Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
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	127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~32
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~3
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-01: ~203

Other:

• Duplicates: ~49
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~45
• Other speedy deletions: ~103
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~6
• Undeletion requests: ~14

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~53
• Interface admin: ~11
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~5
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Mass rename fail

Something went badly wrong with a mass rename I did Saturday. The files in Category:2025 Turismo Carretera Coronation Grand Prix are all messed up. My apologies for this. It's very embarrassing. I won't use Perhelion's script again. Geoffroi 15:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I will fix this, but first I'll wait for an answer on User_talk:Geoffroi#Rename_bug? Emha (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done According Criterion 4 all dis-renamed files were renamed now harmonically. Emha (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

deletion and declaration

warning for @Davedryv as declared on the italian village pump. he's doing a mess with multiple files, uploading as self official photos and requesting weird deletion. GioviPen ^{GP msg} 16:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Caro Giovanni, chiedo scusa per la confusione, non sapevo esattamente come chiedere eliminazione e ho fatto molteplici tentativi. Ho caricato solo una volta la foto in questione (ad aprile 2025) e solo ora mi sono accorto dell'errore. Ho chiesto eliminazione per motivi di privacy legati alla foto in questione, spero di averti convinto delle buone intenzioni magari espresse male per questa community che mi è nuova. Davedryv (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

ciao @Davedryv non metto in dubbio le buone intenzioni (it:WP:BF). segnalando anche direttamente agli amministratori forse qualcosa si muoverà più velocemente, nessun problema ;) GioviPen ^{GP msg} 17:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

tldr: the user uploaded some files as own but without having the permission (He said that the files had been provided to him by the press office). All of them should be deleted, especially the one for which he requested a (late) courtesy deletion. GioviPen ^{GP msg} 13:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted all the files for F10. These files are completely out of scope and look like a vandalism. Please refrain from uploading such kind of files in the future on Commons. Thanks Ruthven (msg) 15:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Data:United States/Maine/Piscataquis County.map

Hello, I’m running into a MediaWiki size-limit issue with a large Data namespace page. When I try to add Data:United States/Maine/Piscataquis County.map to Category:Map data of counties of Maine using Category: (+), Commons returns the error: “The text you have submitted is 2,303.729 kilobytes long, which is more than the maximum of 2,048 kilobytes.” The same category can still be added successfully to smaller county map data pages (e.g. Sagadahoc County), so this appears to be caused by the size of the Piscataquis County .map JSON rather than the category itself. For reference, the page length is only ~605 KB, but saving triggers a >2 MB submission due to Data namespace reserialization. Could an admin please add the category server-side, or advise on the preferred workaround (e.g. category splitting or restructuring for large Data pages)? Thank you! Punkboy3401 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an admin will have any different situation here than an ordinary user. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Punkboy3401: I mentioned this at phab:T275319.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Data:United States/Maine/Somerset County.map

Hello, I’m running into a MediaWiki size-limit issue with a large Data namespace page. When I try to add Data:United States/Maine/Somerset County.map to Category:Map data of counties of Maine using the Category: (+), Commons returns the error: “The text you have submitted is 2,939.073 kilobytes long, which is more than the maximum of 2,048 kilobytes.” The same category can still be added successfully to smaller county map data pages (e.g. Sagadahoc County), so this appears to be caused by the size of the Somerset County .map JSON rather than the category itself. For reference, the page length is only ~772 KB, but saving triggers a >2 MB submission due to Data namespace reserialization. Could an admin please add the category server-side, or advise on the preferred workaround (e.g. category splitting or restructuring for large Data pages)? Thank you! Punkboy3401 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Same issue.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikihounding and mass deletion nominations by User:EducatedRedneck

I am reporting User:EducatedRedneck for a clear pattern of Wikihounding and disruptive behavior targeting my contributions.

This behavior follows a disagreement from 7 months ago where the user attempted to prove an image was copyrighted. Following this, the user has now escalated to auditing many of my uploaded work. This was the original discussion where we had a disagreement: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shamsher Gazi.jpg. I was inactive for a few months so I think he expected me not to notice.

Evidence of targeting: On January 4, 2026 in the span of 24 hours, the user consecutively nominated (7) uploaded files for deletion. These range from 1902 British-India portraits to 1960s Bangladeshi cinema. When confronted, the user explicitly admitted to targeting my account on my talk page: "I went through your uploads because you didn't seem to understand copyright policy." https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Regalhist5&diff=prev&oldid=1144313882 Per Commons:Harassment#Wikihounding, the act of "following a contributor... to cause them distress" is prohibited, regardless of the stated intent. Also has stated: "From Commons:BLOCK, Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment. As for the rest, we'll see what others say." Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filmmaker Zahir Raihan at the Pakistan Film Festival, Dacca (1965).png

Evidence:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filmmaker Zahir Raihan at the Pakistan Film Festival, Dacca (1965).png: The user nominated a public domain photo from Bangladesh for deletion stating it was copyrighted, instead of just fixing an incorrect tag.
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zahir Raihan (1935-1972) – Nigar Awards.png: The user nominated another public domain photo from Bangladesh for deletion arguing it is copyrighted and ignores the URAA rule of 1996 and the copyright laws of Bangladesh.
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zahir Raihan (জহির রায়হান) Portrait – Colorized.png: The user nominated a third public domain photo from Bangladesh for deletion claiming "false PD license" because he thinks the photo is not in the public domain when it is in Bangladesh and in effect, the US according to the URAA rule of 1996.
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagendranath Basu (b.1866)- নগেন্দ্রনাথ বসু.png: The user nominated an old photo of Nagendranath Basu for deletion claiming "False PD license". Under Indian copyright law is in the public domain, he also ignored the URAA rule. This has been fixed by another user, but I wanted to list it to show.
5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zahir Raihan on the set of Kokhono Asheni, c. 1961.png: The user nominated the fourth photo public domain photo from Bangladesh for deletion arguing "false PD license" even though it is copyrighted and ignores the URAA rule of 1996 and the copyright laws of Bangladesh.
6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maharaja Nripendra Narayan (নৃপেন্দ্র নারায়ন) – Colorized, c. 1902.png: The user claims "False PD license" for the source of this photo. This is incorrect because I stated the author as Lafayette studios, not the source. The source is different. Also, Under the UK Copyright Act 1911, the copyright for this 1902 photo expired in 1952. So again, photo is in the public domain.
7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Still from 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 (1971).png: The user is nominated a derivative poster image for a wartime documentary for deletion claiming it is not in the public domain when it is in Bangladesh since wartime material is considered public domain. And he ignores the URAA rule and is adamant on getting these deleted.

Request: I have tried to provide evidence of the validity of these uploads but the user just wants to argue. I do not want wish to edit war. I have fixed any existing errors on the uploads. To prevent further conflict and stress, I request a topic ban. Regalhist5 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Update: He is now trying to edit war. Despite my clear explanations regarding COM:URAA and the 1996 cutoff, the user continues to demand "proof" for files that are legally in the Public Domain. Regalhist5 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Regalhist5, regardless of what the other person does, you as the uploader are *NOT* allowed to remove the deletion tag from files. If the nominations carry no weight, they will ultimately be declined. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, always notify the user concerned via their user talk page. I've done it this time for you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ok. @Shaan Sengupta Regalhist5 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I have only acted to enforce Commons policy on copyright, as each of my noms (and the state of the files at the time of nomination) show. There is no malice, merely noticing that Regalhist doesn't seem to understand copyright as well as they think, and going through their contribs to selectively nominate only the non-compliant works for deletion. I have responded to their concerns, which they view as "just wishes to argue". If they substantiate their claims of public domain, I am happy to let the matter drop. Regalhist seems to feel they COM:OWN these works, and has accused me of harassment and bad faith repeatedly, after warnings, when neither is the case.

I am not a lawyer and am unable to interpret the text of the URAA. What I can do is look at our copyright policy at COM:Copyright, and specifically Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bangladesh, and apply that as best I can. I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith or harassment (Diffs 1, 2, 3), I warned them (Diff 4), then they continued (Diff 5). There are more diffs, I think, but I haven't time to find them all. Here as well they accuse me of edit warring. I assume they mean the reinstatement of the deletion template, which is required.

I don't know what should be done. Their attitude seems poor, their work sloppy (hence my attempt to fix it), and they never engaged on their talk page to try to talk it out, nor posted on my talk page. A IBAN seems pointless, as I intend to avoid this editor in the future, though I wonder about their interactions with future editors. For now, this post is too long already; I'm happy to answer any questions from administrators or community members. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck has admitted to not understanding URAA rule which applies to all these photos and the main reason it makes them part of the public domain. He just asks for "proof" and ignores my statements claiming them to be unfounded. In the links he provided about accusations I just said he is acting in bad faith that is all. Also, I have commented on all the deletion requests and tried to talk it out. There were several nominations but I replied to every single post, they just ignore it and argue and threaten with policy and warn me. Regalhist5 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I am requesting a topic ban, please. Regalhist5 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This demonstrates my point. It is not only reasonable, it is necessary to ask for proof that an image complies with policy. I presented the criteria which, per the templates they added, they believe applies, and asked which can be shown to be true. What I get back is a hand-wave toward a complex legal document rather than any policy, and accusations as if I'm both ignoring them, and also engaging by "demanding" proof. I'm not sure which they're accusing me of. Perhaps an IBAN is needed, but not the direction Regalhist is asking. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, user does not understand the URAA rule which is not a "complex legal document" but law. It is even stated in the licensing on wiki if he read it carefully. A topic ban is necessary because we've had disagreements in prior discussions unrelated to this topic and user is likely to attempt this again. If you refer to our previous discussion where we had disagreements: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shamsher Gazi.jpg. you can see user is very argumentative and I dont want to argue. You can check the deletion discussions and I will leave the rest to the admins. Regalhist5 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Regalhist5 and @EducatedRedneck, both of you have made your points. Now step back and let others decide, this is not a debate. WP:COAL. (EDIT: Also WP:NOTWARZONE, DRs are not warzones. Plz consider taking some time off. COM:AN sometimes is a double-edged sword). Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry I was mid-typing and just got this notification. Regalhist5 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's hard when they continue to accuse me of misbehavior, despite numerous warnings.

  • Claims I said a book was a children's book. (I did not; I stated my search for the title only showed a children's book, and so asked for a full cite.) diff
  • Doubles down on above, claims I've ignored provided ISBNs (none were provided prior to this), claims it's COM:CIR, refers to it as hounding diff
  • Claims I'm denying proof. (I am not. I'm asking for proof that other editors can verify, not hearsay.) diff.

  I would appreciate it if an admin would caution him to keep behavioral discussions to this noticeboard. This feels like a series of personal attacks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I didn't want to respond here based on @Shaan Sengupta's warning but in my defense: Correcting a nominator's misunderstanding of the law (1962 Ordinance vs. 2000 Act) and pointing out their inability to verify a national award-winning author is not a 'personal attack.' It is a necessary part of a deletion discussion. Under COM:CIR (Competence is Required), a user must have the capacity to verify the sources they are challenging. My critiques have focused entirely on the nominator's lack of jurisdictional knowledge and their failure to follow COM:OFFLINE before nominating 7 of my uploads in under 24 hours. I invite any Admin to check the deletion discussions to verify that my responses have remained focused on statutory evidence and bibliographic facts, and not personal attacks on user @EducatedRedneck, we were just discussing the deletion and reasoning to contest/keep on all seven pages. That is all. Regalhist5 (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  On one hand, I don't see the justification for most of those files to be kept. Given that Bangladesh was 50 years from publication for pictures until after 2000, only files published before 1946 were PD in Bangladesh. We don't know when these files were first published, but for all but one, it was after 1946. The 1971 work gets 60 years from publication, which is 2031.

  On the other, your first post on most of the DRs is complaining about EducatedRedneck and the deletions, not focusing on the law and facts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate the feedback, @Prosfilaes. I will focus strictly on the statutory math:

  The 1962 Ordinance Math: Under the 1962 Ordinance (Section 20), the term for photographs was 50 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is taken. For a 1965 photo, it entered the PD in 2016. For a 1971 photo, it entered PD in 2022.

  URAA & 1996: You are correct that works published after 1946 were not PD in 1996. However, COM:URAA does not grant a permanent copyright. It restored the term they would have had. Since these works are now PD in their home country (Bangladesh) as of 2026, they are eligible for Commons.

  The 1971 Film (Stop Genocide): This is a Government Work (Department of Films and Publications). Under Section 30 of the 2000 Act, the term is 60 years. 1965+60=2025. As it is now January 2026, the 60-year term for a 1965 work has expired. For the 1971 film, the transition from the 1962 Ordinance (50 years) to the 2000 Act (60 years) is the point of debate, but for the 1965 stills, the 60-year window is officially closed.

  Publication Status: These are stills from a state-produced film festival (1965) and a state-produced documentary (1971). They were 'published' by the government at the time of release.

  I apologize for the initial focus on the nominator's behavior; I was frustrated by the mass-nomination of 7 files in 24 hours without prior discussion. I will ensure the metadata on the files reflects these specific dates and statutes. Regalhist5 (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding my initial focus: You are correct that I was initially focused on the behavior of the nominator, as I was dealing with 7 mass-nominations in 24 hours. However, as the discussion progressed, I have provided specific statutory evidence (the 1962 Ordinance vs. the 2000 Act) and verified historical dates (1961/1965) that prove these files are now in the Public Domain. I also did not make any personal attacks later on as they claim, I only cited evidence of the laws/policy. Regalhist5 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  Bangladesh Copyright law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Bangladesh

  https://copyrightoffice.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/copyrightoffice.portal.gov.bd/law/121de2e9_9bc9_4944_bfef_0a12af0864a5/Copyright,2000(1)%20(2).pdf

  URAA law:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights

  1962 Ordinance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Pakistan Regalhist5 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think the pictures should be kept because Regalhist5 mentions the 1962 Ordinance for PD status which makes sense. ~2026-17324-3 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  Further, EducatedRedneck should have discussed this on Regalhist talkpage before escalating to deletion. It is a lot of files at once too. ~2026-17324-3 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I closed 2 of the DRs mentioned above. Actually, one important information is missing: what was the law before the 1962 Ordinance? Is the 1962 Ordinance retroactive (does it apply to works before 1962, or only after this date)? Yann (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this @Yann.

Here is the historical legal framework:

Before 1962 (The Imperial Copyright Act 1911): Prior to the 1962 Ordinance, the law in effect was the Imperial Copyright Act 1911 (which was extended to British India via the Indian Copyright Act 1914). Under Section 21 of the 1911 Act, the term for photographs was 50 years from the making of the original negative.

Retroactivity of the 1962 Ordinance: The 1962 Ordinance (Section 20) maintained this 50-year term for photographs. In common law jurisdictions like Pakistan/Bangladesh, new copyright acts generally apply to all works that are still in copyright at the time the new act is passed.

For a photo taken in 1902, the 50-year term under the 1911 Act expired in 1952. Because it was already in the Public Domain by 1962, the 1962 Ordinance did not 'revive' it.

For a photo taken in 1960, it was covered by the 1962 Ordinance's 50-year term, meaning it would have entered the PD in 2010.

The 2000 Act: This act extended the term to 60 years, but it generally did not revive works that had already entered the Public Domain under the 1962 Ordinance's 50-year rule.

So as of 2026, Regardless of which transition we look at, we have now reached the 60-year 'safety limit' for the mid-1960s. For example, the 1965 Nigar Award photo (1965+60=2025) expired on January 1, 2026 even under the strictest modern interpretation. Regalhist5 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann, sorry to bother but one question, since the {PD-Pakistan} tag explicitly references the Copyright Act 1911 (50-year term) and the 1962 Ordinance, would it be appropriate to apply that logic here? These works were created in East Pakistan (when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan) under those specific statutes.

As we are now in January 2026, even the 60-year safety term for the 1965 photos has expired. This seems to resolve the uncertainty regarding the law before 1962 that you mentioned. Should I update the templates for the photos? Regalhist5 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, These are without a doubt in the public domain in the country of origin. The issue is the copyright status in USA, which depends, among other things, when they entered the public domain in the country of origin. I don't advocate deleting them, but other people might, if they are affected by URAA. URAA does not apply if they were published before 1946 (per {{PD-1996}}). After that, it depends if they were simultaneously published in USA. Yann (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Yann. Since you have confirmed these are in the public domain in the country of origin, the primary concern of the nomination is resolved.

Regarding the URAA/US status: There is no evidence of simultaneous publication in the US or US copyright registration for these 1961/1965 regional works. Furthermore, as of January 2026, these works have now reached the 60-year threshold (1965+60=2025). Under COM:PCP, there is no longer significant doubt to justify deletion. The home-country PD status is verified, and the US term for such works has effectively lapsed. I am happy to leave this for your final judgment. Regalhist5 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Regalhist5: For someone complaining about someone else's lack of knowledge of copyright law, this is pretty rich: Since these works are now PD in their home country (Bangladesh) as of 2026, they are eligible for Commons. No. Absolutely not how the URAA restoration works. In theory, the U.S. could have followed the rule of the shorter term there, but they did not. For any Pakistani-published works in copyright in Pakistan as of 1 January 1996, barring simultaneous publication in the United States, the U.S. granted the full copyright term they would have received if they were originally published in the U.S. and all copyright terms were correctly complied with. For works from the 1960s (or any date between 1 January 1946 and 28 February 1989), that gives them 95 years from initial publication. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I've blocked Regalhist5 for 3 months for abuse of multiple accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Revision delete

Please delete the oldest revision of File:Mírové poselství Františka Křižíka, ČsRo 1937-12-24.mp3, because there are parts that are covered by copyright, the actual version contains only PD excerpts. Thanks. --Enaecard (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Enaecard  Done _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Flag of Latvia file description

I'm trying to revert to the last version in May 2025 before the file description was vandalized to declare it was the flag of Nazi Germany. My edit was disallowed and I escalated. The original edits should clearly be disallowed. BalticEditor47 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit: Dealt with. I don't know if these edits should be suppressed or not. I'll let you make the final call here. BalticEditor47 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Chinese gaming (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) who added these description, indef. as vandalism only account. Yann (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I think a few of the edits until 9 January need to be removed as well as the "Nazi Germany" file description is still visible before it was finally edited out by Zeta. BalticEditor47 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Done and resolved. BalticEditor47 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

google

Eliminar cuenta de google Ervinmendezgomez (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

eliminar la de 9 january 2026(utc) Ervinmendezgomez (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ervinmendezgomez: Hola y bienvenido. No, no limitaremos el rastreo de Google de forma irrazonable, a menos que lo hagan de forma irrazonable. No, no lo eliminaremos hoy. La IA de Google proporcionó estos pasos para eliminar su cuenta de Google: Vaya a la sección Datos y privacidad de su cuenta de Google; desplácese hasta "Sus opciones de datos y privacidad"; seleccione Más opciones y luego Eliminar su cuenta de Google; y siga las instrucciones para eliminar su cuenta.

Hi, and welcome. No, we will not unreasonably limit Google's crawling, unless they do it unreasonably. No, we will not eliminate today. Google's AI gave these steps to delete your Google Account: Go to the Data & Privacy section of your Google Account; Scroll to "Your data & privacy options."; Select More options and then Delete your Google Account; and Follow the instructions to delete your account.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Category page as article page?

Hi, I've noticed c:Category:Georgiy Pavlovich Osipov page, it seems that the author attempted to create a personal "article" for a subject. I tagged it with "Commons is not article" tag, if I am wrong, I will revert it, thanks. Yamato Shiya (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The wiki data items of the other family members have been deleted[1][2], but the documents in the Commons category are in project scope even if the guy himself might not be notable. We could keep the category so that all files that belong together stay together. The category description... is definitely on the lengthier end of things, but as an article it would make a stub a stub at most. It could probably be shortened to his birth, ww2 participation, and death. No need to list all the awards because this can be inferred from the documents in the category or by adding "Recipients of xyz medal"-categories if necessary. The wife probably also doesn't need to be mentioned.

I'm wondering whether there were Commons categories for the other relatives whose Wikidata items were deleted. Nakonana (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I found the other categories. They are also full of in-scope documents, but don't have any lengthy biographical descriptions. Nakonana (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright I saw the tag removed, thank you and I apologize. Yamato Shiya (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It is problematic, not least because it is uncited. There is also a great deal of Schema.org structured data and keyword-stuffing, hidden in HTML comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The user did the same thing with their user page here and in Wikidata. Yamato Shiya (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It is sourced as far as the documents in the category itself can serve as (primary) sources (which, of course, is also problematic, but having primary sources is still better than not having any sources at all).

I didn't even suspect there might be more stuff hidden in the source code of the category... Nakonana (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The categories of the other family members (Category:Anna Alekseevna Osipova, Category:Bagrat Georgiyevich Osipov, Category:Irina Georgiyevna Osipova) don't have any of the hidden stuff, except for one (Category:David Zurabovich Osipov). Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

In scope?

Can someone take a look at these?. This looks like a big collection of real estate images. Thanks for your time. Geoffroi 19:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Deleted all as F10. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Geoffroi 19:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Were they copyvios? It seems to me that real estate images are in scope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

They were images about a non-notable music group called Iran Maiden. There were about 50 or 60 images of their large home/mansion and 10 or so others of the people themselves with musical instruments, Iron Maiden logos, etc. All the images were centered on a thick gray matte/border which is why I originally thought they were real estate material. Geoffroi 19:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I thought by "real estate images" we were talking about images from a realtor (or "estate agent") website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Closing UDR

Hi, How long should we wait before closing undeletion requests? I usually wait for 24h after the last comment, but Jim has a different idea. Opinions? Yann (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Depends on how clear the resolution is. If there's any ambiguity over the eventual outcome, we should wait until that's resolved. If it's clearly not going to get undeleted - obvious copyvios, clearly out of scope, malformed requests, etcetera, I don't see a reason to keep them open longer than they have to be.

Is there a specific file or files in question where you disagree with the outcome, or is this a systemic disagreement? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if a file needs a VRT permission, I think waiting for 24h after the last comment is just fair. There is no real disagreement, but having a common procedure among admins is good. Yann (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a different idea -- I had thought that we routinely waited until at least 24 hours had passed since the request was made. I would be happy to wait until 24 hours after the last comment. I do, however, immediately close UnDRs with {{VRTrestore}} when the last comment has been to correctly direct the requester to have a free license sent to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Gōshō Aoyama portrait (cropped).jpg

File:Gōshō Aoyama portrait (cropped).jpg needs to be deleted as a consequence of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gōshō Aoyama portrait.jpg. It's a crop of a file deleted for copyright reasons. (I couldn't find a CSD category for this, but I think it's reasonable to speedy delete it.) whym (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Already done by Jmabel. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Iruka13

 You are invited to join the discussion at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Iruka13. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Request admin closure of invalid deletion request

Hello,

I am requesting administrative assistance to remove a deletion banner that remains on my user talk page after the deletion request was found to be procedurally invalid.

The nomination concerns my user talk page, now titled User talk:QX492 (formerly User talk:PeterTepatti). It has already been confirmed that this is not a file and that user talk pages are not subject to deletion. I therefore request administrative closure of the request as invalid and removal of the deletion template.

Thank you.

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/User talk:PeterTepatti Banner currently on: User talk:QX492 QX492 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Repeated deletion nominations without a reason by two recently-created users

There are two users making repeated deletion nominations without a proper reasoning. These are Carlosarevalohn and Yovanyhn. They're repeatedly nominating files for deletion while only giving the reasoning "Eliminar", meaning to eliminate. The logos they're trying to delete are uncopyrightable in the US, but I don't know about Honduras' threshold of originality. Reprimand them, and ensure that deletion requests without a reasoning are not considered unless obvious. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like Yovanyhn is nominating Carlosarevalohn's uploads for deletion and vise versa. Are they also nominating other people's uploads or is this a personal matter between the two? Nakonana (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

And what is @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: doing in there, nominating those logos for speedy deletion with a "selfie" rationale[3][4] after having been warned by Yann over this 4 days ago[5]? Nakonana (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Candidyeoman55 when you report someone, you need to notify the reported users about it (per the instructions at the top of this page). I've done this for you this time. Nakonana (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsure that all of these deletions are frivolous, but they need to knock it off with the mutual DRs. (I'm thinking 2 day block for harassment for both of them) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Today I learned that you can put the registered trademark character into file titles. Yeah these are problematic. 3 DRs within 5 hours on one file is not a good move. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Can logs be deleted?

Hi dear administrators, I previously uploaded some personal signature images (which were later deleted). After discussing this with the original author, we would like to hide these traces as much as possible. Therefore, I would like to request the deletion of those log entries ,and for details, please see User_talk:Auntof6#Deletion request. As stated in the title, is it possible to hide the details and summaries of these log entries? ShuQizhe (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think we should hide these logs, even if it were possible. People with oversight right can hide some information, but it is only done to protect privacy. Please see Commons:Oversighters for cases when suppression is approved. Yann (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say this request should be sent to oversighters, and they can decide. Ymblanter (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I would also recommend that the original poster look into the en:Streisand effect. We have so many uploads, and so much in our logs, that you'd have to know something exists and go looking for it to find it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I think that this clearly does not meet the criteria for oversight, so I will give up the request. Thank you for your replies~ ShuQizhe (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)