User talk:Cherkash

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Cherkash!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Cherkash⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Cherkash,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

US CPI

Hi Cherkash,

I would like to update File:US Consumer Price Index Graph.svg but I can't open the gnumeric file due to malforming. May you please upload a working file anywhere in the internet?

Greetings --Kopiersperre (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to copy it from the displayed page, copy it from the "Edit" page instead (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:US_Consumer_Price_Index_Graph.svg&action=edit&section=1) Cherkash (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I'll have to wait until the 2015 data is published.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Austin circuit.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Austin circuit.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre, I've updated it now with an old template (OpenStreetMap) that I replaced with Infobox. The problem with the old one was that it didn't render "other_versions" parameter correctly. The unintended consequence was that the licensing info got lost. So the description will for now have two templates, which is not ideal since they have mostly duplicated fields - and I've also posted on the template's talk page asking for help with fixing it. Cherkash (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. We just need a license on the page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

′, not '

Please, fix the mistake in your “correction” to file:Eccentric and True Anomaly.svg. You obviously mean the prime symbol, but it is U+2032 ⟨′⟩, not U+0027 ⟨'⟩. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cherkash (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- ~riley (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg and File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens-svg.svg

Hello.

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg was created from File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens-svg.svg to which it is almost identical and has not been updated since last year and is superfluous in itself. Could you either request its deletion or redirection to File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens-svg.svg?

Thank you.

31.200.17.127 10:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Maphobbyist (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:USMajorityMinorityStates17.png

File:USMajorityMinorityStates17.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Maphobbyist (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Political Formula 1 map

Hi! This map seems a bit suspicious, when looked at closely. And the later maps in the list also seem to contain these details. You are marking Crimea as part of Russia, yet not mapping Kosovo at all. I would guess the logic would be the other way around, as recognition by UN and/or large parts of the UN member state community seem more official. Your logic for not doing so? All the best.—Paracel63 (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This map shows de facto status of the territories at the time. This map is a simple illustration adequate to the subject (F1) and does not make any political statements. There would be no difference between Serbia and Kosovo in the coloring, since both territories never hosted an F1 Grand Prix. Cherkash (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your postings

---

Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions

As a courtesy to other editors, it is Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

--SignBot (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Изменение цветовой схемы на карте ЕАЭС

Ув. Cherkash, недавно Вы загрузили новую версию файла Eurasian_Economic_Union.svg, в которой значительно поменяли цветовую схему. Дабы не быть обвиненным в вандализме, прошу Вас в подобных случаях проявлять элементарную норму вежливости и уважения к чужому труду и обновлять легенды на страницах Википроектов где используются данные изображения (особенно такие популярные). Спасибо за понимание. 83.220.237.73 00:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of {{duplicate}}

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Cherkash. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't OVERWRITE

Thank you that you try to improve the  File:BlankMap-World.svg but you are making some mistakes. You are free to change its style or etc, but don't add to this map such controversial content like "occupied or annexed territories". The original file was uploaded let's say in "UN recognized borders" and per COM:OVERWRITE rule you must respect that. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 16:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken in at least two ways:

1) The territories are present there as options, authors of other more specific maps derived from this are free to use them or ignore them. (In general, this map is not a final product in any way, it's a "blank map" to be colored as the users please.)

2) These territories have been added as an option quite a while ago. Certainly not by me, and certainly it has been discussed elsewhere. So you are not to be making any decisions related to withholding such information from the map. The more optional elements such a "blank" map contains the easier it is for other people to create derivative products – which is the whole purpose of this map in the first place.

And finally, although it's just a side note: I haven't seen you among any of the original authors of this map. So I'm not quite sure why you are trying to advocate things which you haven't been part of making decisions about over the years. If you are trying to push a point about any particular territory you don't like to be included, then make your case clearly – instead of trying to invoke something like OVERWRITE that is not really applicable here. Cherkash (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

File:BlankMap-World.svg

Hi Cherkash. Thanks for updates and the improvements on the blank map of the world. I noticed you reverted the svg code to the scheme whereby unrecognized territories are inside their "parent country" <g> tag. I removed them in a previous version because grouping the territories inside the countries leads to problems when applying styles that should only apply for recognized countries.

In particular, when using this map, I've often applied opacity:1; to all countries that I want to color, so that it automatically displays the circle around small countries. Unfortunately, it also makes the unrecognized countries visible.

I refer you to this version of the file that I uploaded to see the scheme I used instead. χ (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Χ: The problem with separating the unrecognized territories out of their parents <g> groups is that they become colored completely separately, and this may introduce mis-representation issues outside of the scope of simple countries coloring. What you used to achieve with your opacity:1; hack mentioned above, is as easily achievable if you separate in the CSS a group of small countries being colored – and only apply the opacity:1 attribute to them. This also makes it an extra clean indication that you are indeed trying to color some small circles, and not all.

Also, since your argument that "Unfortunately, it also makes the unrecognized countries visible" hints at your default choice of having them colored along with their "parent" countries – so having them grouped with their parent countries in the same <g> tag achieves this automatically just by coloring the parent country. Cherkash (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by misreprentation issues? Unrecognized countries are not shown by default and their parent countries cover the whole territories anyway. Therefore, the styles applied to the parent countries should not automatically cascade to the unrecognized territories. Rather, unrecognized countries should only receive styles explicitly assigned to them, or remain entirely invisible. χ (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Χ: The unrecognized territories actually do show by default, just with a thinner border around them. And coloring of the parent countries retains this styling: i.e. the whole parent country's territory gets colored, with the thin border around the unrecognized territory/ies remaining visible. Cherkash (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I refer you back to the version I linked earlier. In the scheme I used, the limited recognition countries are not visible at all unless explicitly set so. Have a look at Northern Cyprus in the code for example. This scheme is more practical and less controversial in my opinion. It would be beneficial to have your updates and improvements merged with this scheme. I'm happy to participate in this, but I'd rather we discuss it first so we reach a consensus :) χ (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Χ: Please keep in mind that there are countries/territories within this list with quite varying degrees of recognition (e.g. Taiwan and Kosovo are also in this category). So instead of making a judgement call on what should/shouldn't be shown with separate borders, it seems prudent to have some indication of all these territories on the map (instead of hiding them by default) by having thin borders around them – while still grouping them with their parent countries for the purpose of default coloring (i.e. unless someone wants to emphasize the distinction between e.g. mainland China and Taiwan, or Serbia and Kosovo). So like I mentioned above, this achieves the ease of coloring whole countries that you were looking for, while still preserving thin visible borders around these unrecognized territories. I honestly think this is a good compromise that has been achieved quite a while back – and to me it makes sense to preserve it like this. Cherkash (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked soon

---

   This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Commons.

Stop editwarring. --Yann (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not a name fan of Cherkash. But Yann must understand that edit warring is not vandalism. Moreover, IMHO templating a Commons regular with {{Test4}} shows an utter disrespect for the Commons community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Yann, there is no reason to be rude. There is also no reason to be using the words such as "last warning" when it's also the first warning you issue. If you feel some behavior is unwarranted, feel free to discuss it politely – i.e. engage in a civil discussion, not just dole out "last warnings" left and right as if you are the boss and others are clueless underlings who don't know what they are doing. Let me kindly remind you that Wiki is a collective effort of many editors working together with a good will and mutual respect (at least this is one of the project's intentions), so please try to be mindful of this and try to show respect to other editors and contributors. Peace.

Thank you Incnis Mrsi for bringing common sense to this. It's really appreciated.

As for the essence of the complaint that may have forced Yann's hand (although Yann's reaction has not been expressed in the best form possible) – the reason I personally haven't opened a discussion on the relevant Talk page is because I mostly wrote out all the comments in the edit summaries. But I've now put it all succinctly on the relevant Talk page. So this hopefully will prove a more productive forum/method to discuss the issue that led to the earlier back-and-forth reverts. Cherkash (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, it can be at the same time, the first and the last warning.

Incnis Mrsi was recently blocked for harassment, so better to disregard his message above.

Now, I am trying to understand the issue. Please give your opinion on COM:AN. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Russophone.svg

Hello.

In File:Russophone.svg can you color Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the same color as Russia etc., because in that file there are only two categories with countries where Russian is an official language and countries where Russian is widely spoken but is not official.

Thank you.

31.200.11.49 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference between an "official language" and a "state language", because they are different wordings for the same thing (e.g. like "streetcar" and "tramway" for the same type of transport). Russian is an official language at the national level in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and also in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Can you do the changes? I am SVG illiterate and cannot do these changes. 31.200.11.49 12:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@31.200.11.49: I can make the changes, but I need to know what data this map is based on. A good source is required. It could either be a wiki page (on which such data is properly referenced), or an external reliable source. Cherkash (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

In all the countries listed below (both internationally recognized and partially recognized), Russian is a co-official language with equal status:

• Article 7 of the Constitution of Kazakhstan: http://www.akorda.kz/en/official_documents/constitution
• Article 10 of the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/kyr127812E.pdf
• Article 6 of the Constitution of Abkhazia: https://abkhazworld.com/aw/reports-and-key-texts/607-constitution-of-the-republic-of-abkhazia-apsny
• Article 4 of the Constitution of South Ossetia: http://www.parliamentrso.org/node/13

That is why, all these countries need to be in the same color as Russia and Belarus.

31.200.11.49 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@31.200.11.49: I understand about these 4 countries specifically. This is a good start. But I need to have info about the rest of them that should be colored – esp. for those where Russian is claimed to be widely understood. Do you have a source for this data? See examples above what I would consider a passable source. Cherkash (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added credible sources about these countries listed below that are official and/or academic sources.

In these countries listed below, Russian is not an official language, but it is widespread as a mother language, second language, lingua franca and/or de facto working language. Since all of them, except Israel, were under Tsarist and/or Soviet rule or influence, they need to be included. And also Israel, because it has the largest number of native Russian speakers outside the former Soviet Union.

The sources that are in languages other than English and Russian are indicated in brackets and can be translated via Google Translate.

All these sources should be included in this file for reference (and also in other Russian language maps).

• http://www.anetapavlenko.com/pdf/Russian_Linguistics_2008.pdf (especially page 17)

• https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/71/matecconf_icre2018_10005.pdf (from page 6 onward)

• Armenia: https://www.armstat.am/file/doc/99486263.pdf

• Azerbaijan: https://www.stat.gov.az/source/demoqraphy/en/001_11-12en.xls (press on the number 1.12)

• Estonia: http://andmebaas.stat.ee/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RL0433

• Georgia: http://georgica.tsu.edu.ge/files/03-Society/Language/Blauvelt-2013.pdf

• Israel: https://web.archive.org/web/20131013135223/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/newhodaot/hodaa_template.html?hodaa=201319017 (Hebrew)

• Latvia: https://data1.csb.gov.lv/pxweb/en/iedz/iedz__tautassk__taut__tsk2011/TSG11-071.px/table/tableViewLayout1/

• Lithuania: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/217110/Gyv+pagal+išsilavinima_ir_kalbu_mokejima.pdf/b75c5e7a-e733-48fa-95e4-83d485c6726a (Lithuanian, see page 6)

• Moldova: http://statistica.gov.md/public/files/Recensamint/Recensamint_pop_2014/Rezultate/Tabele/Caracteristici_populatie_RPL_2014_rom_rus_eng.xls and http://statistica.gov.md/public/files/Recensamint/Recensamint_pop_2014/Rezultate/Tabele/Caracteristici_populatie_RPL_2014_rom_rus_eng.xls

• Mongolia: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/russian-world-language-and-culture-in-cis-countries

• Tajikistan: https://cabar.asia/en/how-popular-is-the-russian-language-in-tajikistan/

• Turkmenistan: https://analytics.cabar.asia/en/turkmen-paradox-de-jure-there-is-no-russian-language-de-facto-it-is-necessary/

• Ukraine: http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/2015-05-19_ukraine_national_municipal_survey_march_2-20_2015.pdf (from page 155 onward)

• Uzbekistan: https://analytics.cabar.asia/en/russian-language-status-in-central-asian-countries/#_ftn16

I think that the map can now be uploaded. 31.200.11.49 16:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@31.200.11.49: This is a very good list for starters. What's still missing though is a definition of "widely understood". E.g. in some former Eastern Bloc countries, there is a large proportion of population that understands Russian well (if not necessarily speaks it fluently) nowadays. Good examples are some former Yugoslav republics and Bulgaria. Why would these countries not be included? I think we need to have either one of the two: either an agreed cut-off (by absolute numbers or percentage of population) – and corresponding quantitative levels by country that are backed by reliable sources; or a source that we can rely on to have already done this compilation and that have summarized which countries meet whatever the qualitative cut-off may be (I say "qualitative" since it may not be done purely quantitatively). Cherkash (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

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

For editwarring on File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg. You were warned. --Yann (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "See my write-up immediately below" Decline reason: "The following is the sequence of events. 05:41, 11-02-2019 - Cherkash uploads a new version of File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg 16:19, 16-04-2019 - Giorgi Balakhadze reverts 22:24, 16-04-2019 - Cherkash reverts 16:37, 18-04-2019 - Giorgi Balakhadze reverts 12:56, 19-04-2019 - Cherkash reverts 21:02, 27-04-2019 - Giorgi Balakhadze reverts 21:07, 02-05-2019 - Cherkash reverts 06:16, 04-05-2019 - Giorgi Balakhadze reverts 20:33, 05-05-2019 - Cherkash reverts 04:46, 06-05-2019 - A user not involved in the edit war reports it to COM:AN 05:16, 06-05-2019 - Yann, who had never before edited the file and would only be expected to have come to it due to the AN post, warns Cherkash and warns Giorgi Balakhadze 17:46, 08-05-2019 - Yann reverts File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg to an older version, one not favoured by Cherkash, based on that AN discussion 16:47, 04-07-2019 - Cherkash effectively reverts (uploaded a version again containing the disputed regions) 06:38, 08-07-2019 - Giorgi Balakhadze reverts to the AN discussion version, and then alerts Yann to the reversion 06:51, 08-07-2019 - Cherkash is blocked Cherkash unambiguously edit warred, and was the first to "revert" after the AN discussion. The implicit purport that the 4. July 2019 upload was merely remedying a "careles[s]" revision and adding "meaningful updates" is utterly disingenuous. That upload restored the contested content and Cherkash either knew or should have known the issue was not resolved. A delay of several months and use of a "new upload" rather than "revert" mechanism does not mean it was not a continuation of the edit war, and Cherkash apparently made no effort to gain consensus in that time (for example: of Cherkash and Giorgi Balakhadze, Giorgi Balakhadze was the most recent (8 May 2019‎) to comment on File talk:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg). COM:BLOCK requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. To represent here that your "behaviour is not truly an edit-warring on my side" is remarkable and, in fact, evidences that this block was indeed preventative--you clearly do not understand the nature of edit warring (as does the rest of the above; e.g., edit warring is unrelated to which party is "correct" about an issue; the behaviour of others is w:WP:OTHERSTUFF; etc.) and have failed to reflect genuinely on your conduct. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

First of all, I feel that the blocking administrator (User:Yann) has done what was explicitly advised against in the preamble at Commons:Blocking policy: this block was done as a punitive measure for the behavior the administrator personally didn't like. Moreover, the administrator failed to address – or indeed, even to process – the entirety of the big picture and the explanations given by me as to why I was taking action with respect to the file in question. Please see the discussion here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_73#Edit_war_at_File:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg. It was quite obvious to me that after my expanded explanation on May 13 there was no further objection from the admin in question.

Moreover, I explained why the behaviour is not truly an edit-warring on my side. I've actually made proactive attempts to resolve the situation on the image's Talk page with the other user (User:Giorgi Balakhadze) who was the first to initiate (on April 16) what was later perceived as edit warring, and who failed to meaningfully engage in any discussion of the changes, and who also kept misrepresenting his/her actions by claiming he/she tried to maintain the original version of the image (justifying it by a reference to the COM:OVERWRITE "rule" – which is actually not a rule but a guideline), whereas it's clear from the change log that the version they uploaded on April 16 was a new updated image generated by them – so they blatantly violated their own prescription on "no overwrite" they suggested others should follow.

Then later on, when I invited the user "Giorgi Balakhadze" to address the disagreements on the image's Talk page, they failed to meaningfully engage and just wrote a very brief comment (see here) that wasn't substantial and wasn't consistent with their actions as explained in the paragraph above. Whereas all I did was to continue synchronizing the image in question to the main one from which it's a derivation, they kept reverting it to their own non-original version.

Then instead of engaging in the discussion on the image's Talk page, they fabricated false accusations on the Administrators' notice board on May 8 (see here).

Finally, as a reaction to the notice board discussion, the admin ("Yann") early on (i.e. on the same day, May 8) took the side of the complaining user ("Giorgi Balakhadze") rather than wait for any explanation from me. The changes were made to the image again (incl. by Yann themselves) which obviously took into account only one-sided information and which were not even consistent with the arguments of "no overwrite": specifically, Yann reverted the image to the April 16's version by "Giorgi Balakhadze" which would be clear violation of the "no overwrite" argument both "Yann" and "Giorgi Balakhadze" tried to mutually advance.

The admin (Yann) also later on, upon my giving an extended explanation (the latest was on May 13), failed to even acknowledge that he/she saw and processed this explanation. Which, in the absence of Yann's follow-up comments, led me to believe the issue of edit warring was closed without any action, and the appropriate discussion should continue to be held if necessary on the image's Talk page (File talk:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg).

Then, two months later (in July) – having de facto taken "Giorgi Balakhadze"'s side on May 8 and having carelessly reverted to the non-original version by "Giorgi Balakhadze" on May 8 – Yann then banned my account – seemingly in response to my latest meaningful updates to the image: i.e. to keep it synced up with the newest updated version of the original image from which it was derived (File:BlankMap-World.svg). At this point, the original edit-warring issue has long been closed as inconclusive (to state it again, my latest comment on the notice board stood uncontested (see here) so there seemed to be no further issue taken with my actions as they were explained back in May).

That's why I insist this was a punitive measure by the admin ("Yann"), rather than a preventative one (as mentioned at Commons:Blocking policy). If indeed it was a preventative one, the administrator would keep being involved in a meaningful discussion as to the subject matter – most appropriate place would be the image's Talk page – as unlike the other user involved (User:Giorgi Balakhadze), I've shown the desire to discuss the issue and work towards resolution rather than just complain and stonewall like the user "Giorgi Balakhadze" did.

And yet, I was the one blocked – as the administrator early on (i.e. on May 8) took the side of the complaining user ("Giorgi Balakhadze") rather than wait for any explanation from me. And so most likely, having not fully remembered or researched the old issue he/she was involved in back in May, Yann has just had a knee-jerk reaction to the latest updates to what now looked like their (Yann's) latest version (which it clearly wasn't!), and banned me with no good reason.

To summarize: I feel that this ban came out of nowhere, as the admin (Yann) essentially re-opened in his/her mind an old inconclusive discussion and took sides in it (which was not justified by the actual discussion held in May). The appropriate place to address any remaining disagreements would be on the image's Talk page. And the selective ban (esp. since it was applied to me only) seems highly inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. I was blocked based on the essentially closed and inconclusive earlier discussion
2. The other user (Giorgi Balakhadze) actually continued to engage in the disruptive unjustified behavior (e.g. here)
3. The other user (Giorgi Balakhadze) who has been non-cooperative on this, remains unblocked and his/her disruptive behavior is not prevented

As a result:

1. I simply fail to see how this is anything but punitive measure by Yann, which is not justified at all by the Commons:Blocking_policy.
2. And moreover, I feel this action fails to address the need for establishing consensus which should be happening on the image's Talk page rather by selectively blocking one involved user – while leaving the other to continue disrupting consensus-building process and pushing his/her POV instead of engaging in a meaningful, logical, and constructive incremental editing process which is what I was trying to achieve again by my latest edits.

Cherkash (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding temperature

I'd like to know whether the temperature can be added to the graphic

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hours_of_daylight_vs_latitude_vs_day_of_year_cmglee.svg

--188.86.242.179 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding temperature too

I'd like to know whether the temperature can be added to the graphic https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hours_of_daylight_vs_latitude_vs_day_of_year_cmglee.svg

--Backinstadiums (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Upload war

No more upload war over File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg. Please discuss at the file talk page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Cherkash, if you want to spread Russian propaganda, Commons is the wrong project for you. Please stop this! We do not adopt Russian propaganda but only refer to the UN position. Chaddy (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaddy, this is not a political map. It deals with a sport and how its governing body separates its members. The borders relate to that. The UN is irrelevant here. It's just like the FIFA World Cup which separates England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for instance just like that sports governing body does.Tvx1 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is a political map or not in this case. But if you want argue this way: The FIA also assigns the Krim to the Ukraine: [1]. Chaddy (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What you linked Chaddy does not show FIA's position on Ukraine/Russia borders one way or another: e.g. Russia is listed in Europe, but the map doesn't reflect that for most of its territory – so the map shown is just a crude illustration of the parts of the world, not even of individual countries. But if you want to consider the FIA small-size map as its official position, would you then consider also the Kaliningrad Region of Russia separate from the rest of Russia based on that map? ;) There are other inconsistencies, but it should be clear that you can't rely on this map that you linked as a source of anything related to the FIA stance (if there is any at all). Cherkash (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian propaganda is far more not a good idea to rely on for this map. Why don't you just accept the official point of view of the United Nations? This revert war is really dumb. Chaddy (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This map has nothing to do with any particular organization's position. It simply reflects the de facto status of the territories (Crimea is not the only one: there are also Taiwan, etc.). Cherkash (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the way an encyclopaedia works...

But let's try a compromise: We upload two versions of all these maps, one with your borders, one with the official ones. Then the different Wikipedia versions should decide on their own which one they want to use. This procedure is a suggestion of 4nn1l2. Chaddy (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a good compromise; I support it. I will protect the [new and old] files if needed. This is a matter of concern for each Wikipedia project to decide which file they want to use, not Commons, which is just the host and does not take political stances. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, no answer for days. I interpret this as an agreement to 4nn1l2s suggestion. This means now that the maps you have originally uploaded may stay with the russian view of the borders. The version with the UN borders can be uploaded as a separate file. The maps that were originally uploaded by other users though may stay in the UN borders version which means that you have to upload separtate files for that. Chaddy (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You may interpret all you want Chaddy, but you pretty much lost my attention after you wrote "That's not the way an encyclopaedia works" – which shows primarily your misunderstanding of what Commons is (hint: it's not an encyclopedia). 4nn1l2 also told you as much – directly above your last comment. Cherkash (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded new versions of the controversial maps tonight and I really tried to end this conflict. Now I expect you to also do your part and stop this edit war there: File:Formula 1 all over the world-2016-new.svg, File:Formula 1 all over the world-2015-new.svg, File:Formula 1 all over the world-2014.svg. A compromise can't work if just one side gives in.

Furthermore you can't block this prominent redirect which is linked in several wikipedias. We have to find a solution for that, too. Chaddy (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"This conflict" you mentioned exists only in your imagination Chaddy. I don't believe you understand how Commons works (it's been already mentioned above: it's not an encyclopedia in itself, and each wiki's editors can make independent decisions on which illustrations to use). If you want to create your version of images, feel free to do that. In fact, you've already done this with the "UN borders" versions of 2019 and 2020 maps – so you seem to be familiar with the process. With the images mentioned above, I'm simply reverting them to their long-standing versions: I've either created them myself or significantly improved them over the years in their current form. So since your edits on these images are essentially contested, the usual behavior is be-bold-and-edit, but then discuss-if-reverted, and then wait-for-consensus-to-emerge. Since there's no consensus here - feel free to create your own versions instead of overwriting the existing ones. Cherkash (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously we have a conflict for at least several months with several users involved. You know that.

The compromise suggested was that the files uploaded by you can stay in your version, but the files uploaded by other users should stay in their original version. You can upload your own version of these files as I did with the maps you have originally uploaded. This is a fair compromise in which both sides have to retreat a bit but in the end both sides more or less also get what they want. Prospectively this may even be beneficial for you because I suggest you are going to create these maps in the next years and upload them to commons, too - so your version will become the norm either way. I advice you to accept this compromise because I don't see any other fair solution.

By the way, it is sad that you did not feel obliged to answer 4nn1l2s and my well-meant comments from January 3rd here but now you undermine my attempts to solve this dispute. Chaddy (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, you may keep uploading "UN borders" versions like you've done with 2019 and 2020, while the long-standing files I've been uploading over the years get to stay the way they are. I have no problem with that. And I think this is indeed in line with the proposals I've seen. Why do you feel there's any disagreement remaining? Cherkash (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, when there is no disagreement remaining then I will revert File:Formula 1 all over the world-2016-new.svg, File:Formula 1 all over the world-2015-new.svg and File:Formula 1 all over the world-2014.svg.

Finally we have to find a solution for File:Formula 1 all over the world.svg. Chaddy (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere I said you have my agreement to your changing of the existing images. Leave them alone. Cherkash (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to accept a compromise? I also was able to accept a compromise. So why can't you, too? Chaddy (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you. I've accepted a compromise: I've stated above what exactly I consider this compromise to be (which includes your uploading of "UN borders" versions, which are derivatives of – and are based on – the current images). Based on your uploading those files (for 2019 and 2020), I perceived this to be the compromise you were pushing for anyway. So what else is there that you keep ranting about? I think if you upload similar "UN borders" versions for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (instead of reverting the existing images) then we'll be done. Cherkash (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"I've accepted a compromise: I've stated above what exactly I consider this compromise to be (which includes your uploading of "UN borders" versions, which are derivatives of – and are based on – the current images)." - This is not a compromise. This would be allowed by the rules anyway. A compromise would be when you also would move away from your point a bit which would mean that the 2014, 2015 and 2016 maps (that weren't originally uploaded by you would) would stay in the UN borders version and in these three cases you have to upload separate versions. That would not be a big disadvantage for you but a fair solution. Chaddy (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I endorse what User:Chaddy said here. I ask them to revert those files (File:Formula 1 all over the world-2014.svg, File:Formula 1 all over the world-2015-new.svg, and File:Formula 1 all over the world-2016-new.svg) to their original versions (i.e. UN borders) uploaded by User:Pitlane02. User:Cherkash should not revert them again; otherwise, they may see their account blocked to stop this disruption. I will also revert File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg back to the Russian version. The UN borders version (File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019 - UN borders.svg and File:Formula 1 all over the world-2020 - UN borders.svg) have already been uploaded by User:Chaddy. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done with File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Chaddy (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: This naming convention would only cause unnecessary confusion. A better solution would be to name the annual series of "UN borders" maps consistently (in line with how 2019 & 2020 maps are named). The old revisions of the 2014–2016 maps (the original revisions by Pitlane) are not correct anyway: there were subsequent corrections made to them; so simply reverting these 3 maps (2014–2016) to the original old versions is a waste. I can in fact upload the "UN borders" versions of 2014–2016 maps easily: it's a simple SVG code modification that I can easily make. In fact, this is what I've been perceiving all along as a compromise – and a good compromise for that matter. And I could wholeheartedly embrace that. Having the two annual series ("UN" and "non-UN" borders) mix up the file names though is a bad practice – and I strongly suggest this to be avoided. Cherkash (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(a) Consistency of names for a set of files is not a must. However, edit war is a big no-no. If you want the names of the files that you have uploaded to be consistent, you are welcome to make a rename request (COM:FR#FR1) for them to be renamed to something like File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019 (Russian narrative).svg or File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019 (de facto borders).svg, etc. Then, you may achieve consistency.

(b) The current filenames are not consistent. For example, compare File:Formula 1 all over the world-2014.svg with File:Formula 1 all over the world-2015-new.svg.

(c) By "original", I meant the borders according to the Ukrainian narrative. All other useful changes may be kept; only contentious changes (i.e. the Crimea status) should be decided upon User:Pitlane's version. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll respond to all three bullet points you mentioned above @4nn1l2:

(a) I wasn't the one to start it: I've maintained and updated these files over the years without much fanfare, and it's only recently that other users started reverting them willy-nilly. In fact, the fact that a minor issue of how to paint Crimea was taking over many other much more significant (from the perspective of the subject of this map) issues (e.g. choice of colors for color-blind people, or location of the tracks, or factual inaccuracies of what countries were painted or not in earlier revisions) signifies unnecessary politicizing of this process by special interests. The maps I've created/updated were always in line with historical practice of denoting de facto status of the territories – compare e.g. with how the biggest of them, Taiwan, was depicted. So in their over-eagerness to "correct great wrongs" about depiction of Crimea, these users tend to throw the baby out with the bath water: so any other elements can be tolerated to be depicted incorrectly as long as Crimea is colored to their liking. I take objection to this, and I keep reverting such drive-by edits when they are clearly ignoring other issues. It's not an edit war – it's a simple maintenance operation against what could and should be perceived as essentially vandalism.

(b) "File:Formula 1 all over the world-2015-new.svg" was a small artifact at the time this series of images was being extended. At this point (in 2020, i.e. 5 years later), the "new" part of the name doesn't have much meaning anymore, and in fact there is a good reason for renaming it now to drop the "new" part. In the whole 2012–2020 series of 9 files, one file to be renamed is not a big deal (another one, 2016, is cleanly dealt with via a redirect) – and in fact, thanks for reminding me!, I should get around to doing it.

(c) It's not a matter of Ukrainian or Russian narrative. This is a wrong dichotomy here. The subject of the map has nothing to do with the political issues like this. The attempt was more to depict various territories consistently. The original depiction by Pitlane wasn't consistent. And so what I chose was a de facto status (most notably, of Taiwan and Crimea – as the biggest territories visible on the map of this scale). So pretending quite arbitrarily, that it was specifically User:Pitlane's choice how to depict Crimea, flies in the face of reason: first, the subject of the map does not specifically deal with Crimea or Russia/Ukraine, so Crimea's coloring is at best tangential to the topic; second, User:Pitlane never contested my later revisions of the map. Therefore, to be declaring that this one aspect of the map is untouchable/immutable, while other aspects can be changed – is basically your pushing of your personal point of view. I don't think it's appropriate. It would be definitely more logical or appropriate to reject later reverts (incl. more recent ones by Chaddy) to the earlier revisions which have corrupted main features of the map (e.g. locations of tracks). And yet that's not what you chose to do 4nn1l2. You clearly showed your preferences on tangential issues (depiction of Crimea) to the detriment of main subject of these images, and you shouldn't be the one trying to rule on what changes are appropriate and which aren't – since you are not concerned with the main subject of these maps. Cherkash (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you leave it at that? Why have you to push on this any further? I did not insist on all these maps staying in the UN version. So you could easily back down in the case of these three maps. Both of us would have made a step towards each other then and we could finally end this stupid discussion.

Btw. no one said that the other inaccurancies in these maps may not be corrected.

And furthermore this conflict lasts at least since 2015 (see the file/versions history of the 2015 map i. e.: File:Formula 1 all over the world-2015-new.svg) and several different users are involved in it (see the file/versions history of the 2019 map i. e.: File:Formula 1 all over the world-2019.svg). You knew since more than four years that these maps would be controversial and you still kept uploading maps with the Russian interpretation of the borders. So you can not make anyone believe that you are just a innocent victim and the other users would be highly politicising users that only want to destroy your work. Chaddy (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agreed in principle to the resolution suggested: two separate series of the maps. I disagree on the naming convention: since the recently uploaded 2019 and 2020 are named with "UN borders" in their names, I suggested the other such maps for earlier years be named identically. I think this is only logical, and then every wiki's editors get to choose from logically-named series of images. You get all you asked for also. What's your objection? Cherkash (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to move the three existing maps to the "UN borders" title if you think a consistent naming is needed. Chaddy (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

These 3 images have never used UN borders consistently: it's clear if you look at Taiwan borders. So it's more appropriate to just create "UN borders" images separately (to fill in missing images in the "UN borders" series), since the existing images already contain "de facto borders" and are essentially in the right state to belong to the "de facto borders" series. So no renaming is needed for these images, while "UN borders" images should be created with the "UN borders" names right away. As I said before, I'm more than happy to create the "UN borders" images for the missing years. Cherkash (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they have never used UN borders consistently, but that's not the point. Please let us end this silly discussion. Upload your versions of these maps separetly as I did with the other ones. I will now revert them to the compromise version. Chaddy (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Short answer to Cherkash:

• a) The files are reverted because of Crimea, so the most important aspect of these files is Crimea, not Taiwan, etc. We need to settle this silly dispute over Crimea now. After that, other issues will be resolved without much costs.
• b) So, you accept that file names are not consistent at the moment.
• c) You are absolutely right. I don't give a hoot about neither Formula One, nor Crimea, nor Russia, nor Ukraine. I am just here to stop this silly upload war, and I will stop it by protecting the files and blocking warriors. So, this is my last warning for you to immediately stop the war and follow the compromise.

4nn1l2 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Short answer to @4nn1l2:

• a) The Crimea depiction is only tangential to the subject of these images. So you are simply wrong when you state "the most important aspect of these files is Crimea". I already listed other much more pertinent and important aspects of these images which were corrected before and now have been reverted back by Chaddy to incorrect depiction: the choice of colors for color-blind people, location of the tracks, factual inaccuracies of what countries were painted or not in earlier revisions.
• b) They are pretty much consistent. They will become much more messy if we follow a simple-minded approach to "the compromise" (with which, by the way, I don't principally disagree) instead of doing some proactive management of the file names that I suggested (which again, would not violate "the compromise" suggested, but rather enhance it).
• c) Again, as I said in b) above, I don't disagree with "the compromise" – which is, as far I understood it (and which wasn't contradicted when I explicitly described it above), meant having two separate series of the maps. The only thing I kept suggesting is thinking carefully through the filenames to be consistent in each series.

@4nn1l2: So if you insist on simple reverts to the files, and blocking them from being edited, there are two issues:

• Issue 1: The data in 2014–2016 images is incorrect (see "a)" above).
• Issue 2: Inconsistent naming. "UN borders" series will contain "2014", "2015-new", "2016-new", "2019 - UN borders" and "2020 - UN borders" filenames; while at the same time, "de facto" series will contain "2014 - de facto", "2015 - de facto", "2016 - de facto", "2019", "2020". Very confusing for specific Wikis' editors (who were supposed to benefit from two self-consistent series of images) and also contrary to the goal of giving those individual Wikis' editors easy choice of which maps to use. Cherkash (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Great! a) You are welcome to correct those aspects which you consider more important such as location of the tracks. Nobody prevents you from improving these aspects of the maps if you don't touch Crimea (can of the worms); b) As I said before, consistency is not a must, but a good thing in general. I will make a proposal about the file names below.

Issue 1: You are welcome to correct the data provided that you don't touch Crimea status. If you abide by this agreement, I will unprotect the files.

Issue 2: If you both agree, I will move the files myself and make their names consistent. One series with "UN borders", the other one with "de facto". Redirects will remain unchanged (as is). 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 Map

I noticed that you made some updates to the main COVID-19 map posting a NoInkscape template. @Ythlev: This is exactly what I meant when I said I wanted the map to be open to visual graphic editors, so that it is available for editing for a larger amount of users. More users are able to use Inkscape/other graphic editors to update maps, and it was my intention to leave such fastchanging maps as this one open for their use. --Ratherous (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ratherous: More users are able to use Inkscape/other graphic editors to update maps I don't know about that. One involves installing a program and one doesn't. The template map was created to be easy to use. Small territories that are hard to find on the map can still be edited reliably. Ythlev (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: It's quite generally understood that Inkscape is a lot simpler to use for users, as are other graphic editors. A lot of users simply don't know how to edit svg files in any other way. Restricting the map to fewer users is really not ideal. --Ratherous (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If that were true, the template map would not have been created. Ythlev (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm not saying users should be restricted, but encouraged to use text. If one only know how to use Inkscape, they can still do so. Being a primary editor, you should switch to text-editing. Ythlev (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I also don't think the map needs to be updated hourly or something. It's much more important for the information to be accurate than that up-to-date. Updating once a day should be enough. Ythlev (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize if I sounded harsh initially, I definitely do appreciate what you were trying to do with attempting to make the map the most accurate it can be. However, I still think that in the time being while the situation is still changing rapidly, it is best to leave the map open to graphic editors as well. I reverted back to the old map, but updated the format to follow the one you used. I definitely agree that after the situation settles down, this map can go to being text-edit only. Thank you for your help and cooperation. --Ratherous (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous: Since the time you wrote your comment, it was just you and Numberguy6 who edited the map. Numberguy6 showed no difficulty updating the map in its text template form, and you seem to be able to edit text as well. So I'm not sure there's any actual need in specifically making it anything else, blowing its size almost twice, and having clear template structure lost in the process. Cherkash (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ratherous: I'm reverting it to the template form, please re-apply your two most recent updates. Case in point: it's not even clear what the updates are when they are applied in the Inkscape form (in the text form it's a simple matter of text comparison, without any bells and whistles of randomly changing ids/tags, etc.) Cherkash (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said please keep it to the original format while the updates are fast and rapid. While I am able to edit in text-format as well, it is just far more efficient to do so in Inkscape when there are so many changes going on. After the situation comes to a halt, which we will see eventually, the map can be converted. Most readers and users will only see the visual, making that the most vital information, so it is much more important to keep that up to date for now. @Stasyan117 and Bill497: I noticed that you haven't uploaded all day, even though you usually do multiple times. Do you prefer the map being in its original Inkscape format or the text-edited format? --Ratherous (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Re:Iran COVID-19 map: sources?

Hi: The data is from IRNA. And I added the website url.--Alexchris (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alexchris. Cherkash (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Phylogenetic tree-fr.svg and File:Phylogenetic tree.svg

Hello. Wow! That’s a very interesting functionality I didn’t knew about and I already see useful use for the maps.
I made some corrections in names for the French part, but I had some difficulty to do that in Inkscape. For example I tried to add a second line with text, but when I pressed “Enter” in text mode it copied the first line and pasted the text after the first on the same line. Looking at the xml editor, I saw it duplicated line but without any id for it, like a “tspan” as it should have. Playing a bit with the editor I saw that if I add a new element node with “svg:tspan” and then adding a text node I can add a new line of text. Is this the correct way?
I already read the page on Commons talking about this and they say to use the tags <switch>...</switch>, but I didn’t see them in the code. Are they automatically added by Inkscape?
Do you know if there are limitations in the use of that functionality when creating a new image, like when using several layers, raster images embedded in the file, or something else?
Thank you. Sting (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sting: The easiest way to edit French translation would be just with a text editor. Search for "fr" (with quotes) in the text, and you'll find all the instances where you can change translation. To answer your other question: I don't know what limitations there are in complex documents, but I think you can use it wherever <switch> can be used: e.g. you can even make language-specific placement and shape of elements such as arrows, boxes, etc. Cherkash (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will test that functionality on my next map and learn to use it by doing it. Greetings. Sting (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sting: And what about File:Phylogenetic tree.svg? Will you make corrections corrections yourself? If not sure, you can write what needs correcting here and I'll apply. Cherkash (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I will upload a corrected version of the file today. It's just that I was "playing" with that new (for me) functionality yesterday, learning how it works and how to make changes. Sting (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sting: I see that you used Inkscape to edit it. Inkscape actually adds a lot of garbage in the form of id's ("id=..." elements) that bloats files and changes its formatting. It would be much more preferable to not use Inkscape on the files that either weren't originally created in Inkscape, or the ones that have been cleaned after (like this image). As I said above, it would be trivial just to edit your preferred translation in a text editor. Could you maybe do that and re-upload? Oh, and one more thing: green filamentous bacteria has been recently renamed as "en:Chloroflexi (class)" (see e.g. here: en:Chloroflexi (phylum)#History), so I think it's better to keep it that way. Cherkash (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cherkash for these advices. Ok, I will do that.

I wanted also to ask you for another advice: I started to modify one of my maps into a multilingual one (en+fr+default). Well, I did it in Inkscape. It seems to work fine for now as when I open it in the browser it displays it in French. The problem is in the description page of the file: the field allowing to select the language which should be underneath the "Open in Media Viewer" box doesn't show. Why is that? Sting (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sting: Hard for me to tell. Just as a guess, maybe Commons parsing engine gets thrown off by some invalid SVG constructs: see W3 SVG validator? Cherkash (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I found why the language selection doesn't appear: it's because of the shaded relief, which is a raster image embedded in the file. I will now have to find out if this will always happen if there's a raster image, or if it's only a code problem. Sting (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:De facto boundaries: Czech translation

No. I don't think this was accidental and I suggest that you stop this. --GeXeS (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@GeXeS: Thanks for this. Yes, not accidental: see the latest change's summary. In brief: the main (English) page is just waiting in the changes queue, so I've implemented translation changes to keep them in sync. Cherkash (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be (link please?). Nevertheless, what you are currently doing is de-synchronizing the translation and the source. So I am reverting it again and will wait for the queue to finish before changing anything. --GeXeS (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: OK, noticed the changes you are referring to. Well, I don't think this is how you should do it and will consult it with the community. --GeXeS (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@GeXeS: It is actually synchronized between the translation and the source. The only desynchronization is in the translation interface – and even that is temporary (for a technical reason, as I understand). Unless I misunderstood how the translation interface works and for some reason manually editing the individual ".../i18n/lang" pages will cause more problems when the changes on the primary language page get approved by one of the translation admins – is this what you are worried about? Cherkash (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I just think you should wait for the translation admin to accept the changes before you start changing the subtranslations. It makes a mess anyways, because once the change gets accepted, the resulting translation would mark as outdated, even though the formulation would reflect the actual original correctly. --GeXeS (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@GeXeS: Thank you for clarifying this. You may be right. So I will keep this in mind for any future changes to translated pages/templates. The manual for the translation tool wasn't clear to me on this point, so I guess I just jumped the gun ;) Cherkash (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's something I stumble upon from time to time, doing translations. It may not be visible at first sight if one's not familiar with the interface. --GeXeS (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I still don't consider your actions right nor civil. But if you're content with your conscience, there's little to do here. --GeXeS (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@GeXeS: Except the primary template changes have now been accepted. So your initial points about (de-)synchronization no longer apply. In fact, I re-synchronized translation with the original. Or was there another meaning behind your brief message that I missed completely? Cherkash (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope. You haven't missed anything. --GeXeS (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

can you correct the map of Recognition of SADR.svg

This is news reported by the Liberian media with a clear view of "support for the territorial integrity of Morocco” and supports Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara

http://gnnliberia.com/2020/11/21/liberia-voices-support-for-moroccos-operation-in-guerguerat/

https://atalayar.com/en/content/liberia-supports-moroccos-sovereignty-over-western-sahara#:~:text=Liberia%20is%20one%20of%20the%20African%20countries%20that,is%20the%20same%20principle%20that%20applies%20to%20Morocco.

I will wait for the main article to stabilize first. Cherkash (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Toolforge

Hi, I saw that you cleaned Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg from the toolforge garbage. Thank you! Do you have a tool for that, or was it done by hand?
For further improvements, there exists a "no toolforge" tag (when you want to use it) which I added. -- sarang♥사랑 07:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sarang: It was done by hand, which is actually time-consuming.

As for the template, do you mean {{NoToolforge}}? If so, I don't think it's currently usable: it's "under construction" since July 2020. Care to finish editing it? Cherkash (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning by hand is really a tedious doing. I tried to talk with the tollforge makers but I had no success, they do not understand that bloating the SVG code with useless id and tspan can be unwanted, and will make it difficult to maintain it.

NoToolforge had been intermediate for development, since long I could integrate it into NoInkscape where it is one of three 'options' or possibilities; the tag for "no toolforge" is the -. I forgot completely about NoToolforge - thank you for reminding me, I will remove it. -- sarang♥사랑 07:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sarang: I don't think you should be referring to the SVG Translate tool as "Toolforge". It's confusing and misleading: Toolforge is a hosting service and it has many other tools hosted there. So when you use the language in your recently modified templates that refers to Toolforge instead of the specific tool you mean, only a few people can guess what you actually meant to say. Please update your templates with the proper name of this tool. Cherkash (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sarang: Could you do that please? Cherkash (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully now the last occurrence is changed. If you find one more please tell me where -- sarang♥사랑 09:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Russia-Subdivisions with Crimea.png

File:Russia-Subdivisions with Crimea.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Alex Khimich (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Вы" и "вы" в переводах справки и правил

Пожалуйста, не меняйте "вы" на "Вы" в переводах справки и правил. Это неоднократно обсуждалось, и использование "вы" со строчной буквы (там, где этого обращения не удается избежать) делается последовательно и сознательно во всех справочных материалах и интерфейсных сообщениях. --Kaganer (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaganer: А ссылки на обсуждения можно? Cherkash (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Это всё похоронено в архивах 10-15-летней давности. Я себе вот такую ссылку сохранил для памяти. Примерно на этом тексте все всегда и основывались. Поскольку это бесконечное "You/Your" англоязычного текста зачастую вообще не нужно транслировать в русский текст (есть притяжательное местоимение "свой", есть неопределенная форма), то встречая в переводимом тексте такие местоимения, как раз и стоит задуматься о необходимости переформулировать это всё более по-русски. --Kaganer (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Спасибо. По Вашей ссылке как раз однозначно выходит, что надо писать Вы с прописной буквы в контексте справок и правил: грамматически и по смыслу, они все адресованы одному лицу (как и анкеты), т.е. конкретному участнику, а не всем участникам в совокупности. «Ваши действия» — это в контексте правил, указаний и рекомендаций, всегда действия конкретного участника, а не всех участников вместе. Cherkash (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Так может показаться. Тем не менее, сообщество в своё время решило иначе. Вот тут у нас с Вами личная переписка, тет-а-тет. А те тексты - обращены сразу ко всем, к неограниченому кругу лиц. --Kaganer (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Хоть они и адресованы (а не обращены) сразу ко всем, но по смыслу они обращены к конкретному одному пользователю в каждый конкретный момент. Релевантным примером по Вашей ссылке будут анкеты - та же ситуация: обращены к одному, хотя и адресованы ко многим. И там однозначно должно использоваться «Вы» с прописной. Cherkash (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Страницы, публично доступные в интернете, по определению адресованы и обращены сразу ко всем возможным читателям, и при этом - одновременно - к каждому конкретному в отдельности. В общем, я Вас проинформировал о том, какова сложившаяся практика, и что она не случайна. Если будет желание поднять эту тему снова, то прошу делать это на форуме проекта. Я полагаю логичным, чтобы выдерживался единый подход к стилистике справочных и инструктивных текстов во всех проектах Викимедиа. В связи с этим, логичным было бы начинать это обсуждение в русской Википедии, как проекте, имеющем самое большое русскоязычное сообщество. Но Вы можете поступить любым иным образом, по своему усмотрению. чтобы установить и зафиксировать новый консенсус. А пока что везде останется "вы" (со строчной). --Kaganer (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Кстати, в том, что касается анкет, я с Вами также не согласен - там тоже однозначно должно использоваться «вы» со строчной. --Kaganer (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Про анкеты по вашей же ссылке говорится о прописной В - причём даже несколько раз. Так что вы противоречите сами себе, приводя её, но не следуя её рекомендациям. Cherkash (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Возможно, они поменяли текст. Я много лет не заглядывал в эту тему. Вики-обсуждения нужно искать, на это сейчас времени нет. Как бы то ни было, последние 15 лет все тексты пишутся со строчным "вы", и если хочется это поменять, то предлагаю Вам инициировать новое обсуждение. Но я бы не советовал.
Про анкеты я написал просто к слову, это моё личное мнение. --Kaganer (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

PS:Исходня ссылка на Грамоту - вот эта. --Kaganer (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

«Под лицензией» > «по лицензии»

Ещё одно замечание: не «под лицензией», а «по лицензии». --Kaganer (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

О шаблоне {{Pg}}

В шаблоне {{Pg}} первый параметр трогать не следует. Переводить нужно только второй. Если второго нет, то можно его добавить именно с русским переводом. --Kaganer (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pridnestrovie/ru

Нужно было дополнить Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Transnistria (по-английски), если там чего-то не хватает. --Kaganer (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Вы это к чему? Cherkash (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

К тому, что не нужно было создавать отдельную русскоязычную страницу, дублирующую уже имеющуюся. Страницы "/ru" - это переводы базовых англоязычных страниц, как правило делаемые через расширение перевода. Исключения - просто устаревшие переводы, ещё не переведенные на систему с расширением. --Kaganer (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Это и был стандартный интерфейс перевода. См. плашку "Other languages" наверху англоязычной страницы. Cherkash (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Переводимой страницы Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pridnestrovie не существует. Это перенаправление на Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Transnistria, и её перевод на русский - Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Transnistria/ru. Сравните, пожалуйста, эти тексты, и если что-то считаете нужным добавить - сделайте это сами или сообщите мне. После этого я заменю Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pridnestrovie/ru перенаправлением на Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Transnistria/ru. --Kaganer (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

SVG optimization

Hi, the optimization on File: Coat of arms of the Soviet Union 1.svg consisted of reducing the file size, as you can verify there is no visible changes. I used an free app called SVG Cleaner, so I could remove unnecessary information, such as many duplicated gradients, invisible elements and unused metadata that demanded a lot of space in the previous file. --C records (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying C records. Unfortunately, the file has become human-unreadable in the process, and minor changes that are sometimes easier to do by hand are impossible now. This may be less of a concern for this particular file, but quite a concern for a lot of other SVG images. Is there any way to specify for this tool to maintain file formatting (indentations, etc.)? There may also be other non-obvious changes (like converting text into traced shapes, etc.) that may go unnoticed but are often highly undesired. Finally, some sort of more strict verification than eye-balling two images (pre- and post-simplification) would be useful to have. Cherkash (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you had that problem, I tried disabling all actions in settings and the problem persisted. I have used a similar setting on many files, so I hope to avoid this problem in the future. Please check if this file it can be easily modified as yuo need, I have opened it in Inkscape and saved again, the size is still reduced and format is back, apparently. --C records (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The images in this particular case look alike, C records. But you need to know that this strategy you suggested (of using Inkscape for file-formatting) is by no means universal: Inkscape leaves its own garbage in the SVG code. So it's not clear why to try to get rid of one perceived problem (bigger, possibly non-optimized SVG code), only to introduce another (garbage in SVG code). Cherkash (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Formula 1 all over the world-2021.svg

File:Formula 1 all over the world-2021.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

RMN120501 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

do not overwrite

Hi Cherkash, do not overwrite existing images, such as File:Figure 36 04 02.jpg, especially not with a different image in another language. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Figure 36 04 02.jpg

File:Figure 36 04 02.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Asia Cooperation Dialogue member states.svg requires updating

Hi Cherkash,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed File:Asia Cooperation Dialogue member states.svg is out of date. Palestine joined ACD Could you update it? Thanks again. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226:  Done Cherkash (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Formula 1 all over the world-2023.svg

Copyright status: File:Formula 1 all over the world-2023.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Formula 1 all over the world-2023.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 02:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Lades2222 (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Russian Citizens.svg

File:Visa requirements for Russian Citizens.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Lades2222 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Marina Bay circuit 2023.svg

Copyright status: File:Marina Bay circuit 2023.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Marina Bay circuit 2023.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)