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.
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.
Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mo Billings has an issue with civility and now has resorted to uploading images to be disruptive to commons processes. Zppix (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix I'm not sure when you think I have been uncivil. We've only had two interactions that I can recall, both very recent. The first here where you joined a discussion I was having with AntiCompositeNumber, and the second on my talk page which, I assume, came about as a result of you looking through my uploads after the first discussion. Which is perfectly fine. If you feel that I have been uncivil to you, please post a diff.
As far as File:President Donald J Trump looking at Japanese cartoon pornography.png, I uploaded that because you said you could not answer a hypothetical question. I took you at your word because I know that some people have genuine difficulty with hypothetical questions. I don't see how that's "disruptive to Commons processes" in any way. No process has been interrupted, delayed, changed, or in any way disrupted by the upload of this file. In fact, you are using Commons processes to start a deletion discussion. Mo Billings (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mo should be warned that further pointless uploads to prove a point to another editor could result in a very long block. This project does not exist for the sole purpose of uploading content to make a POINT. You either upload normal images of normal things.... or you don't. –Davey2010Talk22:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it pointy or is it pointless? I wish you people would make up your minds. Davey2010, "normal pictures of normal things" probably leaves out a lot of images that would be very useful for educational purposes. I think the project would suffer greatly if everyone were as close-minded as you seem to be. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's quite obviously isn't it?, sure I've seen some weird images here in my time however the majority of those are no longer here.....,
That's rubbish! - it's not about being close-minded - It's about looking at the bigger picture and asking yourself "could or would this file be used outside of Commons?" and IMHO the answer would be no. Those looking for 4chan content aren't going to come here and I don't really see why we would need to provide it. But as stated above the file was only created because someone couldn't answer a hypothetical question which personally I don't believe is a valid reason to upload files here. –Davey2010Talk11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Both images I would consider to be of 4Chan material. Anyway this discussion wont lead anywhere - IMHO pictures such as yours should be avoided ... that's it. Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter referenced this 2011 WMF board resolution in the deletion discussion. I had never seen it before so I found it quite interesting reading. I know Jimbo Wales is a board member so I asked him about it on his talk page. Why is that discussion being brought up here, on "user problems"? How is it a problem in any sense? Mo Billings (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kwhizzzz has been changing Category:Eddie Van Halen, who died in 2020, to say that Van Halen is alive. I have been reverting this vandalism, but reported the user today because they weren't going away and I was tired of seeing messages when I was reverted. AntiCompositeNumber has now protected the category with the vandalism uncorrected. Not only did they warn me about edit warring, they pointed the vandal to this discussion! Can someone please explain to me what exactly is going on here? I've only ever tried to be helpful here and suddenly I find that rather than dealing with serious copyright problems I have pointed out (this one), I seem to have become a target. Mo Billings (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal that I do not support whch was opened by someone else. How is that discussion a "problem" and what does it have to do with me? Mo Billings (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You should also note your poor behavior of not understanding simple message as left on your talkpage. And also I am not sure why you did not mention the several reverts that "you" did. These logos were uploaded several years ago when I was just fumbling around Commons. I have no business nor any interest in them now and don't care anymore. My talkpage also is my personal space, it's not image page or project policy page, I have the right to clear it. It's strange you don't know this. Please since the discussions around these items have been already concluded, do not edit my talkpage again in that respect. Please do not. I don't instruct you on how to use your talkpage.– Ammarpad (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When users remove warnings or other messages from their talk page, it is assumed that they have read them and policy allow them to remove messages from their talk page. There is nothing we can do here. Let's get back to work. Regards. T CellsTalk07:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One user ('remover') believes certain tens of images should be removed from a certain category, whereas myself and another user believe the images should not be removed. There has been a revert of an initial edit by the remover that was reverted and then reverted back by the remover [1]. I raised the issue on the Help Desk [2], one of the talk pages [3], the Village Pump [4] and Categories for discussion [5] with limited interest. I am not asking for the remover to be blocked or disciplined. I am asking for some kind of judgment to be made between us as to whether the images that have been removed by the remover should be restored to the category they were removed from. If possible, please do not remove this from the noticeboard without notifying me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a dispute between Geographyinitiative, who sees any legible element of the Tongyong Pinyin romanization of the Mandarin language visible while pixelpeeping or viewing an image at a particular large size to be justification for adding Category:Tongyong Pinyin, and Kai3952, who wants to be able to see it in a thumbnail of a certain small size before addition of that category is justified, and both edit warring to justify their points of viewcontinuing to enforce their points of view, and then escalating to and forum shopping on various noticeboards. Hopefully, we can help them to come to an agreement on a size cutoff, in pixels horizontally, to prevent further disruption, sanctions, and blocking. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me09:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I would like to politely ask you to justify, with citation and links to specific edits, your statement that I have been edit warring. I have not been edit warring whatsoever. Kai3952 broke the three revert rule, but I don't want the editor to get in trouble- I merely want a decision made between us all. You said that I was edit warring, but I want to know where I have done that. The 'forum shopping' has happened because no one has yet given us a decision or even an opinion on the issue. It's only analogous to forum shopping if we were getting negative opinions in some place and then switching forums. I have done everything I could, and literally gone out of my way, to prevent edit warring from happening. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks for saying that I am not edit warring. I'm just wanting an authoritative decision to be made about the proper limits for the Category:Tongyong Pinyin- that's all! You seem to be the first person not party to the discussions to understand the issue, so I'm happy about that. Just looking for some guidance. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Example image I know this may seem silly, but I'm so happy that there is some productive discussion going on now. My base position is that if a Tongyong Pinyin-derived word appears in an image, then that image could be legitimately included in Category:Tongyong Pinyin. To answer the question posed above: it's not my intention that stuff that's "too small to see" should be included in the category, but in my mind, I think all the images Kai removed have a Tongyong Pinyin word that can be clearly seen if you open up the image. I wasn't using a program to zoom in to see pixelated Tongyong Pinyin signs. Tongyong Pinyin is very rare, and some of the images removed are among the few images on the internet where a given word appears at all. If there's a rule about when things are "too small" to be part of a category, let me know! As an example, the word 'Tianjhong' is clearly visible in this image-no need for "pixel peeping"- yet this image has been removed from Category:Tongyong Pinyin. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no technical knowledge to be able to answer that question. All I'm saying is that I'm using my normal eyes to look at the Wikimedia Commons page File:TRA_TianJhong_Station.jpg and without even clicking to open up the image, I can clearly see the Tongyong Pinyin word 'Tianjhong' on the sign. Also, the title of the image includes the word Tianjhong, written as TianJhong (a variant form), demonstrating that the word is a salient part of the image and not a minor background detail that can only be "pixel peeped". In my mind, the image should therefore be included in Category:Tongyong Pinyin, because it is a legitimate example of a Tongyong Pinyin word being used in real-life and it's a high-quality image where a Tongyong Pinyin word can be clearly seen. If someone wanted crop the image and zoom in closer on the word, they could. Thanks for your time. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geographyinitiative: If you do a printscreen and then paste the result into a paint program or app and ask for the file's properties or pretend to upload it, how wide is the resulting image? If you don't know how to do a printscreen, what device manufacturer and operating system are you using? For reference, my usual editing platform is my iPad 3, width 2048px. My working laptop's width is 1366px. When used as an external display by my working laptop over HDMI, my TV's width is 2221px. My image size limit on file description pages on Commons is 320×240px. My thumbnail size on Commons is 400px (default 220px). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me11:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Sorry, maybe I did not clearly articulated what was expected of the Tongyong Pinyin category... please take a look at the following pictures:
Yes, it's clearly showing "Fusing."
Yes, it's clearly showing "Jyunsiao."
Yes, it's clearly showing "Liouguei."
Yes, it's clearly showing "Siaogang."
Yes, the sign that says "Sinyi," which is clearly shown on the left side of the foreground.
Yes, the sign that says "Cingshuei," which is clearly shown on the left side of the foreground.
Yes, the sign that says "Jhaishan" and "Jhushan," which isclearly shown on the right side of the foreground.
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Zaociao."
No, too far away from the sign that says "Zaociao."
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Jiasian."
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Tianchih."
No, it's not clearly focused on the sign that said "Sinhua" and "Shanhua."
Let's take a look at File:ZaociaoTownshiP.jpg, shown in the photo gallery above. I mean, I would argue almost the exact reverse of what Kai3952 is saying- the image IS clearly focused on the sign that says Zaociao. I don't think you have to be "clearly focused" on something to be part of a category, but in that particular image, I would say that the image is definitely clearly focused on the Tongyong Pinyin word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I created File:ZaociaoTownshiP.jpg as a crop after this matter was raised in VP a week or so ago. It meant to address Kai3952’s apparent issues with some of the images categorized as Category:Tongyong Pinyin, yet it’s not good enough yet apparently, which make me suspect that this user’s motivation is not a useful categorization of media files in Category:Tongyong Pinyin but something else altogether. And whatever it may be, it’s not a concern of Commons and therefore Geographyinitiative’s decision to move this matter onto an admin messageboard seems to be the right one: It’s a user problem, and it needs to be dealt with. Again. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you use your eyes to see them, then compare three separate photographs next to each other within the same file. Also, I feel that your actions are disturbing the peace of my mind because I seem to be pinged by you every time. Please stop {{Ping}}ing me to this page.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped images are good, but you should have done that before instead. Now’s a bit too late. (And mosaics of several photos in the same JPEG file? Technically bad idea. Just upload the crooped details and leave the arrangement to final users in Wikipedia articles and such.) -- Tuválkin✉✇14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too late? You and Jeff G. don't understand what I'm talking about, so I use picture cropping as an example. Please take a look at Example 1 and 2:
Example 1.: a., b., c.File:Zaociao Township Office-000.jpg. Compare the differences between them clearly: a is better than b, but c is better than b.
Just like is better than , but is better than . Therefore, the point is not whether the photo is cropped, but whether the camera lens is aimed to the word on the sign. I hope my explanation can help you to understand what I mean (including what's expected of Category:Tongyong Pinyin).--Kai3952 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to get Kai3952 blocked or punished. I just want to get an answer from an authority on Wikimedia Commons about the issue that Kai has raised. Once we have that answer, then we will have a firmer standard to follow, and no one has to be banned or blocked- we just follow the rules as articulated. I believe that the issue raised is without merit and that all the images removed from Category:Tongyong Pinyin should be restored on the basis that a visually recognizable Tongyong Pinyin word is photographed in each of them. Obviously there is some cut-off line where "pixelated" Tongyong Pinyin should not be included in the category, but we are not at the stage where the category is populated with words that are not visually recognizable as Tongyong Pinyin, and Kai is arguing for something much more expansive than that standard. My standard: if I can click on and open the image and see the letters of a Tongyong Pinyin word with my eyes, then it's good for inclusion. My standard may be wrong! We just need an authoritative answer- or even just a provisional answer. We need the hand of experience and wisdom to reach down into this conversation and give us an answer. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me bring to everybody’s attention that this is AN/U. We’re not discussing how to populate Category:Tongyong Pinyin — that should be done at Category talk:Tongyong Pinyin or maybe in the COM:VP (where a section about this topic is still open?). We’re here to discuss Kai3952, or rather admins are. Uploading detail crops of images at Category:Tongyong Pinyin is the right thing to do, but this is being discussed here and not there because Kai3952 didn’t do that cropping when it was the right time: Kai3952 uncategorized and edit-warred — and that’s why Kai3952 is here. -- Tuválkin✉✇14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic failure to accept COM:NPOV and COM:UPLOADWAR on File:Time zones of Europe.svg. The story: the file had a long consensus on displaying de facto time, regardless of recognition (as exemplified by the Northern Cyprus, which was displayed in de facto time in 2016-2018, despite lack of any recognition except for Turkish (patron state) one - note that nobody contested that change, despite almost identical situation to Crimea, except lack of outright annexation of the area by Turkey), yet the user insists that Crimea time should be displayed solely as claimed by Ukraine (or, at most, as disputed), not as de facto applied. Similar edits (uploads), painting Crimea as either disputed or Ukrainian, were attempted before by another user, but had no consensus for them (File_talk:Time_zones_of_Europe.svg#Crimea_time, File_talk:Time_zones_of_Europe.svg#Donbass - esp. note for Rob984's reply of 11:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC): "I created a second file which can be used in place of this one. You cannot modify a file on Commons without support of the various contributors. The weight of your argument is irrelevant here, because files do not need to be factually accurate. If you want your change to the file to be reflected on Wikipedia you will need to gain consensus on Wikiepdia. I sympathise with your argument but you are now being disruptive"). Yet, despite all this, these non-consensus uploads continue. I tried to explain the policy and consensus at file talk, yet it was futile, so reporting here. --Seryo93 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User Seryo93 shows destructive behaviour by drawing insistently maps where Crimea is Russian without even slightest annotation that this position of Crimea is disputed. Some of maps are originally included in templates and made before Russian invasion and Crimea annexation they are made & updated by other users, and these maps were/are included everywhere. Now user dares to argument that we (Ukrainian community) have to make & use local copies where Crimea is Ukrainian, leaving Russian-invaded maps for the world community included everywhere.
I think that annexation of Global Knowledge and advocation of Russia wars is unacceptable by this way and undermines basic principles of Wikipeadia neutrality. Since recognition of Crimea is more prevailed by worldwide community as Ukrainian, Seryo93 (Together with North Korea) explicitly has to make separate maps which annotate in brackets that Crimea is Russian by Russian point of view and include them everywhere: I just want to watch how he will be banned for such data corruption in other Wikipedias.
I want to pay your attention that re-remaking pre-made before maps so they explicitly depict Russian point of view is disruptive behaviour in community and such user should be warned and banned if such practice continues. Alex Khimich (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the fact: Crimea is already drawn there as a disputed territory - as indicated by a disputed (dotted, not a solid line) border between it and Kherson Oblast of Ukraine. But that territorial dispute doesn't affect the fact that local time is the one imposed by the de facto authorities (you again failed to address consensus example of non-edit-warred two-year-long Northern Cyprus, which is similar to Crimea in all but the lack of outright annexation). And since previous attempt to alter the map based on "recognition" (rather than actual time) was rejected, so, per COM:UPLOADWAR: " Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion." (emphasis mine). The proposed change was reverted earlier, so it cannot be reinstated - only as a new variant (and yes, this applies regardless of any "recognition"). User, who upload-warred to implement that change against consensus (Antonyahu) was blocked for that - and if you contiune such behavior, then you'll likely follow down that road too. Again, as you were told several times (but refused to accept), recognition is not, and never was, an argument here, on Commons. True, a file change can emerge, but only when agreement arises - and when there isn't (as was the case of the file in question - if you look into its history, you'll note that I wasn't the first, and ceratinly not the only, person to object changing file from de facto timezoning), the only way to do it is to upload as a separate version. --Seryo93 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for the action from admin board to be taken. The "de facto" state which user tries to annotate your attention to is ridiculous. There are international laws, international recognition, prevailing majority of population are ukrainians and the word "de facto" has nothing to do with that rather than military propaganda. Don't even try to say me about referendum was 95% "pro-Russian vote". I think it's an acceptable behaviour where default maps that are included everywhere are showing Crimea explicitly as Russian. It is destructive behaviour and should be banned. If he wants to draw map where it is explicitly Russian it should be put into the brackets and description should point into another version where disputed state shown. It's unacceptable to include in templates Russian-colored Crimea — it doesn't matter is that time zones map or political maps or language maps. If map has state- involved borders, it ought to be politically correct otherwise deleted as terrorism & war & harassment propaganga. Many readers feel to be harassed when they open Wikipedia and they see Russian fascist propaganda on the pages of Wikipedia. Please take an action immediately. Alex Khimich (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Blocked for 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
, b.
, c.File:Zaociao Township Office-000.jpg. Compare the differences between them clearly: a is better than b, but c is better than b.
, b.File:Highway26 in Manzhou, Pingtung Taiwan 01-1.jpg, c.File:Highway26 in Manzhou, Pingtung Taiwan 01-2.jpg. Compare the differences between them clearly: a is better than b, but c is better than b.
is better than 
, but 
is better than 
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Zaociao_Township_Office.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Zaociao_Township_Office.JPG){kind=link}
