, compression during upload, or format conversion by certain platforms. I also do not rule out the possibility that some circulating images originated from other sources or were edited by others before they reached me. If there are any images that are considered inappropriate or suspected to be copies, I am more than willing to review them and remove them if necessary.

Some of these images have already been submitted for removal and have been taken down, while for others, I am still in the process of tracing their sources—particularly from publicly accessible, copyright-free platforms managed by the Indonesian government. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altair Netraphim, Your so-called copyright-free platforms. It's interesting how, when you visit these sites, you can always see copyright notices (example 1) (example 2). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:direktoribudaya.slemankab.go.id I have some issues with the claim that these are government sites, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that copyright issues—particularly regarding sources from government websites—indeed require careful examination. When I referred to certain platforms as "copyright-free," what I meant was that some Indonesian government websites (such as the Dinas Kebudayaan Sleman), including those managed by local cultural agencies, often share materials intended for educational and public documentation purposes, even if they do not always explicitly state an open license on every page or file. I truly appreciate you pointing out relevant examples, including the deletion discussions on Wikimedia Commons. It was never my intention to mislead, and I am, of course, open to being corrected, including removing related content if it does not meet the appropriate requirements.

Regarding the "Perpustakaan Digital Budaya Indonesia" platform, to the best of my knowledge, it is managed by IACI (Indonesian Archipelago Cultural Initiatives), with support and funding from the Kementerian Kebudayaan dan Pendidikan Indonesia (Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Education). Contributors who wish to submit cultural materials to the platform must undergo editorial review, and submissions are not published automatically.

Again, it is not my intention to mislead, and I fully support the removal of any content that does not comply with the necessary guidelines. Kind regards. Altair Netraphim (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altair Netraphim: So you admit to sharing your login details to allow other people to upload here? How does that work, exactly? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmjahangir

Ahmjahangir (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Cross-wiki NOTHERE. Spamming with request that is irrelevant to the project. XReport --Phương Linh (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to messages on user's talk page, they have

Uploaded copyrighted material
Uploaded other files that were out of scope
Left messages on many pages asking for help writing a biographical article, whereas Commons doesn't even host articles

@Ahmjahangir: Do you understand the issues in the messages people have left you? If you continue with the actions listed above, you will be blocked from editing here. Please respond to this discussion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Actually I will not edit anything by myself. I will leave any information for the experienced editor to update - which i already promised. And I don't change my words unless there is a significant reason. Ahmjahangir (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHelper3906 (resolved with a warning)

WikiHelper3906 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions): the recently deleted File:Long Island.jpg, claimed as own work. was a blatant plagiarism of my photo File:Gantry Plaza State Park Long Island City 01 (9431668991).jpg (simply a crop). This means that now literally everything they ever uploaded has been deleted as a copyvio. Relatively new and lightly active account, but at least one very recent edit, so not entirely moot. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice! WikiHelper3906 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not notice you cropped someone elses Photo? Can you explain how this happened? Kritzolina (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kritzolina: Wilful disregard for policy COM:EVID, as well as COM:CSD#F1. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is what it can be described as. I really want to hear from WikiHelper3906 Kritzolina (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all because I didn't check twice before uploading. Sorry. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are extremely careless in how you do your work on Commons. Do you have any ideas about how you could constructively contribute images to Commons and on how to avoid similar mistakes in the future? Kritzolina (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but I'll try to be good here...? Also, please stop commenting. My comment plant is currently overloaded. Let it deload. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am not sure you understand the nature of my comments correctly. I am trying to determine, if there is any reason I should not block your account. "Sorry" and "I'll try to be good here...?" are not really convincing me so far. Can you give me anything more substantial? Kritzolina (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will for the best check twice before any picture, and I will also make sure to enter the true copyright details. WikiHelper3906 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With this promise I will let you go with a very stern warning. I will put this on your discussion page. Do not remove it before at least 6 months have passed. If you upload any pictures without proper license, your account should be blocked. Kritzolina (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This participant has been given a warning. Incall ^talk 18:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand how someone could have accidentally believed a crop of a photo I took was their "own work," which seems to be the claim here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel I think Hanlon's razor applies here. Weather or not this means that they don't meet CIR is uncertain. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to understand how this happened. We have a promise that this person will not do anything similar in the future - and a warning that will make it very easy to block them the next time anything like this happens again. Kritzolina (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Garbagesound

Going by the upload of File:Garbage90s.jpg (actually a NETCOPVIO) from this account, I think that the user name Garbagesound (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block userdefinitively fails to comply with the Commons:Username policy, see Garbage (band). A verification that the account operator(s) is/are entitled to use the well-known band name or a name change is mandatory IMHO. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand-Duc: I've informed the user of this discussion on their talk page, which you failed to do. - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, thanks! I indeed forgot the notification. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentxuwiki

User: Mentxuwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: After the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 40#Mentxuwiki and warning, the user went on to forget the advice given and made these edits: not including intelligible reason, year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; and not transcluding (these times for file description pages).

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something that merits a block imo. Bedivere (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: How do you suggest we deal with their pollution of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage and Category:Deletion requests - No timestamp given in these cases? For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 18 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over four years ago. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but to me, this is a rather innocent mistake. It's obvious to me Mentxu wanted the files to be speedily deleted instead of opening a deletion request, and so I will be honoring these requests as they seem to be working with Wikimedia España in that sense, and assuming good faith, too. I will give a final warning, however, following:

@Mentxuwiki Te pediría por favor, ya que es la segunda vez que te reportan por el mismo motivo, que utilices la función de "Nominar para borrado" para pedir la eliminación de alguna imagen, y no lo hagas de la forma que has hecho, con nominaciones incompletas que motivan este tipo de reportes, que en otra ocasión de seguro terminaría en un bloqueo, lo que sería desafortunado. Bedivere (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos días,

Así es. Se trata de un error por mi parte porque no recuerdo la plantilla que hay que incluir para solicitar el borrado de una imagen. Y no me resulta sencillo encontrarla. Voy a intentar tener más cuidado. Saludos! Mentxuwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Si, por favor @Mentxuwiki. Si necesitas ayuda puedes pedirla. Pero no ingreses solicitudes incompletas nuevamente, de lo contrario, lo más probable es que seas sancionada por haber ya dos reportes por el mismo motivo. Bedivere (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackAround

User: HackAround (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continues to upload non-free files even though a one-week block has already been imposed.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I blocked the user again, closed one DR and deleted speedily multiple complex logos. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rochambeau1783

User: Rochambeau1783 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued uploading of fictional or alternate history works after an Admin's warning.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By principle, that's true. But the last bad upload came from 24th of April. All uploads after that seem to be good. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got the warning and stopped. I wasn't aware it was issue, but when I was notified, I ceased. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No admin action needed per Taivo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lukeeee1

User: Lukeeee1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: Despite the final warning (even twice from Yann and me; we actually had the same idea at the same time), the videos continue to be uploaded. I've already deleted the files.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done No need to report it twice. Yann (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minhputintranohiocringe

There are copyright issues almost with every file uploaded by this user. He uploads illustrations from scientific articles (e.g. File:Distribution of surface sediments in Lake Nakaumi.png), reuploads existing files from commons with wrong names and lower quality, claiming it is "own work" (e.g. his file: File:Lake nakauma.png, original: File:SakaiminatoCity.jpg), and just uploads files with obvious copyright violations: File:Klingon DIctionary.png. He didn't react to any message on his discussion page. Please block this user. Rijikk (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I warned the user. Multiple of his uploads are good, but I'll delete speedily some copyrighted book covers. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I hope he will follow the rules from now on. Rijikk (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiananjomani

Hi, I suspect this user have using puppet behavior.

Please see here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kiananjomani

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mystery_and_the_methods

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/These_events_occurred Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy this from my disk here. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Kiananjomani and Mystery and the methods use Template:KonstantinvonWedelstaedt for copyvio images, I think Mystery and the methods is sockpuppet of Kiananjomani, since Kiananjomani created account first. Kiananjomani also reverted copyvionote of images with invalid license that These events occurred uploaded, so I think These events occurred can be also a sockpuppet of Kiananjomani.

Also with this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.122.192.49 Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery and the methods also tagged copyvio template to the image with valid license two times:

1nd

2nd Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be at RFCU. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patryk2710

I suggest you take a look at the contribution by User:Patryk2710. I think that many of the photos he posted do not meet the requirements of copyright law. For example, from May 11 to 18, he posted several dozen photos uploaded from various services to Commons. There is no information whether he has a free license for these photos. Jaburza (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from AN/B) I sifted through the photos from May 11 to 18, and they do have proper licensing templates and generally look fine to me. They include free photos from Flickr, coming from Klub Lewicy's official Flickr and verified by FlickreviewR 2, as well as works from gov.pl from before August 2022 and tagged with {{Gov.pl}}, pending admin review. @Jaburza: I recommend you share exact files you have concerns about, otherwise I don't see any issues here. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk2710 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I warned him and encourage you to nominate all suspicious photos for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Szekszter

Szekszter (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Every single image seems to have been tagged as their own work, but were copyright infringements. We have one image left they have uploaded and that looks remarkably suspicious. I recommend this user be blocked indefinitely. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User is warned. I deleted last remaining upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asadpolash

Asadpolash (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User has a clear history of uploading copyrighted material. I find every one of their images suspicious, and clear copyright violations. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show a single thing that is copyrighted? Also, which of the images seems suspicious to you? Asadpolash (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of photos that have been deleted already. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User is warned. Considering his unfortunate answer here today and missing reply in DR-s of his uploads, I decided to close all DR-s against his files as deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edward Myer

Exclusively uploading copyvios, w:wp:COI issues Dronebogus (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I warned the user and closed one DR. Thank you for nominating his rest uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]