User talk:Reguyla/Archive 001

; Archives
	1

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Reguyla!

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.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Good luck with AWB, I hope you find plenty of stuff to improve with it. Fæ (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes there seems to be a lot of Uncategorized stuff to work on. Reguyla (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted categories[edit]

Hi, Reguyla. It looks like you've been looking at Special:WantedCategories to get ideas of categories to create. Please slow down on creating these, and give yourself time to become more familiar with how categories are named, organized, and defined here. People put categories on files without being familiar with the category structure and requirements, and those categories show up at WantedCategories. Just because someone put a category on some files, even if it's on a lot of files, doesn't mean the category should be created. It can be better to leave a category as a red link until you're sure that 1) it really needs to be created (as opposed to moving the files to an existing category or creating a category with a different name), 2) a category doesn't already exist, and 3) you know how to fully define the particular kind of category you're looking at.

You can use a topic's Wikipedia article to help with this: (English Wikipedia would be better for this than Simple English Wikipedia, where I know you have also edited.)

The categories used in the article can give you a good idea of what categories to use here.
If the article links to a Commons gallery or category, that gallery or category might have a category you could use.
If the article has any images in it and those images are stored at Commons, they might be in a category you could use.

When you do create a category, please keep the following in mind:

A category listed as wanted may already exist under a different name. You created Category:Jeffrey Talley. A category for him already existed at Category:Jeffrey W. Talley.
Many categories are in "sets" and use templates for standard setup. You created Category:1970s establishments in Italy with two hardcoded categories. If you look at Category:1870s establishments in Italy, you will see that it uses template {{Italy establishment decade}} to give a standard set of four categories and a standard navigation box at the top. The category you created should use the same template. Most categories that are some combination of date and place use this kind of template.
Many of the redlinked categories have names that look correct but are slightly misspelled. An example is Category:Public Schools in Texas. The word schools should be in lower case. In some cases, the correctly spelled categories already exist.
Try to make the categories you assign be at as low a level as possible. You created Category:Kennedy Field with the categories "Baseball" and "Cleveland". I diffused them to "Baseball venues in Ohio" and "Sports venues in Cleveland".
Fully categorize any categories you create. You created categories about several military locations, and included only categories for a conflict. The main categories for those should indicate what military organization they belong to, exactly where they are, when they were established/disestablished, etc. Most would not need a category for a conflict if they exist for a longer period of time than an individual conflict.
Some categories at WantedCategories have good names, but shouldn't be created. An example of this is categories that have decades in their names, such as Category:Commerce in the 2000s. These categories are often applied by templates, although we don't actually use them. I've changed some of the template to stop assigning the categories.

I haven't yet checked all the categories you reated, but I think this gives you the idea. Maybe before you create any more categories, you could go back and check the ones you've already done. Feel free to ask if you'd like any more help with this. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your right I was trying to clean out the wanted categories list and thanks for pointing those out. As you noted I am still fairly new to Commons so I am still learning the naming schema for some of the things. You pointed out some good problems above and I'm glad you fixed those templates so the problems won't continue. Some of what I was doing was just trying to get rid of the red links so your right in some cases I didn't know what the lowest level category might be and in some cases further refinement is needed and in many cases additional categories will also be needed. IMO thought its better to have a category that's maybe not quite as specific as it could be to non at all that can be refined further by others who are more familiar with the topic. I'll go back and look at some of the ones I created and see if I notice anything that should be changed.Reguyla (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, once you create a category, not many people will see it any more, so we don't realize it needs work. It's better to leave it red so that it shows up at wanted categories. At least there, it's on a list that people look at sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really agree with that. But like I said I do plan on continuing to refine things as I go. For example I have been adding cats to a lot of the Uncategorized images as well. As an example, adding related images to Category:Men, then I can refine some from there, but its better to at least be there, than in the uncategorized group. Reguyla (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating empty categories for deletion[edit]

In case no one has mentioned it, it's simpler and quicker to use the template {{Empty page}} than to create a discussion. Just be sure not to use the similarly-named template {{Empty category}}, because that's for a different purpose. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reguyla (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about so I checked your contributions. When I created those categories there were files in them, so at some point since someone must have removed the files from them and moved them to somewhere else. Reguyla (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Sealing stamps[edit]

Hi Reguyla, you have created some subcategories of Category:Sealing stamps like Category:Sealing stamps of Berlin, Potsdam. These category proposals are generic proposals from the Veikkos database. Usualy they should propose Category:Sealing stamps of <city>. In this case, the categories should be subcategories of the city mentioned and the Category:Sealing stamps of <country> by municipality (usualy Category:Sealing stamps of Germany by municipality or Category:Sealing stamps of Austria by municipality). Sometimes like in Category:Sealing stamps of Berlin, Potsdam the proposal does not make any sense. Postdam and Berlin are different cities. This category should be removed and replaced by Category:Sealing stamps of Berlin or Category:Sealing stamps of Potsdam.--Karsten11 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Karsten11: for the note. I wasn't aware of how those categories were built and although I new potsdam and Berlin were different cities I thought this might be different, like a subsection of the city like the bronx or brooklyn are part of New York City so I didn't give it much thought. Hopefully I got most of them right though but please let me know if I made any other mistakes and I'll try my best to fix that. I'm in the middle of somsthing offline at the moment but if someone hasn't beaten me to it when I am done I'll come back and fix the ones you mention above. Reguyla (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men_named_John[edit]

Category:Men_named_John has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

I have 001 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Commons:Rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Alan ^(talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks. Reguyla (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

I rarely read my own edit summary- so typos do get through. Have you checked your own recently? It is saying: Cleanup grammer, typo's and formatting which is good for a smile. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, good catch. I'll fix that. Reguyla (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - April - Back side/Voting[edit]

I'm afraid I'll have to remove the votes you added to this challenge after 31 May 2015. I'm sorry I didn't update the page to make it clear that voting had closed. However, I can only accept votes during the month voting is open. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. Reguyla (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Reguyla, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I promise I'll be careful. Now I can help DragonFlySixtySeven clean out his subpages. Reguyla (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your DRs[edit]

Hi, Stop creating nonsense nominations with reason "out of scope". Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann

Could you clarify which one you think is "nonsense"? Reguyla (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About yours comments[edit]

Hi, Colin is right. You should use your competencies to produce things useful instead of arguing about blocks, admins, and banned users on the various Admin boards. Honestly I don't think your comments about Magog's and EChastain's cases bring anything useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Its ok to disagree, but please don't come here and insult me because I don't just line up with everyone else in the mob with my torch and pitchfork. Magog fucked up and everyone knows that. But you and a couple other people clearly think they should be let off because of their status as an admin. I think the block they gave themselves was a sufficient punishment. So we agree that they shouldn't be desyspped we just disagree on why. As for EChastain, I have already said I don't know or care if they are Matisse, they may well be. They point is that they are a benefit to the project here and have done good work on this project. We should not follow in the footsteps of the ENWP project that has a long and well known history of abuse, corruption and you nor anyone else has provided any evidence at all that I am wrong. So if you disagree on EChastain then please provide some evidence of how they are a net negative on this project and why they should be banned. Reguyla (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to be a problem. Instead to acknowledge and think about that, you continue, and your comments are less and less productive or useful. It is really time for you to review your participation here. Yann (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann Please rewrite that to make sense. I have no idea what you are talking about. I commented in several discussions of the last few days so without some link or direction your less than well written comment has no point. Reguyla (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ravi Puravankara.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

Storkk (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I corrected the link to en:John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1854) that you refer to on your user page. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thanks for the help. Reguyla (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked soon[edit]

বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

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

I already warned you twice about useless contributions. Your last post on the VP is just useless trolling. This is the last warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Yann (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to clarify that I did not at anytime vandalize anything on this project nor was I trolling and I am insulted at the insinuation that I did. We may disagree on the topic, but it was neither vandalism nor was it trolling. Reguyla (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked[edit]

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.

It seems you don't want to listen to warnings. You have 3 days to review your participation here.Yann (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann I just wanted to note that there is no reason to block me over a minor disagreement. Its pretty obvious you are not a very good administrator but this is a pretty stupid and petty thing to do. I obviously saw your warning and treated it appropriately as any threat like that should be treated. Also, its my talk page so please show me what policy says I cannot revert obvious trolling, even if it is by an admin! Also, I was not trolling. I started a discussion about a serious incident on another wiki that has real consequences on this project and had a very recent event associated to it. That isn't trolling, that is concern and its all the more troubling that you cannot or will not tell the difference. Reguyla (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I support Yann's actions and wish we had more admins who dealt with user-behaviour-issues compared with the relatively less troublesome issue of image deletions, etc. Reguyla's post to the VP was indeed trolling and a clear case of cherry picking to provoke. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin why are you trolling my talk page? Had you read the discussion, which you clearly didn't you would see it related directly to a recent incident we had here on this project. Please don't come back to my talk page and start trouble again. In fact I highly recommend you remove my talk page from your watchlist and I will do the same with yours. Also, blocking me was a clear overreaction to a misunderstanding an difference of opinion. It does not warrant a block. You and Yann need to stop doing this tag team crap you do on discussions throughout commons. Its abusive behavior that has no place on a collaborative environment. Reguyla (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yann Could I get a link to any policy or guideline on commons that shows I shouldn't revert comments on my userpage? Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point then Yann I will assume that there is no policy here about reverting contributions to ones talk page. Can you please unblock me as this was clearly a misunderstanding and minor difference of opinion? Reguyla (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request declined

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

Request reason: "I apologize if I acted incorrectly. I started a discussion about a serious problem on another wiki that has a direct correlation to a recent case we had here regarding an editor who did over 50, 000 edits who was banned without proof and based on arbitrary evidence. I also am unaware of any policy on this wiki that says I cannot revert obvious threats and trolling on my userpage, even if by an admin and I have asked for a link to clarifying guidance pertaining to that action. I do not think there is a need to block me based on a disagreement and with an accusation of trolling, which I was not doing. Reguyla (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Decline reason: "Sorry mate but you really pushed your luck on that one. Instead of addressing the points you use plain ad hominem to justify your behavior and that is not the kind of behavior that is acceptable at Wikimedia Commons. You should know when to drop the stick and if you don't drop it in time you end up blocked. It is just plain logic and you very well know that we don't have a "anti trolling policy" that is why we use common sense. The last time I checked I didn't have a bone in that fight so that should make me uninvolved enough. Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

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

Natuur12 no problem. Thanks for taking a look. Its unfortunate a minor disagreement led to a three day block but such is the nature of editing the projects these days. Truth is I will be pretty busy for the next week so I wouldn't be able to edit much anyway until after Sunday. In addition to that I do not have the same passion for editing as I do for Wikipedia so its really not that big of a deal for me if you want to block contributors in this project over misunderstandings. Reguyla (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry, may be I was not clear. As I said here, I don't mind unblocking you right now if you understand why you were blocked, and you agree not to do it again. As two experienced users have said following your message on the VP (LX, Pitke), as Natuur12 said above, and Colin said many times on several places, that post was not appropriate. In short, you should not use Commons as a forum against a WP issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Odder, Natuur12, Colin, and Nick: , Michaeldsuarez, Jkadavoor. Here is what I know about this situation Yann. I started a discussion in good faith in the Village pump about a situation on ENWP that recently occurred and relates directly to this project and just happened to a Commons user with over 50, 000 edits within the last 2 weeks. You repeatedly threatened and insulted me on my talk page with nonsense allegations and absurd notions. So I reverted the last one you did to my talk page as obvious trolling and as a personal attack. Then you used your admin position to gain the upper hand in a disagreement and blocked me for 3 days with false allegations of trolling and reverted your threats and personal attack back to my talk page for a minor disagreement when there was no prevention needed (in other words its obviously a punitive block an a way for you to get the upper hand in a discussion). Then, I requested an unblock and it was denied. Ok fine, I am busy this week anyway so a three day block isn't that big of a deal even if I do not agree with it. Then odder unblocks me, you reblock me and now there is the starts of edit warring over whether I should be blocked or not just so you can prove your point as an administrator.

Now lets get down to brass tacks. This entire issue is stupid and was preventable and if you were a decent admin it wouldn't have started in the first place. You are causing a disruption on the project at multiple pages including here on my talk page arguing over block symantics and wasting time when pretty much everyone here knows there is not only no need for a block, but certainly no need for an edit war over it nor is there need for a discussion about it ...and yet you are arguing that I have behavioral issues when its clearly you with the poor behavior. So no, there is no need for a block and I consider the matter closed as a minor disagreement that you blew out of proportion causing an irreversable mark on my record on this project. Remove the block or leave it to run its course, I really don't care its just not that big of a deal. Everyone should quite wasting time on it and move on to more important things. Reguyla (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I would also add Yann that this continuous tag teaming in discussions that you and Colin do to help each other win discussions is far more problematic than anything I have done and the fact that you extended my block farther than it was originally just to prove your point are additional evidence of your ineffectiveness and incompatability as an administrator on this site. Reguyla (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reblocked with the original time (-8h). Yann (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Finally! Eventhough no block is really needed that's at least a bit better. Reguyla (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been unblocked[edit]

I have now unblocked your account as it was blocked without any grounds in policy by an involved administrator. There is no Commons policy that prohibits users from discussing issues from other projects, including the English Wikipedia, and the block is clearly punitive in nature, as there is nothing to defend the project from. With that said, you are hereby awarded a smack to the head for reverting a warning from an administrator. Just don't do that again. odder (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally inappropriate. Natuur12 explained the issue quite clearly above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Odder's rationale is sound. The Mellow / Civility police is a major issue on this wiki. You guys really really go too far in your attempts to prevent conflicts. I endorse unblocking, although my standing within this community is particularly weak. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to reduce your block by eight and half hours since you already served that time. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Odder, and Natuur12: I'm glad you admins worked things out between you so can we please now resolve that actual problem of my block now that the project infighting bullshit is overwith! At the very least my block should be restored to the original expiration time rather than the new one than Yann established with his wheel warring! Reguyla (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Cat seeks to limit your freedom to speak[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=168100999&oldid=168089375

I'm letting you know about White Cat's proposal in case you stopped watching that topic. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I indeed was not still watching it and just responded. As an admin they know better than to do that, but I expect no less from admins these days. Sometimes I really hate being proven right about my observations.:-( Reguyla (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked[edit]

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.

You've been warned to not use every occasion to soapbox. One week block.Pleclown (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine if you want to send a message to the community about criticizing admins by blocking me Pleclown but I wasn't soapboxing. I was making a valid comment about a problematic admin on a discussion regarding that admin. If you guys want to give me a one week block to protect your fellow admin from criticism and show everyone that criticising admins is not ok regardless of how they conduct themselves on wiki that's up to you but I really think your sending the wrong message by enabling that admins problematic behavior. Since I see that you aren't blocking anyone else in the discussion I am left with the feeling that it isn't what I said in that discussion but because its me that said it. In which case, you all need to grow up, act like adults and address the real problems on the site. If you don't want people to criticize admin conduct then you need to deal with that conduct when it occurs though open and honest discussion followed by appropriate action. Since you feel its more important to punish editors who identify that problematic behavior, its possible you are part of the problem. Its becoming clearer and clearer to me why its the same dozen people that are the only ones editing here. Others have seen the environment and left. Reguyla (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Between this block and this edit by Yann I can see you all are just circling the wagons to protect one of your fellow admins. No reason to think anyone is going to get treated fairly here since its been shown over and over that decisions on ENWP apply here. Reguyla (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request declined

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

Request reason: "This block is a pointless waste of time. I made a valid comment about a problematic admin and I was blocked by his pals. I don't really care about the time because I haven't had much time to edit lately to edit here and don't really feel welcome anyway, but I don't want it said that I agreed with this block and didn't argue against it. Reguyla (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)}"[reply]

Decline reason: "You have been blocked by now by three different administrators. That case the first question is "Do you know, what did you do incorrectly?" Your answer "Nothing" is wrong and does not deserve unblock. Taivo (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

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

Steinsplitter, Odder I don't know if you remember but this is exactly the complaint I had mentioned when Yann wheel warred over the block he gave me. Now, if an admin doesn't take the time to actually read the reasons or look at the comments, which is often the case and is what was done in the comment above, it looks like I have been blocked by three people. Now my block log is blown up which just causes pile on blocks for any little thing because people look at it and just add another one without looking. We need to have a way to clean out block logs so when an admin screws it up, we can fix it and not continue to hold the editor hostage to a block, especially one that shouldn't even be there in the first place. Reguyla (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try again[edit]

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: "Actually Taivo you need to look closer at my block log. Yann blocked me unfairly, it was reverted by Odder, then Yann got into an edit war over it, Steinsplitter tried to fix the date issue that was screwing up the block because Yann is inept and now I got blocked because I commented about Yann in a discussion. There was only 2 different admins who blocked me and zero valid blocks. Reguyla (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Decline reason: "(Procedural decline only) I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Commons, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the Wikipedia guide to appealing blocks for more information. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

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

No, thank you. Let now somebody other also try. Taivo (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Taivo, if you want to make incorrect decisions because you don't want to take the time to research the problem and not read the evidence correctly then I would prefer someone else did look at it. Reguyla (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well its good to know that people take unblock requests seriously on this site rather than leave them sit unchanged for days. Reguyla (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no one has the time to look into this? Are we just going to ignore it for the week of the block? Reguyla (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre Just FYI, I understand why I was blocked but do not agree that blocking people for valid criticism of an admin in a discussion about their conduct is a valid reason for a week long block. 2nd, there is not nor has there ever been in any of my blocks damage to this or any other project nor was there disruption. I have always made useful contributions I am well aware of what the guide to appealing blocks says but I have no intention to admit I did anything wrong when I did not simply to appease Yann's ego or that of their pals who threatened an then blocked me. This block is not based on policy, but on support for a fellow admin who is inept and whom I was offering valid criticism. If this project does not need me to edit this week then by all means leave me blocked. Especially when convince is really a term used on these projects to beg the admins forgiveness. The better avenue here would be for you admins to remove Yann's access to the admin tools to prevent them from continuing to destroy this project with his ineptitude, abrasiveness and complete lack of respect for others and their views. He has no place as an admin. Reguyla (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job of yelling your point. You're doing a terrible job of proving it. Neither I nor any other administrator who is not intimately involved in your conflict will have any idea what is a bad block and what is a good block until you provide the history. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre First, I am not yelling but I am getting pretty frustrated and I wish the admins had to justify a reason to block someone rather than leaving the burdeon of proof on the editor! So here is the explanation. Yann is a problematic admin with a history of problematic behavior and I and others have mentioned that multiple times. In Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Yann and excessive zeal in DENYing Russavia this discussion Andy Dingley identified an ongoing issue with Yann's conduct so I commented about it as well indicating that is conduct was not a one time occurrence but reflected a pattern of ineptitude as an admin, poor conduct and abuse. Then in that discussion one of Yann's admin friends, Natuur12 accused me of wikihounding and threatened me so I replied there and on Natuur12's talk page that I didn't appreciate it. Then Pleclown blocked me for a week in a show of support for their fellow admin rather than addressing the real problem which is Yann's conduct. Now that discussion is resolved and there is zero reason for this block. But because it appears that its too hard to assume good faith in this project for anyone who actually comments about a problematic admin in a discussion related to their conduct that its easier to ride out their block rather than argue against it. For further proof of Yann's inept use of the admin tools and lack of respect for others decisions look at my block log. He blocked me, another admin unblocked me, Yann didn't agree and got into an edit war over it messing up my block log so now it looks like I have been blocked multiple times when in fact the first one wasn't even valid. I could go on providing a long list of links and evidence but the end result would probably be for one of his friends to delete the edit and hide it from public view.

So again, there is zero need for this block. It does not protect the project from abuse or disruption because frankly I am busy IRL at the moment and not even editing that much. If you need more proof than that, then you need to due some due diligence and review Yann's edits and interactions with others first hand to see it. If anyone is being wikihounded its me. Reguyla (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All being said, I see that you were blocked on English Wikipedia, and are bringing the same issue up here.

"But that's a different project, and I shouldn't be judged based off what happened there," you might respond. To which I might respond that Commons is not a bureaucracy anymore than Wikipedia is. I certainly don't have any desire to rehash something that's already been rehashed to death on another project. We can and will take into account poor behavior elsewhere. I can't speak for other users, but I'm definitely not particularly keen on importing drama from anywhere.

There's something to the story of the boy who cried wolf here. Even if you have a decent point, it's completely drowned out by the disruption elsewhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre First I want to clarify I am not bringing drama here. Drama here is being assumed because a couple idiots from ENWP got me banned and they and their pals are so dead set against me editing there that they won't even follow a community decision to unblock me. A lot of people are seeing that my ban on ENWP is a farse though and the fact it hasn't been lifted is drawing attention so we'll see what the future holds on that issue. Its interesting that you pick that story because, depending on the version of it, the people who don't listen and disregarded the message ended up regretting it. So should I then assume that you don't have any desire to unblock my account? Since blocks are only done to protect the project and prevent disruption, there is no need to have a block in place that prevents something that was never an issue. If the intent of this block is merely to show everyone not to criticize an admin here no matter how inept they are at being an admin I think this block does a terrific job but its not really according to policy. Its only edits that aren't getting done though, no big deal. Its not like there are a million pages on backlog waiting to be categorized or anything. Reguyla (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reguyla, you have refused to even allow that there might be a point to what other people have said that got you blocked, despite the fact that there was ample discussion and many many people who pointed this out. From this unusually blunt essay: If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being [a jerk], the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. If you persist in believing this overly simplistic narrative of "I was only blocked for speaking truth to power," rather than the truth which is that it's the entire subset of behavior, then you will never convince the community of anything and get your point across.

In my years of policing drama at English Wikipedia, it has been my experience that people who operate under this kind of im-never-wrong-martyr mindset are quite problematic.

In any case, preventing drama is absolutely critical to the project. I will unblock if you promise to drop the stick. If you aren't willing, I will not unblock your account. Sorry.

As I said, you might have a point. But the way you've utterly refused to listen to what anyone else is telling you about that point, while ironically demand that everyone listens to you has completely drowned that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I may take time to look at your complaint here eventually. But I do not want to do it right at the moment. You may or may not like what I find. I have actually gotten indef blocked users unblocked in the past, but I've also extended blocks on people (the latter happens only occurs when further disruption occurs during the discussion). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre I never refused to admit anything nor did I say their was no validity to any of their comments but when I have the same 2 or 3 admins following me around threatening to block me pretty much every time I comment in a conversation shouting soapbox, it gets pretty frustrating. And I really don't consider some of the comments they are making to be "reasonable" as you put it.

Sure some of my comments have the same theme, but if the discussion is already about that theme, such as this one was, then there is no reason to block me for soapboxing because I comment on it. Its also not valid to block someone because some admin threatened to do so for an arbitrary reason. They didn't comment on the editor who started the discussion for "soapboxing" so I am left with the feeling it wasn't the comment that I made but that it was me that said it that led to the block.

There never was any disruption and I would argue that this discussion on my talk page is more disruptive and time consuming than the block purpose ever was. So if getting edits done is more important than proving points then unblock my account. Otherwise, if getting edits done on commons isn't really that big of a deal and if the multiyear backlogs with tens of thousands of articles on them are manageable with the current group of editors, which is mostly the same group of a dozen admins, then let the block stand. Frankly I don't feel as passionate about commons as I am about ENWP so its really not that big of a deal to me if Commons is a club that I am not wanted in. There is a lot of work that needs to be done here though so I would consider it a shame, but its not really that big of a deal. It would however explain why so many people refuse to edit here and why commons has such a bad reputation.

As for unblocking me, that's up to you. Its almost up anyway so if your not willing to see through this charade of a block then leave it for the last 2 days. I haven't edited this project that much anyway (you might have noticed the break banner at the top of the page) thanks to the conduct and attitude of Yann and a couple of his pals so I wouldn't do more than a couple hundred edits this weekend anyway. A week long block for making a comment about a problematic admin is absurd but frankly to be expected from a WMF project where admins are gods and editors are considered untrustworthy and useless. Reguyla (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre Well Magog the message here is pretty clear to me. If an admin on commons wants to block someone they don't agree with its not only acceptable but also condones. So if you are an admin and someone says something you don't like all you have to do is claim "disruption" and block them. The other admins won't unblock you and will just drag the discussion out for the duration of the block to set that point. Blocks on these projects should be based on policy not on the arbitrary whims of any admins individual discretion. Whats worse is once the block is done, good or bad, they are stuck in the block log forever and cannot be removed. So even the messes that are made like in my block log that Yann did through his own arrogant wheel warring with another admin are stuck and then used as justification of problems later. Its pretty disgraceful really and I am really disappointed in you and the other admins on this site that allow it to happen. Reguyla (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats admins, you managed to prevent a lot of edits being done to benefit the project during a long weekend when I was online a lot. Way to go, really good way to keep the project down so you can make sure your POV is the only one. Reguyla (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we making changes like this[edit]

Magog the Ogre Why are we making changes like this. I would think we would want to know the history of where the image came from rather than wipe it out, leave it blank and force people to search through the diff history. Reguyla (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ on the bot's page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland and Ohio[edit]

See COM:OVERCAT. Following your suggestion isn't just a good idea: it's policy. I'm just harmonising category names right now, not working with the Cleveland folks, but if you want to remove the Ohio category from the Cleveland people, go ahead. Alternatively, if you want to help but don't want to remove them, give me a list of duplicates and I can remove them with just a little effort. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem I can take care of it, I just wanted to run it by you since I saw you doing a related list. Reguyla (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shanghai_heritage_Architecture[edit]

Shanghai heritage Architecture has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Fayhoo (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Borna_Libertines[edit]

Category:Borna_Libertines has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Sgt Freddy Gonzalez.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sgt Freddy Gonzalez.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Sgt Freddy Gonzalez.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jarekt (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOH William G. Harrell.JPG[edit]

File:MOH William G. Harrell.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOH George D. Keathley.JPG[edit]

File:MOH George D. Keathley.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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

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

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

Affected:

File:MOH Eli L. Whiteley.JPG

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Jose Calugas.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Jose Calugas.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Jose Calugas.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: If you look at this edit, you'll see that information was there until Ogrebot deleted it! So my suggestion would be for someone to get Ogrebot to quite wiping out that information. Reguyla (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OgreBot didn't remove any source information. OgreBot only moved information stating that the file was from English Wikipedia to some other location. English Wikipedia is not a source in itself, so if, as in this case, there is no source at English Wikipedia, the file gets tagged as missing source on Commons, as it was also tagged on Wikipedia.

If you have complaints about what OgreBot does, then I suggest that you discuss this with the bot's operator. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its no biggie. I used the commons helper tool so maybe I will drop them a note. I just did a quick look around and didn't find a free version on the net that I can see at quick glance. There are several for him though in various open source Military sites that I can upload though. If you want to delete this one its fine with me. Reguyla (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ #3 on User:OgreBot 2. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre and Stefan2: It's really no biggie. Just delete the file if you want. However, if the way that the CommonsHelper tool is not wanted, then someone should either talk to the developer to change that behavior or have them deactivate the tool and stop using it. I only used the tool based on files that were marked as such on ENWP but I see little point in using that tool if 2/3's of the data it adds is just going to be deleted by a bot so that someone else can come along and mark it for deletion. If you look at the Category, Category:Files uploaded by Reguyla you will see a lot more with the information wiped out by Ogrebot. No need to delete those files individually and fill up my talk page, just do them as a group and get it over with. Reguyla (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also dropped Magnus a note on his talk page with a couple suggestions for improving the CommonsHelper tool. You can see the comments I made at his talk page. Reguyla (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're hitting the wrong target. The bot didn't remove anything. The original upload log is still there. But the source was never there. The problem was the original upload. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jose Calugas.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOH Thomas W. Fowler.JPG[edit]

File:MOH Thomas W. Fowler.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, sorry about that. Reguyla (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Alexander Skinker.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Alexander Skinker.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Alexander Skinker.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feel free to delete it. I just looked around the net and can't find that image so I don't have any references. I just moved it over here from ENWP. Reguyla (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=No longer needed. Author request|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'delete'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=No longer needed. Author request|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=No longer needed. Author request|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=No longer needed. Author request|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'reason'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=No longer needed. Author request|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB-settings.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.css[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.css. Glad to see you coding in css! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new prettyCss issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in css writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: invalid-token: line 1 char number 1 - Evidence: {
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 40 char number 8 - Evidence: 16px
WARNING: font-family-one-generic: line 40 char number 2 - Evidence: font
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 41 char number 15 - Evidence: 20px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 42 char number 12 - Evidence: 4px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 47 char number 10 - Evidence: 300px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 48 char number 14 - Evidence: 300px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 49 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 50 char number 11 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 55 char number 10 - Evidence: 350px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 56 char number 18 - Evidence: 30px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 57 char number 17 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 64 char number 9 - Evidence: 300px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 67 char number 15 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 73 char number 15 - Evidence: 510px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 74 char number 15 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 77 char number 9 - Evidence: 200px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 80 char number 16 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 88 char number 7 - Evidence: 20px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 97 char number 11 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 103 char number 13 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 103 char number 17 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 105 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 106 char number 10 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 109 char number 13 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: invalid-value: line 120 char number 10 - Evidence: progid
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 121 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 122 char number 17 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 123 char number 13 - Evidence: 6px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 124 char number 10 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 127 char number 8 - Evidence: 13px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 127 char number 13 - Evidence: 20px
WARNING: font-family-one-generic: line 127 char number 2 - Evidence: font
WARNING: invalid-value: line 138 char number 10 - Evidence: progid
WARNING: invalid-value: line 149 char number 10 - Evidence: progid
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 156 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 161 char number 10 - Evidence: -1000px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 170 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 172 char number 13 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 180 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 181 char number 11 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 182 char number 14 - Evidence: -1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 183 char number 17 - Evidence: -22px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 197 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 198 char number 17 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 199 char number 14 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 199 char number 18 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 199 char number 22 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 200 char number 11 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 201 char number 17 - Evidence: 4px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 205 char number 14 - Evidence: -25px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 231 char number 13 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 232 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 233 char number 17 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 233 char number 21 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 236 char number 15 - Evidence: 20px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 243 char number 17 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 251 char number 9 - Evidence: 260px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 254 char number 9 - Evidence: 170px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 255 char number 17 - Evidence: 90px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 259 char number 13 - Evidence: 12px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 262 char number 10 - Evidence: -3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 264 char number 19 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 264 char number 23 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 265 char number 16 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 266 char number 9 - Evidence: 85px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 270 char number 11 - Evidence: 10px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 271 char number 10 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 277 char number 15 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 278 char number 16 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 279 char number 15 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 284 char number 17 - Evidence: 25px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 287 char number 10 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 296 char number 15 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 301 char number 9 - Evidence: 30px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 304 char number 9 - Evidence: 200px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 305 char number 16 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: invalid-value: line 310 char number 9 - Evidence: calc(
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 313 char number 17 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 314 char number 17 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 325 char number 8 - Evidence: 150px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 339 char number 17 - Evidence: 1px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 347 char number 10 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 372 char number 15 - Evidence: 3px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 414 char number 10 - Evidence: 2px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 415 char number 11 - Evidence: 5px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 422 char number 17 - Evidence: 175px
WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 432 char number 9 - Evidence: 175px

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'delete'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'reason'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js/i18n.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 9: Unexpected token |

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. No longer needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'delete'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. No longer needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. No longer needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. No longer needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'reason'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. No longer needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js/load.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 9: Unexpected token |

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/RETF.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/RETF.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 4 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/RETF.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'delete'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/RETF.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/RETF.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/RETF.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'reason'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Not needed|subpage=User:Reguyla/RETF.js|year=2016|month=February|day=21}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/RETF.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/RETF.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 9: Unexpected token |

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 19:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If you want your userscript deleted, then you could just add {{Speedy}} to the page. There's no need to start a deletion discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and speedy delete them. It's fine with me. No discussion needed. Reguyla (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 2 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{Speedy delete}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'Speedy'. - Evidence: {{Speedy delete}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{Speedy delete}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '}' and instead saw 'delete'. - Evidence: {{Speedy delete}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 16: Expected '(end)' and instead saw '}'. - Evidence: {{Speedy delete}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 10: Unexpected token delete

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

Please also enclose deletion templates in /* {{comments}} */. Even scripts broken due to scheduling for deletion can break things.
ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Speedy delete template not working on userspace subpage.|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js|year=2016|month=February|day=25}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'delete'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Speedy delete template not working on userspace subpage.|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js|year=2016|month=February|day=25}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Speedy delete template not working on userspace subpage.|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js|year=2016|month=February|day=25}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Speedy delete template not working on userspace subpage.|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js|year=2016|month=February|day=25}}
ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'reason'. - Evidence: {{delete|reason=Author request. Speedy delete template not working on userspace subpage.|subpage=User:Reguyla/AWB.js|year=2016|month=February|day=25}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 17:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Code issues in User:Reguyla/AWB.js[edit]

Hi Reguyla, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

You edited User:Reguyla/AWB.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!

Please also enclose deletion templates in /* {{comments}} */. Even scripts broken due to scheduling for deletion can break things.
ERROR: Cannot parse line 1 column 9: Unexpected token |

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 17:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

File:Gen. Manuel Tinio.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Sgtkencrockett.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sgtkencrockett.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Sgtkencrockett.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Diannaa. I just transferred it over from ENWP and after searching the internet I cannot find the source. May I suggest contacting Michael Dorosh over at ENWP and asking where it came from? I would but I can't edit over there without it getting reverted by vandals. It looks like he has been editing within the last couple weeks so there is a good chance he'll respond. Reguyla (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the same file over on that wiki, as there was no source info on the file at that location either. Unfortunately the user was never notified of the potential deletion. The source was shown as "regimental photo" when it was originally uploaded in 2006. Please don't transfer any more historic photos to the Commons unless they have good source information: either a link to a source website or good detailed sourcing to a book. Thanks, Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did a whole group of them at once but I'll try to be more careful. Reguyla (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Commons:Administrators/Requests/HJ Mitchell (de-adminship)[edit]

Hi Reguyla, you participated in an edit war (1, 2, 3). Please do not continue this. Instead of edit-warring, it would be preferable to discuss this at COM:AN/U or at the corresponding talk page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AFBorchert: Greetings, I just wanted to let you know that I judge each edit on it's merits regardless of who left it. I don't care about gender, race or status. It doesn't matter to me if the person is an admin, editor, blocked or banned. If the edit contributed something positive to the project then it should be left alone. Clearly this comment contributed something to that discussion so I felt it had merits regardless of who left it. I am here to build up the project, not get wrapped up in symantics or waste time removing value added contributions. Reguyla (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRC[edit]

I saw your mention of an IRC channel for Commons, I went to check it out and I saw no conversations or topics etc? How does the IRC work anyway? Thanks WayneRay (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRC is basically a chat venue. It stands for Internet Relay Chat. It's kinda like the old AOL chatrooms or Facebook instant messenger if you're familiar with those. It's just a way to discuss issues and topics without the formality and time of posting on wiki talk pages. If you looks here, it probably explains it better than I can. I hope that helps. Reguyla (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WayneRay (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in different places[edit]

With respect to diff, !votes in deletion requests are about the merits of the reasoning (for the most part) and DR closures have even been the opposite of what 100% of the votes were for due to 'procedural grounds', however votes in an RFA or a reconfirmation RFA are counted strictly unless there has been a problem with socking or similar. You may want to review how past RFAs have worked, especially the few controversial ones.

PS Sorry you've had trouble getting back on IRC, if you want to spend time on it rather than just logging in as a "clean start", then you will need to talk it though with one of those with the right rights as it boils down to an individual making a change when policies are not clear. I have ops rights on the Commons channel but I'm not familiar at all with the technical change, nor the prior discussions, and the person that resets your account ought to be. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the clarification. I'll strike that comment out. As for the IRC thing, of the people I contacted they have either not responded or have stated they don't know how or won't so it is what it is. Reguyla (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki drama[edit]

Re[1] en:wp:IAR allows anyone who is blocked or banned and sees something constructive to do ignore the block or ban and make the edit anyway. Most editors are not aware of that simple fact, especially when looking for block and ban violations. You are not violating your block or ban if you are doing something constructive. For myself I chose to just patiently wait so that I could request a standard offer. I would never run out of useful things to do anyway. Apteva (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's how I feel too and have stated that multiple times. Courcelles and others like to vandalize my edits (and that is what it is, vandalism) anyway to create drama. In fact, policy doesn't actually say to delete the edits of socks or banned editors. What it says is, they can be deleted but then it goes on to say that edits that are obvious improvements should be kept. Of course they ignore that part of the policy because it doesn't suit them but follow the part that does. The thing is, other than some talk page comments to the arbs when I was pissed about policy being violated in order to get a ban to stick on me, all my edits are constructive and they know that. They don't care, because most of them do not build anything, they block and protect and want to be in charge, but they don't actually build or improve the encyclopedia. See you around. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Young Pedro Cano.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Young Pedro Cano.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Young Pedro Cano.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Stefan2 (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it. I just moved it over from ENWP. Reguyla (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:WNT Beckett.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:WNT Beckett.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:WNT Beckett.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Kelly (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly: I just uploaded that image from ENWP. Feel free to delete it here if you want. I would also recommend marking it appropriately at ENWP at the same time. Reguyla (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importing conflicts from other sites[edit]

Please stop importing conflicts from other sites, as you have done at DIFF.

Further repetition of such behavior patterns may result in a block.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Noted. But for what it's worth the WMF projects and especially commons work together. I commented here because I couldn't comment there and I knew they would see it. But I will refrain from posting comments about my bullshit abusive ban here. Partly because I know there is a discussion to San Fran ban me anyway so at this point it doesn't matter. It's more important to support policy violating bans to support admins that don't care about policy and show the communities the admins are in charge than to undo a ban that never should have existed anyway. Reguyla (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I vaguely remember your quality contributions under a prior username. I wish you the best of luck and I hope eventually you can come back to positive contributions again. Best wishes, -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I never stopped making positive contributions. Assholes just revert them anyway and it sounds like I am going to get San Fran banned in the next couple days so it's not likely to help matters. My username used to be Kumioko and I did a lot with Military history, Medal of Honor recipients and the US Wikiprojects, the US Collaboration of the Month and a whole bunch of other things no one cares about. Reguyla (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sorry all this has occurred. I sincerely wish you the best luck with overcoming what's happening. Sometimes taking time to reflect and spend time outdoors or exercising helps me feel better. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's life. It's just part of the culture on these projects. It's why they suck so bad. Reguyla (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two weeks[edit]

Blocked two weeks, continuation of pattern of behavior after warning to stop, at DIFF.

Please, take some time to reflect and moderate your actions, as future blocks may be longer in duration.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I know it's not personal and I know you're not one of the abusive admins so I would rather it was done by you anyway. Like I said I'll be globally blocked by the stewards soon anyway to support their friends on EnWP enforce my ban I refuse to follow. The fact is no one cares if policy is violated as long as it's an admin. For what it's worth, comments like this by editors like Ponyo only show my frustration. If they are too childish to have a discussion about how their edits aren't beneficial and are harming Wikipedia, then I have no respect for them and I do not have any desire to interact with an editor like that who doesn't want to collaborate with others to improve these projects. If they aren't here to collaborate with others to make improvements, they shouldn't be here and damn sure shouldn't be admins on the sites. Reguyla (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth though, someone should have said something to Colin before I did. All he was doing was trolling that discussion and what I said to him was less than the comments he has said before. He is almost always condescending and rude. Reguyla (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good call by Cirt. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MichaelMaggs, I hope it leads to change by the user. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reguyla, you are still able to edit your talk page for now, but that privilege will be removed if you make one more attack against any editor. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First MichaelMaggs, it may have been a good call but I don't need you or anyone else coming over here and making immature comments rubbing it in. Go somewhere else for that shit, like EnWP, they like that there as long as it targets users and not admins. Not here. In fact unless you want to collaborate on improvements or have something meaningful to say, then don't come here at all.

Also, if you don't want editors addressing problematic behavior in others like Colin then maybe someone like you should get off their ass and do their job and finally address Colin's problematic behavior. I'm sick of him making snide, condescending comments to me, Fae and others and you and the other admins not doing anything. Not even a hey knock it off. So if you want to say something about my conduct, which may not be perfect due to my frustration in the current situation, make sure your own actions are in order first. Otherwise keep it to yourself. Now if you want to yank my talk page access to responding to your childish comment when a half decent admin wouldn't have even made the comment in the first place, then go ahead and do that. And as a bureau you should know even better. I'm sure someone will come to your talk page and pat you on the back as well. Reguyla (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and BTW, if you want to block me then use an appropriate term like off topic discussion or something. No one was intimidating anyone. If anything, it was the ones I was commenting on that were intimidating and harassing me and I was responding to it. Reguyla (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Talk page access revoked for duration of the above two-week-block, due to abuse of talk page privileges, personal attacks.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: If you think blocking me for 2 weeks is going to change my opinion that admins should have to follow the same rules as editors and stop fighting my abusive ban on EnWP it is not. My block log here is already a mess because Yann decided it was ok to get into an edit war with 2 other admin and made it look like I have been blocked a bunch of times when in fact I should not have been blocked at all. That is exactly the sort of conduct that you guys should be working to deal with, not me complaining about admins f'ing people over, pushing POV, threatening and bullying users and then letting them get away with it and blocking the victim. And you guys wonder why I get frustrated and annoyed? I wonder! Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. 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.

See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ kurdî ∙ la .lojban. ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

You have been indefinitely blocked on this site, based on your postings immediately above for:

(1) continuing your campaign of harassment and personal attacks within hours and fewer than 10 edits of the expiry earlier today of your two week block for exactly the same behaviour, and
(2) continued disruption in using Commons as your personal soapbox to air extensive complaints that are entirely irrelevant to Commons about the block that has been imposed against you on the English Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unblock my account[edit]

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "I am requesting my account be unblocked. Several users have told me offline that I should request unblock and that MichaelMaggs did not speak for the whole community nor does he have the authority to indef ban someone from commons without a community discussion. I did a few thousand edits before I was blocked and there is a lot more I can do to help if allowed to edit. Reguyla 138.162.8.57 17:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

Unblock reason: "User has demonstrated enough evidence to be globally unlocked, a FINAL chance is being given locally. Reguyla, do not make me regret this bold action. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

This template should be archived normally.

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ suomi ∙ हिन्दी ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

Thank you. Reguyla (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honour[edit]

Hello, Reguyla. Well, if you say so we have two different issues. Let's start from the simplest one, the name: I renamed the subcategory to match the synthyax used for the main category (Recipients of the Medal of Honor by branch). As for the second issue, I simply moved all the names I found in the old category to the new one. Thus it was not me who put those names in that category, I simply found them already there. I believe you when you say that there may not be names that should be there, but it was not me who put them there. Look at my edit history at the tag "Cat-a-lot: Moving from Category:United States Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients to Category:Recipients of the United States Marine Corps Medal of Honor". Regards, -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did and most of the time that makes sense. In this case though the Main cat is correct in that they are Recipients of the Medal of Honor and it is broken down by branch but the naming of the subcats is the problem. The old one was correct, not the new you created IMO. This is going to be a further problem when you get to Army Air Corps medal of Honor recipients because there is no Army Air Corps Medal of Honor. So saying they are Recipients of the Army Air Corps Medal of Honor is going to be completely wrong and confusing. Reguyla (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcat Greetings. What do you think we should do with this category? If we leave it the way you moved it some confusion could be caused and we would still need to move all the other related categories. Personally I think it's clearer the way it was but if there is some reason we need to move them then that's fine too. Reguyla (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Regyula, as for the synthiax, the new category name is consistent with the ones already used here on Wikicommons thus yes, are the other category names that should be moved; for the subcategories of the people in that category I guess I am of no help because I don't know their biographies and don't know why they were included there. I suppose by mistake, but have no means to state who should be there and who should't. Regards. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 08:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcat I think you're confusing what I am trying to say here. I know you were not the one who originally put those people in those categories and that's ok. My concern is you moved a category without discussion to a confusing and incorrect format and then you moved all the people from the old category to the new one that you created. What I would suggest be done is that they be put back or a discussion be opened about moving those categories to the new format. Ideally this should have been done first before you did the move. Because there are other categories affected by this change besides just the one you decided to move. Reguyla (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humm. Maybe I grasped what you wrote. I guess I assumed that the award were "U.S. Air Force Medal of Honor" whereas is "Medal of Honor"? Then in order to keep consistency with the main category a feasible way to rename it could be "United States Air Force recipients of the Medal of Honor", for example? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree if we change it that would be better. We would also need to then extend that to the other branch related categories as well. Additionally, since the English Wikipedia uses the category currently used we would be differing from what it and Wikidata currently have (which isn't a show stopper, it's just something to think about for the sake of consistency across projects).Reguyla (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall we move as proposed? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcat Sure that sounds fine with me, thanks. Reguyla (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ray Eubanks.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ray Eubanks.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb I just imported it from Wikipedia so I wasn't the original uploaded but I think I fixed most of it. Not sure about the date but I was able to locate most of it. The photo was taken sometime between 1942 and 1944 since he joined the army and was killed in action in those years but I'm not sure when. Reguyla (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jcb (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:DavidMGonzales cropped.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:DavidMGonzales cropped.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Damiens.rf 16:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Damiens.rf: I'm not sure what about the referencing isn't clear but if you want to delete it go for it. It seems rather silly to delete an image that is a government work but I don't really care enough to fight it.Reguyla (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Dahlia 1864.jpg[edit]

File:USS Dahlia 1864.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

This file is a duplicate of the following files: File:USS Dahlia (1862-1865) - NH 55972.jpg.

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

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Revent^talk 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revent I concur its a duplicate Sorry about that. Good catch. Reguyla (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a duplicate when you transferred it over, actually, but I have been working on methodically uploading the higher-res 'originals' that are now at NHHC, and the one you transferred was a web-resolution copy that it made redundant... no reason to keep the 0.27MP file when we now haz the 10.24MP copy. Take a look at Category:NHHC images uploaded by Revent if interested. Revent^talk 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revent Cheers to you and no problem. I haven't really been very interesting in participating in the WMF projects lately including commons. The lack of oversight of the admins and functionaries has reached epic proportions and I am tired of being trolled by a couple people so they have an excuse to block me and create a disruption. Now I have a couple losers on Meta preventing me from getting unblocked there eventhough I requested the block. Someone even blocked me on Wikia IRC channels just because they could and no one will do anything. So at this point fuck the WMF projects. I am sorry I ever wasted my time here. If I could cut ties I would but unfortunately I need to be able to edit here for my Wikia projects so you might see an edit occasionally. But generally the community doesn't want high output dedicated editors as much as they want abusive admins who don't do anything except block the ones doing the work and cause drama so fuck it! The community here won't even unblock me on the Commons IRC channel even though the discussion a couple months ago said I was welcome there. People keep saying that I am welcome in X, Y or Z and then won't say it in public or won't do the action themselves because they are afraid of retaliation from the abusive admins eventhough some people say there is no such thing as abusive admin problems. So enough. Take care. Reguyla (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't blocked in -commons... you are, apparently, blocked in -bans, which we have no control over, unfortunately.... the control of -bans seems to be much in the control of the enwiki crowd. If you ping me on IRC sometime I 'might' be able to +e you, but I'm unsure if it will work. I am well aware that the -commons crowd considers you welcome. Revent^talk 02:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReventYou're right, it is in the control of the EnWP crowd and no one will do anything about that. Hell, AlexZ blocked me on some of the Wikia IRC channels too for no reason and not only will he not undo them the Wikia ops are too afraid of him retaliating to do anything either. So if Wikia now falls under the control of the EnWP crowd I cannot blame you for not wanting to do anything, although I do admit it is disappointing, I am getting used to being let down by the communities. Reguyla (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have no way of knowing when you are on IRC because AlexZ and his friends have blocked me from virtually everything so if you want to try to do +e go right ahead. I'll see it the next time I log into IRC if it works. Reguyla (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly willing to attempt to unban you from Commons, I just am unsure if it will technically 'work'. I can't just try to 'do it', however, without actually knowing what to match against. Revent^talk 02:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say match it against but I'll try to keep a lookout and ping you if and when I see you. Reguyla (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS644.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading the photo. Do you have any idea, when it was taken? Follwing her WWII-service, Stembel was commissioned from November 1951 to May 1958 (when this photo was taken). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) -> sorry, I just saw that you imported it from en:wikipedia.Cobatfor (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cobatfor, No sorry I just uploaded it here from Wikipedia and it looks like the person who uploaded it there just got it from a Navy website. Reguyla (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cats Thomas Broich[edit]

Hi! You've added here a category "Thomas (given name)". Why? Greets --Sir James (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's kind of a meta data cat we use here on Commons. It's added whenever the persons first name is Thomas. There are other cats for other names as well as surnames. These also apply to Wikidata in many cases. Reguyla (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Sir James (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer[edit]

Please excuse me spamming you. As a regular on Feature Picture Candidatess you will recognise User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to withdraw[edit]

If you want to withdraw a nom at FPC, you have to use the so called "Template", that is putting the 'withdraw' inside the double curly brackets {{}} otherwise the automatic system will not register it. You can look at this withdrawn nomination to see how it is done. Looking forward to vote for the new pic. :) --cart-Talk 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I just fixed them. Thanks, I'll resubmit the other one in the next couple days once the others are sorted. Reguyla (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further development[edit]

It seems like you don't have to renominate the third pic. Since they were all made within such a short timeline, an administrator just pulled the "not allowed" tag from the nom and it is up and running. This is the first time I've seen something like this, but since no one is complaining we will just proceed with this. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers, cart-Talk 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thanks for the heads up.Reguyla (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:A USAF F-16 pilot breaking right on final approach over northern Las Vegas.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A USAF F-16 pilot breaking right on final approach over northern Las Vegas.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:161018-M-MR595-0582 (29922954883).jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:161018-M-MR595-0582 (29922954883).jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:161018-M-MR595-0582 (29922954883).jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOD Uploads[edit]

Please stop batch uploading DOD images. If you aren't going to spend the time to categorize them correctly, then please don't upload them. Let someone else who will spend the time doing it upload them, if they need the images. Elisfkc (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I have been categorizing them, by the thousands. Including creating hundreds of missing categories, renaming, adding the Taken by template and other cleanup. The automated tools are only so accurate though and do require manual go over when its done. Is there a specific group you are referring too?Reguyla (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you very much for pointing out the PD refinement in the edits you did like this one. I'll see about working that into the refinements I am doing as well. I do not agree with removing the US DOD category though . Robert Work is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. All or most of those files you changed were at the Pentagon which is technically in Virginia, not Washington DC. So that isn't really accurate to what the image portrays. Also, I am going through all those categories and refining them. It will take a while since there are a couple hundred thousand images though so I ask for patience. They have been this way for quite a while, not counting the ones I am importing so they can go a couple weeks. Reguyla (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. You also need to change the license on the SecDef flickr images to {{PD-USGov-DOD}}. Elisfkc (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that. I didn't realize that hadn't been added. I'll add that to my list of things to look out for. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ray_Mabus_in_2000[edit]

Category:Ray_Mabus_in_2000 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

MB298 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PD-USGov-National Guard[edit]

Hi, You changed the license of several files ([2]), but that template doesn't exist. It is {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that and thanks for letting me know. I'll fix that. Reguyla (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax of template Taken on[edit]

Hi Reguyla, you do not use the correct syntax for the template Taken on. See [3] for the correct use. Regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll fix that. Reguyla (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Aloha! Seems AWB did created some false alarms and speedy tags in Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:United States Navy images by location. Categories aren't empty. I reverted, let me know if I misunderstood the edit. Best, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 12:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hedwig in Washington Sorry about that. Thank you for letting me know. I'll take a look at those and fix them. Reguyla (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done.

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US Navy Images[edit]

You do realize that none of the images you are currently mass uploading are correctly categorized? Elisfkc (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, its an unfortunate side effect of the tool. I already fixed some. I was just waiting for this batch to finish before doing them. Basically I will remove the categories for Sailors, Tradition, Commerce, Heritage and Liberty. Then I will pull them all into AWB tomorrow and fix some more stuff. Its a multi step process unfortunately, but its still more efficient than uploading each one individually. Reguyla (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you click No on "Auto-detect categories", it will get rid of all of the weird categories. Elisfkc (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it gets it right. Some people have told me to use the auto detect so that's what I have been doing and then I just do the cleanup after the upload. It doesn't really matter to me either way since I just go back through them in the next couple days anyway. Reguyla (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the category I added to File:160922-M-RO457-0040 (29880414391).jpg is this aircraft's unique serial number. It's the USMC equivalent to a civilian registration like N53266 or D-EFAB. These categories are routinely created to make the identification of aircraft in images easier, to diffuse the main category for a type of aircraft and to collect different images of one and the same aircraft over time in a category. See e.g. Category:Military aircraft registered in the United States. De728631 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I didn't know that. Sorry for the revert and misunderstanding. Reguyla (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, would you mind adding the ID-USMil template with the correct information to each of these photos at some point? While I know it will take a lot of time, it helps better categorize and sort them. Elisfkc (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Good point. Reguyla (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AdmiralBryant.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Advanced Airlift Tactics Training Center (patch).jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AFROTCVA 36-3 ribbons.JPG[edit]

File:AFROTCVA 36-3 ribbons.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aircraft Director giving the "release brakes-taxi forward" signal.jpg[edit]

File:Aircraft Director giving the "release brakes-taxi forward" signal.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your VFC edits[edit]

Hi Reguyla, your VFC mass edits went wrong [4], [5], [6], … Could you please fix them? --.js 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Thanks for letting me know. I'll get those fixed now. Reguyla (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok they should all be fixed now. Sorry about that. :-) Reguyla (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And just FYI. --.js (((☎))) 06:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shachnow.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jcb (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Medal for Long Service and Good Conduct - Army (UK) ribbon.png[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Medal for Long Service and Good Conduct - Army (UK) ribbon.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video display resolution[edit]

Hi Reguyla, thanks for your work recategorizing video resolutions. I've uploaded a lot of videos and it would help my watchlist if you would please mark your resolution changes as "minor" edits. I believe there's an option in VFC? czar 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thanks. Yeah I totally understand and sorry about that. Someone mentioned that to me on Discord once a couple weeks ago as well. I don't think VFC has an option to mark it as a minor change though. I wished it did. There are quite a few other changes I would like to see as well. Maybe there is an option somewhere I'm not seeing though. Reguyla (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reguyla: You can turn on 'mark all edits as minor by default', in preferences, and then turn it off afterward. - Revent^talk 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I'll try that. Reguyla (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate comments and actions[edit]

@Ajraddatz, Billinghurst, and Jalexander-WMF: I sincerely regret posting this here since this is not the correct venue but because I am not blocked here, at least not yet, it is the only venue available.

Needless to say I am hurt, angry and frustrated at the actions of both of you since you seem to think it's appropriate to insult me on your talk pages at Meta here and here. I can only assume it was intended to provoke a response and that is what you will get.

I am going to clarify something very important and if you ignore everything else I say, both of you need to pay attention to this, and I want you both to listen very closely:

“

I am neither a troll nor a vandal and I never have been either and I take deep offense to comments stating I am. I have been a dedicated, passionate and long term, high output editor for the last 10 years. If I was either a troll or a vandal I would not have an edit count that exceeds 1 million edits on the WMF wiki's. In fact, had it not been for a few actual vandals and trolls on the projects that do not do anything other than create and perpetuate drama who blocked me on various venues like the CVN IRC channels and English Wikipedia, my edit count would be a lot higher, the projects would have a lot more improvements done, and the last 4 years of unnecessary drama of fighting bullshit blocks and bans wouldn't exist. So if you want to change something, then do something useful and remove the bullshit abusive blocks as I have asked, because that is the core problem that caused, and is perpetuating all the drama.

”

Also, it is not, nor has it ever been, considered block or ban evasion, on Commons, Meta, Wikipedia or anywhere else to request unblock when the users account and talk page are blocked and you full well know that. It is however and unfortunately a frequently used tactic on the WMF projects by admins, used to block someone they don't like and revoke their talk page access in order to prevent them from participating in discussions about them, such as the ones on your talk pages intentionally designed to provoke a response from me or to allow you to claim socking or block evasion if they ask on a public page such as you did Ajraddatz. Additionally, it absolutely was not necessary to semi-protect the Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat page due to Vandalism when there was absolutely no vandalism preventing people from asking for help. That page is frequently used by people who won't meet the requirements of semi protection and for you to state it was for "Vandalism" is frankly a straight out lie. These tactics of creating catch 22 situations against editors and using completely false statements in blocks and protections to justify unjustifiable actions as abhorrent and grossly against site policy, not to mention petty and abusive and against the WMF's core values.

To suggest or accuse someone who has participated in these projects as I have is a vandal, troll or socking because the requested unblock on a community page is not only against policy, it is a flat out lie and to revert edits on an ongoing discussion as block evasion is a blatant violation of your status and position Ajraddatz. The only "platform" I have as you state, is being unblocked. My complaints have always been about my bullshit bans and blocks to be lifted and that has been consistent for the last couple years if you bothered to actually listen as you state you have.

The bottom line gentlemen is this, if you cannot justify your actions without lying, manipulating policy or using your access abusively to bully editors you don't like, then those actions are not justifiable and you should not do them at all. Further your actions in poisoning the well Ajraddatz to prevent anyone from being willing to unblock me on meta is, as a Steward, grossly inappropriate. I also included Jalexander-WMF‎‎ on this comment so that he is aware that 2 Functionaries are acting in an inappropriate manner both with respect to bullying and insulting another editor they do not like and to let him know that you are using your access and positions or responsibility to do it. Even if he doesn't do anything, I feel like it's important to know and to give him the opportunity to act and I hope that he treats the matter with the seriousness I do. Reguyla (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: It's funny you call my comments abusive but you call me a vandal and troll because I asked to be unblocked. I thought you were a great admin and functionary Aj I really did and I still agree with a lot of your arguments on a lot of issues but your calling me a vandal and troll just so no one will unblock me and to scare people away is flat out bullshit! Reguyla (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not pull me into your battles. I have not blocked you, I don't believe ever. The trouble that you get yourself into is of your own volition and your marvellous exhibition of people skills. When you are in a hole, and you don't like it, stop digging!

Actually, if you hark back a number of years, you insisted that I lock your previous account, which I declined on multiple occasions. You then started vandalising to get it locked, which I did. Your pattern of behaviour on multiple sites catches up with you, and maybe at this point will you understand that people's tolerance and good faith is limited. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: You are correct you haven't blocked me and I apologize for the confusion but if you actually read my comments above which you clearly didn't you would have seen that my problem with you was the insulting comments directed at me on your talk page you left for Tegel. So if you do not want me calling you out when you insult me then don't insult me. Reguyla (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Could you also please explain to me how calling me (or any editor for that matter) and idiot and a BIFFO such as you did here is helpful or appropriate? You wonder why I get so upset about admins abusing their authority? That is an example right there! I was banned on ENWP for a Talk page comment warning another user to not to back to an admin, extended for discussions on my own talk page with other editors, and the last time for saying there was a few A-holes on EnWP looking for a reason to reban me. Please tell me how you making multiple personal attacks directed at me in 24 hours is better because you are an admin? I would love to hear your explanation for that please. Reguyla (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no assignation of you as an idiot. I have made no personal attacks on you. If you wish to assign similes or other conversations as pertaining to you, then you go ahead and do that, I did not (and fwiw wikt:biffo.) I have abused no administrator right, let alone used any administrator right with any regards to you in recent times, though don't let your good stories get in the way of any reality. My comms at this point are complete, and I again ask for you to not pull me into your battles. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, anyone can see that both of those statements are directed at me. The one to tegel was a few moments after I had a discussion with him and the one on Aj's page was clearly about me and that BIFFO/Idiot comment as well was directly after he commented here about me. So there really is no way to assume you were talking about anyone else. Also, there is no battle as you put it, you are just trying to spin this into some BS hyperbole case. So if you don't want to talk to me anymore then that's fine, just stop attacking me and insulting me and we won't have any more problems fair enough? Reguyla (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter yourself. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Not really, I only have the expectation that the functionaries on the WMF projects like yourself will follow policy despite the lack of oversight. I am routinely proven to be naïve in that expectation and disappointed at the results. Reguyla (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: It really shouldn't be a surprise that I agreed not to post on your talk page to give you what you wanted since you threatened to use your Steward access to globally lock my account unless I gave into your demands. Which is a huge violation of policy again but we all know no one is going to actually do anything about that. Ideally it would be better if you were willing to discuss the issue like an adult though but I guess that's too much to ask at this point. Reguyla (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reguyla, I just wanted to clear a couple of things up here. Obviously the Meta block is not a policy violation; the last time you were unblocked there, you were given conditions and you violated them. Simple as that. But there are a few concerning things here which I wanted to clarify/address after reading through this page today. First, the protection on M:RFH was done with the default reason of excessive vandalism. I don't think that you are a vandal; a better reason would have been "disruptive editing". Same deal with my talk page and trolling - it's more of a shorthand for users behaving disruptively when they know that their behaviour is disruptive. I certainly don't mean to offend or degrade you, so I won't use either word to describe you in the future as best I can remember. Finally, I understand that my comment on ANI looks somewhat threatening, but I will not be locking your account. If you continue to message me on other projects, then I will disable notifications on those projects as needed or request that another steward lock your account in public on SRG. The unlock from last year was considered your final chance globally, and I would say you have violated that chance, but I don't think it is appropriate for me to be dealing with this anymore. Please also note that the global locking de-facto policy does allow for locks of "accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis", and you very much qualify under that. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: Thank you I appreciate you stopping by. I wished we could have done this sooner as I think it would have saved a lot of people time and a lot less drama would have been caused. I understand that you probably used the default selection but I don't even agree with the disruptive editing but honestly I don't by that as an excuse from a veteran functionary. You should know what verbiage to use in what case at this point. Block evasion "maybe", but I wasn't being disruptive nor vandalizing nor trolling. I was requesting an unblock. Nonetheless, I appreciate the clarification and it does make me feel a lot better now that we had a chance to clarify that. Of course I don't agree with some of your assessments of my conduct there nor my indef block for a minor disagreement but that is, I believe, understandable for us to disagree on. As it is, at this point, it's only a matter of time before I get banned here and probably globally banned since there are so many comments and discussions, right or wrong, which reflect me as a troll, vandal or disruption and no credit given whatsoever to the positive work I have done. Reguyla (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request unblock[edit]

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: "I am requesting unblock. The reason for the block given was to cool down but I am not upset at all, just a little annoyed and frustrated. Two functionaries are lying and making false statements about me on their talk pages on Meta and other pages and I left a note to them calling them out, with links and including James Alexander at the WMF. He has made absolutely no attempt to discuss the disagreement and ran straight to ANI and is threatening the use of his Steward access if people don't give into his demands and give him whatever he wants. Since that discussion has been restored without insisting that we attempt to work it out first, I request to be unblocked to participate in that discussion. I will not post anything on Ajraddatz's talk page and will leave him alone from this point on here on Commons beyond the ANI discussion."

Decline reason: "You should know, at least through this notice, that it is not appropriate to use Commons as a venue to complain about blocks and conflicts on other WMF projects, be it en:wp or meta. This has to stop and as your comment gives no indication that this will be discontinued, I do not see a ground to unblock you. Please note that I disagree with the part of the block rationale that suggests “to cool down” as I find this term inappropriate in any block reason. However, the block also points to this complaint and this is serious. And if you are claiming in your rationale that others “are lying and making false statements” outside of Commons at other projects, you obviously still do not understand how serious this is. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

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

@AFBorchert: Thanks for the explanation, it's no problem, I am used to problematic blocks being used against me at this point, I can wait the couple hours until the block expires. I also agree my accusations are seriousness which is why if you read the discussion above, I provided detailed explanation and links to clarify. Again I am aware there is nothing that will be done due to the double standard on the WMF projects between admins and editors, but at least the problematic behavior is documented for the future when it happens to someone else. Reguyla (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reguyla, I am neither an admin at Meta nor at en:wp. I don't have the time to investigate your case at these projects and I do not need to. My concern is with Commons and your activities here. You must not use Commons as a ground to extend your conflicts at other projects, even if you are blocked on these projects and your talk page access has been revoked. Whatever happened to you elsewhere, however unfairly you might have been treated outside of Commons, you must not confront anyone here at Commons with cases that took place elsewhere. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I'm not asking for you to unblock me anywhere but here nor look into the issue I brought up. I posted the comments on their talk page in the hopes of engaging them in their problematic behavior but I was obviously naive' to think they would be mature enough to discuss it like adults. They know there is no validity to the blocks and even commented that I am a positive contributor here which frankly is a direct cause and effect to being unblocked. It's hard to be a positive editor on a site where you are routinely bullied, insulted and subjected to personal attacks by the people in charge of that project. I only wished the WMF had the morale courage or desire to stand up to these site wide problems. It is worth noting however that since one of these individuals is a global sysop and admin here and the other is a Steward, their conduct, regardless of the site, can have serious consequences to the community here at commons as well. Reguyla (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing two other editors as liars at Commons for statements that were issued elsewhere. This is a no-go and considered to be harassment. As you have been indef'd before for this, you are very short before being indef'd again, see MichaelMaggs warning below. Reguyla, you are a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons and we would like to keep you around. Please view Commons as a sanctuary that is mostly a drama-free zone far away from en:wp. As much as we have to protect anyone here from conflicts that originated elsewhere this approach protects you as well at Commons. I hope you see this as an opportunity. As soon as the block expires I suggest to bury this thread and the other one above in the history of your talk page and to move on. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right on the aspect that Commons is a lot more mellow than other projects and you're right that also applies to me. I'm not sure what opportunity exists here for me though, especially if any little disagreement at this point will be used to justify an indef. It's clear that people on the WMF projects are going to be allowed to harass, bully and troll me until I either give up and leave or get banned again and no one cares enough to do anything. It's frustrating and disappointing but it shows why so many editors have left over the years and why so few new ones are joining and staying. Reguyla (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block history[edit]

@Jdx: If you look closer at my block history you'll see that most of it was a sort of unintentional edit war between a couple admins adjusting dates and times and a unilateral ban that was done out of process which was later removed. So you're hyperbole over my block history poisoning that discussion is not appreciated. Reguyla (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you wanted to revert my edits to a baseless ANI complaint and have a discussion rather than require the individuals to attempt to work things out per normal protocol that's ok, but you could have merely given me a warning not to revert again. There was no need at all to block me for such a minor issue. Reguyla (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Reguyla, you were indefinitely blocked here last year (by me) for harassment, personal attacks and for misusing your talk page as a public platform to attack editors on other Wikimedia projects. A few months later a Commons admin agreed to an unblock, with the comment "FINAL chance being given here...". You have been repeating the behaviour for which you were previously indefinitely blocked, and astonishingly are even now continuing it on your talk page during your present one-day block. I need to put you on notice that any further misuse of Commons - no matter how minor or how well-justified you may consider your position to be - to attack or criticise any editor in connection with an off-Commons matter will result in me or another admin immediately restoring the indefinite block and withdrawing your talk page privileges. You will not get any further 'final chances'. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look Michael, save the threats please. If you bothered to read my comments above and follow the links, which you clearly didn't do, you will also see they are lying so I am not "claiming" anything that isn't true...I provided proof.

I have been busting my ass to improve Commons and other WMF projects for years and no one, no matter how good they are or how hard they try can guarantee that no disagreements will arise. Especially since there are a number of editors, admins and functionaries on multiple projects using multiple means on and off wiki to bully and harass me, including commons. So please spare me the "last chance" threats because we all know if you or anyone else wants to block me you can use any weak excuse as justification or none at all and no one is going to lift a finger to stop you or complain about it.

I did what I intended to do which was to document problematic behavior by a couple functionaries including personal attacks directed at me and to attempt to discuss their actions with them. They weren't interested in being mature and discussing the disagreement and clearly no one here or on meta is interested in addressing their conduct either. As frustrating and disappointing as that is, it is something I have become accustomed to here on the WMF projects and something we as editors, unfortunately, have to live with. So I am done anyway.

Maybe at some point though some folks like you in positions like yours will take an interest in the overall health of the project and the problematic behavior of individuals at the admin and functionary levels who lie and abuse their access. I think that would be grand and would contribute significantly to the overall health and success of these projects. Particularly now since the globalization of accounts has made the projects much more linked. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]