Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Some GODL-India to review

I am here with a request to the reviewers/admins to kindly review some GODL-India files. Some of these are used on multiple wiki projects. Everyone knows the backlog of GODL-India. So this is the only way. The list obviously looks long, mainly bcoz of multiple crops.

Please Review all these so that my unreviewed upload backlog and some uploads from others that I have fixed is cleared. Thank You Again In Advance. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sikander, @Gabldotink and @C1K98V Just a gentle reminder. Will you be doing some more reviews? ShaanSenguptaTalk 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XXXtentacion - dubious license

These two photos of en:XXXtentacion: File:Xxxtentacion mugshot.jpg (480x640 pix) and File:Look at Me!.jpg (3k x 3k pix) have a source of "Florida Dept. of Corrections". The 3k x 3k resolution and image quality is far higher than what I found on Florida's offender search engine. Photos there are small, often grainy, out of focus, and harsh lighting and shadows. The photo, to me, appears to be a photoshoot. I did a search on XXXtentacion (as "Jahseh Dwayne Ricardo Onfroy", "Jahseh Onfroy" or "Onfroy" only) on that search engine and did not get any hits. A google image search of Look at Me!.jpg (will link work later?) returns numerous hits, many using "mug shot". Is this a valid license? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link is broken due to reasons beyond my comprehension. Jeff G. can explain better. I'm leaning towards no based on the lack of evidence for a release under a compatible license.
All the best -- Chuck Talk 21:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall this photograph being released all over the internet in that good quality. Being (the Commons version) in greater quality than it now appears on the search engine does not mean 1) the image is not free / public domain 2) only the lower quality version is PD Bedivere (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck: Which link is broken? Only Google can explain Google broken links. The google lens search of Look at Me!.jpg works for me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]