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: ~68
• Unfree Flickr files: ~1
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 1 January 2026: ~34
• No permission since 1 January 2026: ~101
• No source since 1 January 2026: ~44
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2026-01: ~136

Other:

• Duplicates: ~205
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~30
• Other speedy deletions: ~41
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~5
• Undeletion requests: ~16

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~54
• Interface admin: ~14
• Technical: ~2
• Template protection: ~8
• 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.

52 Images of Ants eating rice

This users has created and spammed many categories with many near identical images. For example 52 images of ants eating rice: there are many, many more images which are medium to low quality with many many copies. Example: File:9797Malakapas textures Alakaak textures 40.jpg also look at the description of that file:

Malakapas textures Mojarra Malakapas and Alakaak textures Tuel, Balat, DulamaCroaker Johnius amblycephalus Johnius amblycephalus (Bleeker, 1855) Dendrophysa russelii (Cuvier, 1829) Dendrophysa russelii in Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (RA 11469) Bayanihan Act of 2020. Signed on March 24, 2020 7,958 Covid-19 cases in Philippines April 28; 12,933 as of May 19, 2020; 14,669 Covid-19 cases in Philippines May 26; 886 deaths; Covid-19 cases in Philippines June 2 - 18,997 and 966 deaths; August 18 - 169,213 cases COVID-19 Philippines, new cases 4,836, 53,665 active cases; 112,861 recovered, 2,687 deaths; August 20 Coronavirus Cases: 173,774 Deaths: 2,795 Recovered: 113,481; 178,022 cases COVID-19 Philippines, new cases, 4,339 added. 61,025 active, 114,116 recovered and 2,883 deaths August 22 Philippines Coronavirus Cases: 182,365 Deaths: 2,940 Recovered: 114,519 Category:Sitios and puroks of the Philippines Subdivisions of the Philippines Barangay Poblacion 14°57'17"N 120°54'2"E, Baliuag, Bulacan, Bulacan province taken under weather conditions of Habagat Monsoon of South Asia Low Pressure Area (LPA) Southwest Monsoon (Note: Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor FlorentinoFloro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally Judge Floro all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever).

This text is in many many images. To create a Deletion Request would be a huge tast. Better an admin gets the ok to just go through and mass deletes most of those near identical images. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 21:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The uploader was blocked and globally locked years ago. File:9797Malakapas_textures_Alakaak_textures_40.jpg is very blurry and might be a good candidate for a deletion request. The parts of the text that do not refer to the image should be removed IMO even if the image is not deleted. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Correction: the global lock is from February 2025. Sockpuppets may be more recent. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Amada44: for the future, VFC actually makes mass DRs like this pretty easy to create. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any replacement photos of 9797Malakapas_textures_Alakaak_textures_40.jpg? Because otherwise it seems hard to justify Trade (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-29921-0001, Bulganin, Nikolai Alexandrowitsch.jpg

Hi, I can't undelete this file. Any idea? Yann (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the cropped version much different? File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-29921-0001, Bulganin, Nikolai Alexandrowitsch (cropped).jpg Nakonana (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. I think we can dispense with this file. Yann (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought that maybe the system was thinking that you are trying to undelete a duplicate or something, and that that was maybe the reason for the failed undeletion.

But if the cropped version isn't that different then it's fine too. Nakonana (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I could undelete it, when marking only the 1st and the 3rd file-version, and thereafter pasting in the description etc. from the last version before deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio: That would make sense if the 2nd file-version was corrupt, or possibly oversighted. But please do us a favor and sanitize or remove the deletion tag.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Best image search for copyvios?

What's the best image search for detecting copyvios now? Google image search has degenerated into uselessness with its AI bilge, and Tineye never finds much. Just at the moment, I'm concerned about File:Martín pescador común Alcedo atthis.jpg which has several red flags to me (professional quality, but lack of exif, incorrect geolocation [urban street in Germany, not a wetland for a wetland bird], and uploaded by someone whose other photos are from South America thousands of km from this image), but I can't find proof of it being a copyvio. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Good question - I've found Tineye rubbish of late so was wondering the same thing. On that image Google has plenty of hits but none that seem quite right for me. I do agree the image is suspect. Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Google Lens works fine for me: the third result on "exact matches" is https://x.com/Adri_Wan/status/2001191760840528062 from 17 December 2025. Belbury (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! With that, I'll delete the pic now. @Belbury Where can I find google lens, please? - MPF (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It's what the Google website uses if you click the camera icon for "search by image".

If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, enabling "Reverse Image Search" will add direct sidebar search links for Google Lens, TinEye and Yandex, when you're viewing a file page on Commons. Belbury (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury Thanks! Odd, that ("search by image") is exactly what I did, but google didn't find any exact matches . . . - MPF (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury sorry to trouble you again, could you check these two from the same uploader? Again I'm not getting any hits, like I didn't for that Kingfisher, but both are suspect for much the same reasons: File:Accipiter striatus, San Luis Obispo.jpg, and File:Amblyramphus holosericeus jpg.jpg. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, tried a second time on that last pic, and this time it did find it, on farcebook 👍 - MPF (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting the same here: no hits on the first, ten Facebook posts (where it looks like the Commons uploader has cropped the image to remove the visible watermark) for the second. Belbury (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll nominate the other one for deletion and see if anyone else can find its source - MPF (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I warned Aguila19 for this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Google image search appears to have some hick ups lately. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes simply reloading the tab fixes the hick up (at least temporarily). Nakonana (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Si . es que ese soy yo en X . Aguila19 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aguila19: Necesitas indicar una licencia en tu sitio web oficial o redes sociales o enviar tu permiso a través de VRT/es.

You need to display a license on your official website or social media or submit your permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm not sure he'll follow how to do that properly; I'd rather explain to him in more detail, once he confirms what is going on here. Also, clearly this will move more smoothly in Spanish. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

(cross-posted) @Aguila19: Tratando de clarificar: ¿entiendo que eres el fotógrafo, y los publicaciones anteriores en redes sociales eran por tu mismo? (Por favor, indíquelo explícitamente aquí si ese es el caso, para que pueda explicarle lo que debe hacer para que podamos conservar o restaurar las fotos en Commons). - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Dragoljub "Drage" Nikodinoski in the army.jpg Repeated deletion nominations and targeting by user Jingiby

Moved to COM:AN/U - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I closed the DR as kept. Currently protection is not needed. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Transliteration equated to phishing

Please review the placement of Category:.ру (cyrillic py, not related to Latin py) into Category:Phishing. Earlier, I brought the problem to the attention of @Tuvalkin: , who initiated this, but to no avail. Retired electrician (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I just removed the category and am puzzled that it was added in the first place. The Cyrillic .ру is used like the Latin .ru ending for writing website names in Russian. Examples from ruwiki: Лента.ру (aka news website Lenta.ru), Вести.ру (aka news website vesti.ru), Правда.ру (aka news website pravda.ru), Я.ру (aka ya.ru where ya is short for Yandex), Банк24.ру (aka bank24.ru), or Банки.ру (aka banki.ru). It's used in Russian language website logos etc. like vesti.ru. Nakonana (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and it is obviously phishing. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not phishing. There's not a single file in that category that depicts anything even remotely related to phishing. All I'm seeing in that category is Russian-language logos of legit companies. I don't think that it would be justified to declare any of the listed companies in that category as "phishing" companies. If this was a category about a living person, then putting it in a category like "phishing" would constitute a WP:BLP violation because we'd be accusing them of a crime. The logo of bank24.ru is in that category. Bank24 is a legit company. We can't just put a bank in Category:Phishing just because they are using Cyrillic script in their company name and logo. We can't just accuse a legit bank of phishing like that. If we ever get any depictions of Cyrillic .ру being used as a phishing to deceive people into thinking that it is Latin .py for the Paraguay domain then we can create a category along the lines of "Cyrillic ру used for phishing" or "Latin py used for phishing" which could then be a subcategory of Category:.ру,Category:.py, and Category:Phishing. But we really can't just put Cyrillic Category:.ру in Category:Phishing when there isn't a single example of phishing in that category. Nakonana (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

When you say «to no avail», it may be interpreted that I didn’t respond to your queary, but you rather mean that I didn’t agree with you. And I still don’t: Obviously ".py" and ".ру" look the same (per design, ever since Peter the Great and his graẑdanska typographic reform) and constitute a primer case of Unicode “confusables” that are the raw material of phishing. ISO 3166 alpha-2 look-alikes such as Cyrillic "ру" are intentionally excluded when evaluating i18n ccTLDs (compare the cases of ".рф" and ".бг"). I know it’s used as a commercial gimmik in Russia, not as an actual phishing hoax, but phishing as a concept is a matter of confusable characters in URLs and other such contexts, not a necessarily a legal accusation. Any reuser looking for good example to illustrate the concept of phishing in simple terms would be very well served by Wikimedia Commons by finding "Category:.ру" under "Category:Phishing". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand the categorization of Category:.ру under Category:Sponsored top-level domains, which was also my doing, is incorrect and I removed it — tardly and with apologies. Indeed Category:.ру is about something that looks very much like a ccTLD but is not one: Search the web for "domain:xn--p1ag" and you wont find anything, unlike, say "domain:xn--90ae" (=".бг"). So, ".ру" looks like something that it is not — which is pretty much a basic definition of phishing itself. Category:.ру must be recategorized under Category:Phishing to accompany not only actual criminal hoaxes but other examples of novelty URL-look-alike phrases used in media. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Any reuser looking for good example to illustrate the concept of phishing in simple terms would be very well served by Wikimedia Commons by finding "Category:.ру" — no that would be a horrible idea. Any reuser would be well advised to not use the logo of any legit company as an example for phishing. Just imagine using the logo of Bank of America as an example for phishing — they'd probably sue the hell out of that reuser for slander and whatnot. Nakonana (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Category:Undelete in 2026

Hi, There are only 4 DRs left. And I don't know what should be undeleted in them. Any idea? Yann (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

There might be notes like this[1] one. Nakonana (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

[2]. Nakonana (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Two of those had 2026 added by me for files that had been undeleted before this year (1930 publication). 1 was undeleted, but the admin forgot to change the category, and 1 of those I just undeleted the 1930 postage stamps. Abzeronow (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Please write a more informative title (view examples).

I have received the above message when attempting to upload a new image file into an existing magazine category.

I have previously used the book / magazine name with the appropriate page number or plate reference, because it does ensures a unique name. The image description is then added to the caption field or description page so it should be clear what the image is. For books / Magazines why is this now not considered a appropriate naming scheme?

The image I am trying to contribute is named Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume 44 - Plate 1.jpg with a description of Tin Coins from Malacca.

I have previously uploaded two similar images from different volumes of the Magazine which also have the description Tin Coins from Malacca. See Category: Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. For me this does ensures a unique unambiguous name and also provides the image description. What other naming structure would better ensure unique names for these images? Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: Where did you receive it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G, This appears when I use the upload wizard, it only started today, I uploaded a few images yesterday without issue. Sp1nd01 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me like a perfectly good name. We have tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of files with similar names. I'd suggest taking this to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback (and permalinking this discussion when you do so). - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please block User:Tous sur tous, his "creations" are here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tous_sur_tous. One file was used to vandalize the article "Afrique" on fr.wikipedia.org. Best regards. --d-n-f (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I warned the user. Uploads are nominated for speedy deletion. Next time block. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Ленивый Гриб

Please, check contribution of User:Ленивый Гриб. He has infinity block in local wiki, his actions in Commons are strange. Dinamik (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the userpage, where the user called himself an administrator. His actions in Commons are really strange, but I will not block him currently. Taivo (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 20:56, 7 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 Category:Map data of counties of Maine to Data:United States/Maine/Piscataquis County.map 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 ~619 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)

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." https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/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)

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)