You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Hi, I award you the Public Domain Barnstar for your research on public domain works to be undeleted. I am going through your list. Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Teamwork Barnstar
Faced with the easy choice of deleting an image or working to correct an error, this user decided that the project could be improved. This generous and honorable action represents the essence of the project. If the project had more souls like Abzeronow's, the quality of the project would increase exponentially. Luizpuodzius (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...
Abzeronow, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).
@Abzeronow, congratulations, I hope your addition to the team makes a difference. You are one of the very few "knowledgeable" people here. Heartily congratulations. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, although I think there are definitely more knowledgeable people than myself on Commons, and I try to keep learning from people here. I hope you'll be able to join the team soon, Aafi. Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
There was a consensus to delete many of those Geekography images and you overruled it based on your personal opinion. This is clear supervoting. Please undo your inappropriate closures Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
In what way does emojis on naked women illustrate emojis/unicode? (Not to mention the scope thing- it's been argued, and yet you decide to close a months old DR today. A discussion btw where no can even argue how all 600+ files are in scope- just circular reasoning all the way down) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Abzeronow honestly, frankly, I want an answer- what the fuck made you say a bunch of unicode on a naked women is illustrating the concept well (I'm not talking about all the other stuff, I don't care enough to be so insistent about that). Like what the actual fuck? And just to be clear- if you do not answer, I'll take you to ANU for misogyny. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
If all you can see the nudity, then that might be a problem with your perception. And also, I didn't answer because the question sounded loaded to me. Abzeronow (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Great, be misogynistic, then say "the problem is your perception, I'm not being misogynistic. Really, it's loaded- "How does unicode on naked women illustrate/explain the concept how of unicode?" I'm reporting you to COM:ANU. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This was OOS even by Geekography standards (random low-quality crop, not part of the actual project) and had a clear consensus to delete. Your closure just because I was blocked at the time was purely prejudicial and had nothing to do with the file. Dronebogus (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
You indiscriminately mass nominated a bunch of files for deletion, including one that had three previous DRs. And you did have an ongoing feud with the uploader. Abzeronow (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
This particular one was not indiscriminate. My rationale was: Not educationally useful; no-one is going to use a 300x300px image to illustrate nude women or controllers in 2025; also no-one is going to use an image with naked female breasts as a background to illustrate a controller (or vice versa). That is a clear, valid, objective reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This new account with autoconfirmed rights has done nothing else than vandalism. Do you really think that it should continue to vandalize Commons after one week of having been blocked? It made a user page with nonsense just to vandalize other pages. It’s already blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia because of "Vandalism-only account“ since 2:40 UTC today. And now, after the two blocks, it immediately began to vandalize Wikidata. It should be blocked globally, see Special:CentralAuth/CheckingDicenMooX6, but I am not able to make such a request on Meta, this is not possible with IP. Perhaps you could make such a request there and rollback also its edits on Wikidata? This account will not make any useable edit here on Commons in the future, that’s for sure. —176.1.19.16503:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
If another administrator wants to extend the block, I would not oppose (I don't usually use the block button but felt I had to use it in this case). Abzeronow (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, in the minute I wrote that above, it was globally blocked and locked. It’s done now. It’s always good to block such an account very fast, it would have made more nonsense otherwise. I found TV puppy’s user page in the speedy category and wondered about that. This vandalism-only user only made its user page blue with nonsense, then it waited a week for autoconfirmed rights, because no IP and new users may edit other user pages. It could have done anything on all pages that IPs can’t edit or revert. Therefore, such a vandalism-only account shouldn’t be blocked temporarily. You don’t have to look into other wikis for such a block, the edits here were enough, nothing useful. But it can help to look into other wiki’s edits after such a block of a vandalism account. Kind regards —176.1.19.16503:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Let’s see, this is the page for such requests (in the future, you could save the link somewhere), it’s semiprotected: m:Steward requests/Global. But there has been no request there for this account, it has been blocked globally without such a request. And look at their unblock request on English Wikipedia: en:User_talk:CheckingDicenMooX6. This was really much vandalism at once in only about one hour. —176.1.19.16504:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
You are requested to enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit, so that the U4C can get a better overview of the situation. All writing should be complete, but also as concise as possible. Please ensure that you make all comments in your own section and in the discussion section only. If the U4C makes a decision, this will be binding for you and so your participation is recommended.
Please do not reply here, but on the linked case page, or on the associated talk page. If you would like to contact the U4C directly, you will find an e-mail address here. Please use the email only if privacy is necessary (e.g. personal information). --Ferien (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Abzeronow. I submitted an autopatrol request about a week ago. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to see it yet, but I would be very grateful if you could take a look when you have a moment. Thank you. Leonardo Cirrus (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
2023 Picture of the Year: Incense plays an important role in Vietnamese life. It is considered as a sacred bridge to connect the visible life of human beings and the world of heaven, earth, and gods. Photo taken in Quang Phu Cau village, on the outskirts of Hanoi, Vietnam. In this picture, incense sticks are being set out to dry, after being dipped in the incense solution.
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2024 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the nineteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What's the basis for an undeletion date as late as 2045? p.m.a + 95 for U.S. under URAA?
I'm almost certain the paintings can't be later than 1939 (outbreak of WWII), so 2035 should be safe to undelete (unless of course we want to go into proving publication dates, a rabbit hole I hope we will skip).
(talk page stalker) La fecha es absurda, es bastante claro que no puede ser una obra creada en 2025.
La licencia me parece dubia también. van Diepenbeeck murió en 1675. ¿Como sería posible que sus derechos de autor permanecerían activos? (Veo que la fuente hace afirma esta licensia; lo que eso me dice es que no entienden los derechos de autor.)
Moby logo is trademarked, but not copyrighted, it's too simple to have a copyright and Italy has a reletively high threshold of originality for Europe. (EDIT: I did unhide and revert one of the one I cropped since I hadn't realize it was taken in Corsica when I had cropped it.) Abzeronow (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2024) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2024.
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Abzeronow you just closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Figure 15 CCTV screenshot of RAT Deployment – (2).png as delete per my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air India 171 runway CCTV.webm. You've stated it as deleted per my comment. I suggest that this call be made by how you interpret this and not what I said. The whole question regarding CCTV footages copyright status in India is based upon "originality". I explicitly mentioned in that DR that the summary of the cases and the example are my interpretations and not that of the court. If anything is wrong, its completely unintentional. I would advise the community to check it once before making a decision based on them. I hope you've done so. That's all. Also if this one is deleted, then maybe the first one too should follow the same path. Or better get this discussed on a larger forum. I, like I said before, won't be available due to my exams. Shaan SenguptaTalk00:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, I striked part of the sentence. I could raise the issue further at COM:VPC but your interpretation of Indian court cases is the best guidance I have on this. We interpret that fixed-camera CCTV is not copyrightable in the US based on the Copyright Office guidance on what constitutes a human author. Your comments seem to show that India is closer to the UK as far as CCTV. Abzeronow (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again, don't go ahead with my interpretations of the cases, they may be wrong. I got them from an advocate friend person studying law. I've struck down those interpretations. At max, you can google search those cases to understand what courts held. But yeah, Indian law is closer to the UK law. Shaan SenguptaTalk01:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Abzeronow, I think that you grant me autopatrol rights for 3 months and than you said it should be possible to make it permanent.. Would it be possible now please? I would like to correct some maps, due to the current Czech Parliament elections. Thank you for your answer, best regards Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Can you explain or elaborate why you closed that discussion as keep? Every single person involved agreed it was not free. It was not published until 1998, so no copyright formalities can apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Basically my thoughts were that it was a 1988 mugshot, and those are public records which were circulated among law enforcement. There would be no copyright notice on a mugshot, and with previous DRs, there has been discussion that pre-1989 mugshots are essentially public domain due those formalities. I could ask User:Clindberg on their thoughts on this in case I erred on this. Abzeronow (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Circulating privately among law enforcement is not publishing, is the difference. Anything on a wanted poster, for example, was published, (hence my rationale with those FBI mugshots) but this was not the case with Koresh until the 1990s. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
The overpass drawing as part of the new version of the file was originally created by user @Judicieux, it may well be above ToO, but it isn't the copyrighted version from the transportation ministry, and the user uploaded it to all of the shields, and they were all tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} at the time of uplod. Wolfy13399 (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
At some point, they are going to resemble each other as the drawing at the top of the shield is of an overpass over a freeway... A standard looking overpass over a freeway (dual-carriageway highway)
The drawing was made by @Judicieux, and they used it on all of the diagrams of highway shields of Quebec.
I want these rights to upload new versions of files. I've made some minor edits also to arrive at over the 500 requested for these rights. Please, can you consider my request? Thanks. Picoten (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) making minor edits to arrive at an edit count is sort of missing the point. The idea is to extend these rights only to people who have been around Commons long enough, and done enough responsible work that (1) no one else needs to patrol their edits and (2) we can trust them to understand what are and are not acceptable overwrites. - Jmabel ! talk23:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This deletion discussion was concluded with an agreement that there is no violation of the applicable law. Why did you delete it 3 months later without any warning? Is there something that should have been in done or written in order to make it clear that the deletion should not be done? IsraelHikingMap (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Your rationale for deletion did not address the central issue I raised in nomination, that these are not "arts in the public domain" as you put it, i.e. photographs or scans of actual artworks in the public domain, but are AI generated fabrications that copy the 'idea' of the original paintings. Beyond the uploader indicating they used "UploadWizard" to create the file, the fact that these have almost no fidelity to the original images beyond impressionistic mimesis is self-evident if you look at the image itself. This creates issues of historicity and factuality, and meta-issues of Wikipedia's role and effects on knowledge and normalization of fabrications as public domain works.
I maintain that as posted, this image does not meet Wikimedia Commons policies mandating clear identifaction of "artificial intelligence" images, and as machine generated simulacra of actual artworks with dramatically reduced detail this is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" per wikimedia commons policy, and so is a valid candidates for deletion. If the original poster wants to use the images from the actual sources they provided on the wikimedia page to collage the existing files I would have no objection. They ran this through a machine algorithm that effectively created a different work of art than the originals with consequences for historicity, veracity, etc etc. I argue this is below Wikipedia standards, represents a form of plagiarism, is "original work," and accordingly doesn't meet existing policy requirements. Wosewoes (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'll have to research whether AI works generate a copyright in Austria, Hungary and Türkiye. In the United States though, only human authors can generate a copyright so if no human author produces these "fabrications", they are public domain. The main reason why I kept this file is that it's in use in Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, English, Hungarian, Korean and Slovene Wikipedias. I CANNOT dictate to these Wikipedias whether they should use a file (AI garbage or not), and so until these Wikipedias do not use this file, I cannot delete it for scope reasons because being in use automatically makes in scope. Abzeronow (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Appreciate the thoroughness of your reply. I assume there's no existing mechanism to engage with the original contributor, ask them to reupload along different parameters etc. If someone else collaged and submitted the same works for the same article used across each of these langauges, would that potentially solve the issue? Or can this image not be removed/subbed given its wide usage without some kind of consensus procedure? I am definitely not well initiated into the arcanum of wikipedia operating procedures so am pretty in the dark here. Wosewoes (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the comment about it being brothers with someone else and those architects being mentioned is what had misled me there. I'll need to reevaluate, and determine if the uploader made a reasonable effort in trying to identify the architects or not. Abzeronow (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your answer and for your willingness to reevaluate the cases. As you will be probably able to see, the uploader has limited himself to consulting a few sources that only superficially mention the time of construction of the photographed building and no other details related to its authors, although he is aware of the existence of archival documents relating to them. This is not enough in order to declare that the architect is unknown and the work is not protected by copyright. --Pafsanias (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have changed both to deleted and have deleted the files with restoration dates set for 2050 (120 years after 1929). If the uploader comes back with information that the architect died before 1955, I can restore. Otherwise, they will be restored at the date I set. Abzeronow (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Actually, if they are at the Naval Postgraduate School as current members of the military, I believe their thesis would be part of their duties, but what came up elsewhere is that a lot of the students there are not current U.S. military. - Jmabel ! talk06:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Abzeronow. Hope you're doing well.
As per our arrangement in September, my three-month autopatrol trial period is now concluding. I have aimed to contribute consistently and constructively during this time.
Would you be willing to grant the permission permanently, as kindly mentioned before? I remain keen to continue maintaining and improving the file pages.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Leonardo Cirrus (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Basically, the models are COM:TOYS. There may be toy cars that shouldn't be on here, en:WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to avoid deletion. Basically if these slot cars are designed by someone to model cars, they are copyrighted by the designer. Abzeronow (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
As someone who participated in the DR, I also would welcome a more detailed explanation that takes into account Schumi4ever's arguments ("A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States") Isderion (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
"A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.[1]
In these cases, these slot cars I uploaded are scale models of utilitarian objects, which are real life racing automobiles. Therefore, the toy cars are simply derivatives from non-copyrighteable objects. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
wikt:exact "Precisely agreeing with a standard, a fact, or the truth; perfectly conforming; neither exceeding nor falling short in any respect." As you said in the DR, these are not exact replicas. Abzeronow (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Abzeronow, thanks for restoring them. Now that I can see the images, I cannot in good faith add the permission text to all. The images show book covers, but the permission comes from the heir of the text author of the books. The copyright for the cover should belong to the one who designed it.. One of the images shows a portrait of the author. For the one, the copyright belongs to the photographer and not to the person represented in the image.
This is just to inform you. I have contacted the ticket client and asked for proof of rights.
No. It's clearly a scope DR. If the artist was notable I would've permission tagged the files instead of a DR. I'm wondering if it's an attack on me because I'm LGBT with a pink signature? Geoffroi17:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
His response on his talk is another religious taunt. We're headed to AN/U. I'll be mentioning you as well. I'll consider reporting this to WMFOffice as LGBT-related harassment if no one takes it seriously. Geoffroi17:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
His reply to you definitely does make me look at that odd comment in a different light. I didn't intend to make it seem like I was brushing off your concerns. I'm used to dealing with copyright matters, so when you see a bunch of paintings uploaded that don't appear to be own works, my mind goes to that context first. Regardless, you're right that it was an nonconstructive edit. Abzeronow (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion was open for 7 weeks and Taiwan has a low ToO and I trust the nominator's judgement. It was not closed hastily, and I doubt that discussion would have been more if I waited another month. Abzeronow (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion
The uploader didn't take it, but it seems likely a relative of theirs took it. Could I still upload this to Wikimedia since they are potentially the photographer's relative and could inherit copyright?
I see that you're in contact with the Flickr uploader. Let's wait to see what the relation is before we evaluate if Adrian needs to contact VRT. Abzeronow (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do I need to contact the original photographer for his image or is the current license find? 
Yes, we would need Guido Allieri's permission for the US (it might be public domain in Italy as a simple photo, but not here in the US). Abzeronow (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The uploader said the photographer is his father and they inherited their photo collection. I assume I can upload it without it being a copyright violation. Zaptain United (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!
Hello Abzeronow, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing,Shaan SenguptaTalk04:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
"although this is probably going to get deleted anyway"
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! You've recently allowed the overwrite of File:NUTS_PT_2024.png, an image originally created by me. The user who overwrote it added a "disputed municipality" to the map which I think is completely uncalled for and makes me not want to be associated with such an image! The map is about the NUTS regions according to the EU, and the EU (and everybody else) does not recognize Olivenza as part of Portugal. In fact, even though Portugal itself doesn't rezognize the region, it is not actively claiming it. As the original author can I request that this new version be removed? Petnog (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Colorized versions of photos should always be uploaded as a separate file.
Er ... it is not colourized. The original photo was in colour but, when the photographer uploaded the photo, he could only locate a graytone version. Please reconsider. HairyWombat (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, I suppose this would be more nuanced than a typical case with a greytone and a color photo. They still should be different files because of the clear visual difference between a grey photo and a color photo. Abzeronow (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am being accused of being a sockpuppet here because my edits are kind of similar to these other sockpuppets who I have never heard of before. If you notice all my edits on that language version, was to remove images that you would later remove. Could you defend me because I wpould go onto other language article to remove the duplicate image so you could redirect them. I am scares of losing my account. I don't know any Spanish.
I think I made the mistake of not giving a edit summary and removing content with explaining myself. I am a little screw since I don't know any spanish. Zaptain United (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:1841Skjold-ship.jpg - are you sure? Though I only voted "weak delete", I did so under the assumption that we, apparently, have a semi-official source stating that this ship is the Skjold, and on the other hand only the nominator's assertion that it is, in fact, not the Skjold. You kept the file commenting: "So we'll go with PD-old-assumed here and we can rename the file since it is probaly not the Skjold." If we go with this, we would have to rename the file to something like "Undated 19th century photo of unknown ship", and then, given the image's low quality, what would be the potential use? Wouldn't it be out of scope? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it's in use and we do have a Australian government site that says it's the Skjold. It doesn't look like a daguerrotype to me and I don't see any information on the Skjold beyond the 1840s. So we could leave things alone or we could move it and eventually it might not be used anymore so it would be easy to delete. Abzeronow (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Though, best way to go on with that would be to gain a consensus from the community to determine the DR. Rather than having users upload body cam and then claim that community consensus have already been made about it. Trade (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
It looks exactly like a screenshot of the air strike that someone in Venezuela recorded on their phone, posted on Telegram/social media, got posted by a news network on TV and then screencapped by Liett73. The absence of any metadata at all and the odd resolution only makes it more obvious Trade (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see no need to close it early, and I see no reason to disbelieve NBC News saying they hold the copyright. But I'll give them time to provide evidence to the contrary. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately the existence of the files invalidates any Fair Use claims for Mangione on ENWP so people will always be unhappy as long as the files stay Trade (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Files_from_the_official_Cartoon_Network_India_YouTube_channel#Files_in_Category:Files_from_the_official_Cartoon_Network_India_YouTube_channel_2 Trade (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
"It also says "The texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts shall not be protected by this Law." Photos are not laws, decrees, regulations, treaties, judical decisions or other official acts."
What about "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition." Trade (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I forgot about that part. That might be what covers government works, although I think I remember that being a tricky area. I'd hold off on a DR though. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Abzeronow, I have a question. In the explanation for template {{PD-anon-expired}} states: "This template identifies all files of unknown authorship that were published at least 95 years ago. The template extends to a period of up to 125 years." What exactly does the last sentence mean? Regards --Foxy5 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
PD-old-assumed usually starts at 120 years ago. I don't see a reason why you couldn't use PD-anon-expired for a file that is 130 years old. Abzeronow (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
@Abzeronow, this is regarding many uploads by Swapnil1101. There are so many such files, for example File:ABVMU Logo.svg, the user has sourced it as Created from scratch in Inkscape. Own work work based on header of https://abvmu.edu.in/. Drawing a logo/flag/symbol doesn't give the user the ownership/copyright of the said image. As for this particular file, the user has used {{PD-India}}. This university itself was established only in 2018. The user has uploaded many more flags/symbols/military insignia as own work by simply drawing them on his computer. Shaan SenguptaTalk05:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Abzeronow,
I'm trying to understand why you added this URAA warning. Lucien Pénat was dead in 1955, and produced all his works in France. Therefore his works are in the public domain since the 1st of January this year ({{PD-Art|PD-old-70-expired}} applies), are they not?
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You obviously have not read the document on my page, so read it, very carefully, especially the part relating to Google's use of Google Street View in Bosnia and Herzegovina for commercial purposes, so you will find out why Google Street View is relevant. Your statement about Google Street View is ignorant and irrelevant. You, who are not a legal expert, have not even read a posted legal clarification. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:My-wiki-photosMy-wiki-photos (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jwilz basically explained it: Google pays royalties which allows it to function, Bosnia has no commercial FOP so unless the works are public domain, we cannot host them here. So yes, Google is irrelevant to the discussion, and FYI, don't post on the top of my talk page, it's ordered chronologically by topic so I had to move it near the bottom. Abzeronow (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi; I'm new to Wikimedia so I don't understand procedures entirely, but I'm confused as to why the revert here - even if you take the source at face value that it was on Democrats.org, why does that indicate 'it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice'? I can't really find any reason to believe that this incarnation of any logo was published during that period without a copyright notice even according to the claimed sourcing, hence the removal of the tag. LucifersCoils (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
My objection is that there isn't an actual citation that would indicate that. Why I removed it was to push for a citation of that fact; especially prescribing the 1931-1977 point to it. Since the actual source for the logo isn't given, my objection is whether or not we can actually assume this is based on an actual Democratic logo, especially not one released in 1931-1977 without a copyright notice.
Can licensing be simply assumed without an actual citation beyond a base link to 'democrats.org' to work off of, especially given it doesn't appear on that page either now nor in a 2020 archive? I was thinking it'd make more sense to assume it's unlicensed until proven otherwise rather than vice versa. LucifersCoils (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are similar looking Democratic logos with the same license. I kept your note about the source, but I reverted the license because we can't have unlicensed files on Commons. I can open at discussion at COM:VPC about your query about the license though. Abzeronow (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd appreciate that, I don't know how that works yet. I just noticed that the citation doesn't link it to anything concrete, and as such I find the 1931-1977 argument in particular rather dubious (this particular example doesn't seem to originate then, and the Democrat as a regional unofficial symbol of the Democrats predates 1931 to my knowledge so it wouldn't be the right tag in that case either.) LucifersCoils (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago20 comments4 people in discussion
Hello. I have recently returned from a global block and discovered that during my absence, a significant number of my uploads were mass-edited by User:Surayeproject3.
It is important to note that Surayeproject3 was the user who originally filed for my block. Immediately after I was blocked and unable to object, this user began systematically altering my contributions to fit a specific narrative. This user has a documented history of POV-pushing and edit warring on English Wikipedia, for which they have received warnings. The very same reasons he accused me of, has he done to all my uploads on Commons, I do not think one of my uploads still has their original names.
Request: Since these changes were made while I was blocked by the very person who requested the block, and because they violate the policy on controversial renames (point 6, it is controversial), I am requesting assistance to:
Mass-revert my uploads to their original titles.
Restore the categories and descriptions to match the source material.
I am bringing this to you to avoid engaging in an edit war, and because I had promised a Steward to stay out of trouble, I am coming directly to an admin. I am not sure if there is a better place to put this request?
@Abzeronow hi, even when i myself request a rename for my own uploads, the same editor who did all the above, is now removing my requests, he does this even on the requests where the source contradicts him. I promised to not do anything disruptive, hence I only touch my own uploads, and directly after they were objected to again, I reach out to you.Wlaak (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't know anything about Aramean vs. Assyrian so this is something I'd have to research. It also feels like someone in a glass house throwing stones with you bringing up enwiki stuff since you were blocked there for sockpuppetry. So I don't have any interest in rehashing enwiki drama. However, I can correct the files above to match its source since respecting self-identification would be good. Abzeronow (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, so can I request for a rename on the images who's sources said Aramean? Last time I did so, Surayeproject3 removed my requests.
These are the photos: [1][2] that still has their original sources and support "Aramean" directly, but they were still renamed and had their identification removed (because he failed to find another source to replace them with).
Regarding this photo, I can have the family who gave me the image of their great grandfather tell you that the name I initially put is respecting his self-identification.
Regarding this photo, I initially named it "Aramean" because the source did so, Surayeproject3 removed my source, and put one that says "Syriac" instead, I suggest this source gets renamed to "Syriac-Aramean couple from Tur Abdin, 1890" since "Syriac" and "Aramean" is synonymous, hence the flag is named such; File:Flag of the Syriac-Aramaic People.svg
Regarding this photo, I also initially named it "Aramean" because the source said so, Surayeproject3 again removed my source and put another, this time in Turkish Süryani, which translates to "Syriac", so for this too, I suggest "Syriac-Aramean women depicted wearing traditional clothing near Mardin, 1909" for the same reason as above.
I do not wan't to request these name changes myself, since Surayeproject3 would probably file a complaint on me for being "disruptive" since he tried this after my first 4 edits yesterday on Commons and went to Meta Wikimedia. [3]Wlaak (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've renamed three of them since the sources you cite do support that. The believers one is neutral and does an adequate job of describing what the photo is. The "Assyrian warrior" one is supported by the Twitter source, the other source says nothing about that one way or the other. I'd need more than original research to change it to Aramean or Syriac-Aramean. Abzeronow (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thank you very much ! I will fix the descriptions
I do not if this is a possible thing , but on Meta wiki i requested for a global interaction ban but they said Stweards could not do that, so I wonder if it is possible to get a local interaction ban between me and Surayeproject3? Wlaak (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
For example, he keeps following my edits to my own uploads to object to anything Syriac-Aramean, he did this cross-wiki. We have a very in-depth dispute involving numerous ANI's on enWiki, he just followed my most recent request and contacted the filemover.
Thanks a lot Abzeronow, ideally I think IBAN is the best option since this is cross-wiki issue, he has already obliterated my uploads back in October, keeps following my contributions, after my first 5 contributions since October he tried getting me blocked again and goes to Stewards on Meta Wikidata, he tells filemovers to reconsider after per criterion 1, he accused me of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry still, etc.
No objection to an IBAN, especially if it is mutually agreed to, but I don't like that this is being discussed at length with only one party to the conflict. Yes, this should go to COM:AN/U; note that AN/U requires informing the other party of the discussion.
Wlaak: I would suggest that if you bring this to COM:AN/U you (1) link this discussion and (2) give a succinct explanation of why you believe an IBAN would be the way to deal with this. Adding a long series of issues one by one, as you did here, almost certainly will not help your case, it will just lead to a discussion with way too many semi-related issues on the table. - Jmabel ! talk03:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I also don't know about the heart of the matter, but systematically renaming files against the uploader's opinion is not OK. So I would support an IBAN. Yann (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I really do not know what to do, Surayeproject3 has now gone ahead and made redirects from Syriac-Arameans to Assyrians, despite what future files will be named. He does not seem to let the files self-identifcation be respected. It is just another act of the POV he previously had when mass-renaming all my uploads and previously deleting the categories. If I file for the IBAN now, I am afraid that when files are uploaded of example Syriac-Arameans in Sweden, the redirect to Assyrian can not be removed by me, because of the IBAN. No self-identification and respect to sources are shown. Wlaak (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
He now accuses me of creating two websites and say I use them as sources, not one but two! All I ever wanted to do is upload images of my community. He pulls in whatever string possible to get me removed from Commons, he tried the first day I got here after 2 months... Is this considered to breach any policy? I have fixed some of the redirects but I don't dare to do anymore, it feels like playing with fire not knowing if he will use this as means to try and block me again. Please help me out, what should I do in this situation? Wlaak (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wlaak: I've already said what I believe you need to do. Come to AN/U. Request and IBAN there, if that is what you want. But I see you now saying you don't want an IBAN because then that means you can't under his edits either. My take on that: you simply have to trust that if his edits are wrong, you will not be the only person who can fix them. I have people with whom I am in a voluntary mutual IBAN situation, with more or less strictness depending on how bad our interactions have been. They sometimes make edits I don't like. I live with it. The IBAN means they don't do it to files I've uploaded.
But, please: I know this isn't my user talk page, it's Abzeronow's, but you pinged me. You asked what you should do; I told you what I think you should do; you didn't like the answer. Fine. If you'd rather have your grievance than a solution, that is your prerogative, but I'm not interested in hearing it further. If Abzeronow wants you to keep going, I guess that is his prerogative, but please do not pull me back into this. I've said what I have to say. - Jmabel ! talk18:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created this file talk, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Abzeronow, would it be possible for me to be given permission to overwrite a color change on the Nicaraguan visa policy map because the current status of the visa regime for two countries (Albania and North Macedonia) has changed? Thank you in advance Brizton (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Abzeronow, Is it possible for you to review this instrumental work, modified to circumvent copyright, and determine if it's valid? This was requested by someone on Discord. Dante100012 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dante100012: The license for the performance is valid. The composition is a trickier matter since the work that the performer was using was from 1997 so would still be in copyright (the Spanish government bought the copyright). Other versions are licensed with PD-Spain government. Francisco Grau Vegara died in 2019 so this would enter the public domain in 2090 if somehow the Royal Decree doesn't make it copyrighted free use. Abzeronow (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Last September, I asked for the following file to be deleted: [8]. The photo shows a different player than the one described - it is Renyer Oliviera, not Mor N'diaye. You left the photo, argumenting that it was enough to change the name of the photo rather than delete it. Unfortunately, despite my requests, the author of the photo does not care and has no intention of renaming it. The result is that on the English, Italian, and Japanese versions of Wikipedia, this player is incorrectly identified as Mor N'diaye, which is untrue. This untruth has been going on for a good six months now. So why do we allow such sloppiness on Wikipedia? After all, Wikipedia want to be reliable, but a user who knowingly mislabels photos continues to work unpunished...
Doktor.opi (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hey there, I see that long discussion finally got closed. I just wanted to seek some clarification on your ‘keep’ rationale. Based on what I read, was it kept on Carl’s {{Copyrighted free use}} reasoning, or is this actually considered to been under Crown copyright? Thanks! PascalHD (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Abzeronow Thanks for clarifying. Just a couple other questions to ask. 1: Is this exclusive to this one photograph, or all Duncan Cameron fonds photos safe to upload again? 2: What should we do about the warning on the {{LAC}} template and in Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada, that states “ LAC does not allow free use of its works which are under copyright…” Seems contradictory, no? Thanks again. PascalHD (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The rights statement on the collection states: Photographs: All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction. Copyright for photographs by Duncan Cameron belongs to the National Archives of Canada. Various copyrights on photographs by other photographers. That to me says in the particular case of the Duncan Cameron photographs in that specific collection (the "Duncan Cameron fonds"), they actually own the copyright and license them freely. I can't read "no restrictions on use or reproduction" any other way, coming from a copyright owner. Any other material on their site, and photographs not by Cameron even if in that collection, would be different and fall under their more general statement. And of course the "5 Time Canada cover lay-outs" are not included either. Their other, more general communications seem to indicate that they don't own the copyright of the material and can't license it, which makes perfect sense. But they do explicitly claim they are the copyright owner if that particular material, and in that case they can license it, and that seems an unambiguous licensing statement to me. So, it seems a specific exception to the more general guidance, only because they actually own the copyright. Did they have any communication specifically on the Duncan Cameron material somewhere? Because otherwise, I don't see any contradictions in what they say in other places. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Although the Crown copyright argument may not have been as strong, the {{Copyrighted free use}} is much stronger. My main confusion has always been the conflicting wording stating ‘LAC does not allow free use of works under copyright’. It had been my working assumption this was the way. Well, maybe that isn’t as true as I had thought. If that’s the case, I would lean more towards your interpretation of the fonds usage rights. Regardless, I wrote them an email asking for a more in-depth response, as prior communication had more to do with Crown copyright. We’ll see what they have to say…PascalHD (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Abzeronow, Hello, I'm Cptabhiimanyuseven, I have rollback privileges at enwiki, meta, wikidata, simplewiki. I'm here to request for the rollback privileges to remove easily vandalism or spamming at commonwiki, I have globally experience to remove vandalism via Swviewer. Warm regards Cptabhiimanyuseven (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see that you have rollback at 3 different projects. You haven't been that active here (10 edits since January 2025) and I don't see any anti-vandalism activity here. Abzeronow (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Abzeronow, I was thinking of helping with requests at COM:OWR. I am not sure how to allow overwriting. Is it done with just placing {{Allow Overwriting}} in the files or anything more needs to be done? Shaan SenguptaTalk13:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I think you've been following File talk:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.svg more closely than I have; I've mostly just been in there saying, "If you can't get consensus, just post under two different file names." It looks to me like one of the participants in a contentious, unresolved discussion just closed the discussion with what amounts to "resolved, I win." Is that how it looks to you, or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk17:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it does seem that way. The protection that the user had requested had expired, but I would have liked to have seen more opinions on the matter. I have also told the other party separately that they could create a different file illustrating Russia's visas as they want (since you had said that there can be two separate files if they cannot agree on to represent certain things.) Abzeronow (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Abzeronow, I think that we could undelete also in 2064 here... It's virtually impossible that the monument was built after 1943, as the entire area was occupied by Germans and in the entire Isonzo valley it began a fierce battle against a strong Yugoslav partisan movement... Friniate (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hello,
Thank you for granting me permission to overwrite File:CNTS-00047969196 光山金氏平章洞實蹟.pdf. Unfortunately because of the size of my file I am unable to overwrite it as it is over 100MB big. Is there any other option that I could take to overwrite the file? Blahhmosh (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I used it, but there is a strange error.
You see, it says that I have uploaded my version onto Wikimedia, and the filename and file size of my version are technically correct, but currently, when you click on the thumbnail of my version it redirects to the previous version. Is there perhaps an error in the servers? Blahhmosh (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Abzeronow It has been quite a while since I "uploaded" my version to Wikimedia, and I find that the file has not been overwritten. I am very curious as to why it did not happen. I tried again using your bigChunkedUpload but it refuses to work as it detects that my version is already uploaded.. Blahhmosh (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
2024 Picture of the Year:Mundari man polishing the horns of one of his Watusi cows using a mixture of cow urine and ash as a ritualistic and protective practice in a temporary cattle camp in Terekeka, South Sudan.
Dear Wikimedian,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2025 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year is the twentieth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just five images to become the Picture of the Year.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of five images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2025.
This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki, which is why you are being contacted as you appear to hold this right. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki. Additionally, the committee's working language is English; some ability to communicate in English is required.
The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will week between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else in your community might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.
Latest comment: 18 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry for reaching out on your talk page directly, but I'm frankly at a loss as to what is happening with my request. I genuinely cannot identify what is standing in the way of a decision, so I'm hoping you can help me make sense of it. Several of my follow-up comments addressing this directly don't seem to have received a response, and I'd really appreciate it if you could go back at least address them? I feel like I keep raising points that are then passed over.
On the newest proposal, the temporary grant, I'm not in a position to accept that. I cannot start to work on updating hundreds of Italian road sign SVGs if I know I have a deadline. If I begin that work and then the right is not made permanent, I'd be left unable to finish what I started, which would be even worse than not starting at all, both for the wasted time and the cleanup needed. And of course I'd need to fix new signs or ones I had missed, etc.
What I don't understand is why a temporary grant is even on the table. Autopatroller is routinely granted permanently to editors with far fewer contributions. I have around 20,000 edits across multiple wikis, and more than 600 on Commons without any conduct issues. What is it about my specific case that justifies treating it differently? I genuinely want to address these concerns properly, but I can only do that if I know what they are, and I've been unable to find out from the discussion. Thank you! FaviFake (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
A temporary grant of 3 months is not intended to be understood as an deadline, it is essentially a probationary period in which you have the right, and if there are not any major issues, you get the right on a permanent basis. If you don't want it, I'll have to mull it over whether to grant you the right now on a permanent basis or not. I don't think the edit count is a problem here, but your answers on AI give me some pause (although I could just consider that one overwrite as an atypical one-off). Abzeronow (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure, thanks, but my main question was why a temporary grant is being considered in the first place. I would stil feel much more confident if the right were permanent, especially given the strangeness of how even this request is being handled: how can I know my uploads won't have any major issues in the future, if I can't even tell what issues you are referring to right now?So, I do want to ask, as directly as I can, which of my answers about AI specifically give you pause, and what is it that you're worried I might do. I've gone back over everything I've written and I genuinely cannot identify what the concern is. Again, I used generative AI to overwrite 1 raster file (which I now regret tremendously, given the mess that it has started), without violating any guideline, and I even committed to never doing it again, yada yada...But I'd really like to avoid going in circles. I can't address these concerns when I don't know what, precisely, they are. Rather than endlessly restating my position, could I ask you to take a look at this comment on the request page? I raised several specific points there that have not been addressed yet.Based on what I've said, what is it that you're concerned I might do, exactly? Are those concerns related to raster files, SVGs, something else? Are you worried I might overwrite files other than SVGs? Or blindly upload AI-generated code without reviewing it? Something else entirely?? I'm truly at a loss here :( FaviFake (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
“ I don't have the skills or tools for manual in-painting, so I either had to choose to use AI or do nothing.” If this were the case, I'd usually prefer the second. I generally think AI use would be disclosed and rare. I guess though, I can approve your request as you sound like you have a level head on your shoulders, and I think you could be considered a trusted user. Abzeronow (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
FaviFake, I had stopped responding because you're very defensive and seem to feel entitled when you say things like Autopatroller is routinely granted permanently to editors with far fewer contributions. I offered to overwrite files for you, but you ignored my offer (declining it would have been fine) and instead said You are proposing countless solutions, both here and on my talk page, for a problem you are not presenting. which made me less interested in engaging further. I would also gently push back on the relevance of COM:AIIP here, since this request is, again, about SVG files. This suggested you didn't quite understand that autopatroller is typically granted indefinitely and for any purpose, not to complete one specific task. When I asked (about AI edits) "what are your methods for checking the result?" your answer I don't know, so far I've never had an AI modify an image so thoroughly that I couldn't simply copy and paste the relevant lines of code. wasn't what I was hoping to hear and only applies to SVGs, not raster edits. Even when it is an SVG and only a few lines, AI could quietly make a subtle change if you don't have a comparison method. You will hopefully develop a method/workflow for comparisons. Now that Abzeronow has granted you autopatroller, I trust you'll use your new rights responsibly. We're just being cautious. - Alexis Jazzping plz04:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Heya, I'm sorry if my replies on the RFR page made me sound entitled, it's possible I let my frustration with the process show more than I intended. I just didn't understand why you believed I should be granted the right temporarily, or that it might be best if it is not granted permanently. I didn't consider your offer because that would have essentially been COM:OWR but with a few extra steps, which is precisely what I wanted to avoid. My intention is to immediately fix any incorrect SVGs on sight, and making a list of all the files and the changes would have taken too much time.Since you said [this] wasn't what I was hoping to hear and only applies to SVGs, not raster edits, I want to reiterate that I will not use AI for overwriting raster images. I don't care about raster images, I only need the right to update some SVG files of Italian road signs. I still intend to follow my pledge to never use generative AI when overwriting existing raster files without prior discussion, and likely even when uploading new raster files. And if for some odd reason I'll want edit a raster file, you can rest assure I won't overwrite it, unless it's a very minor edit like a small cropping. Regarding the methods for checking the result, a few days ago I had installed two different SVG scripts for checking (one and two), which have a nifty "Diff" feature that shows me every difference between the current version and the previous version, just like a normal MediaWiki diff. They work surprisingly well! I've decided to also use them for entirely new uploads, to check what changes it made based on similar previous SVGs and what code it wrote. I also check whether the SVGs are valid using the many tools already available on the file pages, plus other Commons scripts I installed for that purpose, and compare them visually, side-by-side, before and after uploading them, by switching browser tabs back and forth and using a nifty Firefox browser extension made for this. And of course I zoom in on the results to check if there are any minor mistakes. The last checks also apply when I don't use AI, this is just my process. I hope this answer is satisfactory. FaviFake (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Hi @Abzeronow, I just saw that @HurricaneZeta has granted LR to their alternate account @HurricaneZeta alt. Is it ok to self grant such an advanced right to an alt account? Shouldn't these things be carried out by main account? Alt accounts are generally used for unsecured/public devices. Maybe that isn't the case here. The given reason while granting LR is alternate account, will use for large VFC tasks and such. Is LR really needed for that. (I've pinged Zeta, I'm sure they have a better explanation). Shaan SenguptaTalk12:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) User:Shaan Sengupta, LR is included in the admin toolset and I think when admins resign they may even keep the LR right if they wish. In this case, based on the given reason, it seems they intend to use the alternative account for mass edits to keep the contributions of their main account clear. It would have been better form for HurricaneZeta to file a request on Commons:License review/Requests, or alternatively just a notice for transparency clarifying they've already done it but people can ask questions or comment on this if they feel the need. That being said, I don't see a real problem here. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alexis Jazz, thank you for your reply. I know about the admin toolset and all those. In this case, Zeta isn't an admin but LR. I never said there is a problem, but asked if it is ok. I can see Zeta using the alt account to add {{Allow overwriting}} on files. You don't need LR for that. Patroller is enough. And I agree on the other part of your reply. Maybe it would've been better if this would have gone through the standard way. Only Zeta can clarify the need for LR on alt account. If we go by the work so far, patroller is enough. Shaan SenguptaTalk14:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure why I thought HZ is an admin. I'd agree that if the alt account doesn't need LR it shouldn't have it. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
If Zeta had just asked for me to grant rights of autopatroller or patroller to their alt account, I would have done so. I've had other admins message me to request rights for their alt accounts and LR tends to be a right that is only granted after community approval (I have the capability to grant LR rights but in practice, I don't). There was a discussion last year about ending the ability of LRs to grant the LR right, matters like this don't exactly help. Abzeronow (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Shaan Sengupta @Alexis Jazz My rationale was a bit lacking, yeah. I thought that I'd do some LR but I haven't had enough time this month (I'm not using my main account to avoid distractions as I have real life obligations till June). I saw this and nothing to the contrary so I thought it'd be fine.
@HurricaneZeta alt, I think one should always do LR with main account unless you operate a bot allowed to do LR. Also, @Abzeronow, Zeta highlighted another example, DrKay's alt account Drkay (the alt account). That account has never been used. Maybe autopatrol is enough if they ever start using that account. Just giving a rationale alternate account should never be enough for advanced right like LR. I have always been a supporter of letting LR's grant LR, but really this is making me rethink. Shaan SenguptaTalk03:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I inferred from Commons:License review that permissions are granted to users not accounts and inactivity is not a valid rationale for removal of license reviewer rights. However, since you have objected, I have tried to remove this right from my alternative account but am not permitted do so. DrKay (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone,
Wikimedia Commons is pleased to finally announce the winners of this year's Picture of the Year 2025 contest! We had some truly incredible finalists to choose from, but the community has spoken.
Here are your top three winning images:
First place: The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area. Attribution: WAFA (Q2915969) / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Second place: Baby cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus) sleeping at Cape cross, Namibia. Attribution: Giles Laurent / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Third place: A gigantic jet photographed from the International Space Station by astronaut Nichole Ayers. Attribution: public domain
You can view the full results and see where all your favorite images placed here: Full 2025 Results
I also want to highlight what an incredible turnout we had. In the second round, we saw a massive jump in both the number of users voting and the total votes cast. We had exactly 13,979 votes cast by 3,509 users! To put that in perspective, last year we had 7,403 votes from 2,837 users. It is amazing to see that level of growth and community engagement.
Thank you to everyone who voted, helped organize, and generally made the contest such a huge success this year!
Latest comment: 9 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
- This page describing russian political history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy#Pattern is heavily dependent upon the table of portrait-quality photos. This table missing someone's picture (stalin, as per your decision) makes wikipedia look bad. I am aware you did not yourself remove the photo from this table.
On May 3, you used the terminology "per nomination", which offers no specific information but appears to have resulted from a measured decision. Here are my first two questions:
(a) Were you aware of user Nakonana's April 21st response, indicating the nomination was ill-founded, at the time of your May 3 exercise of deletion authority?
(b) Please explain the appropriate interpretation for your May 3 invocation of "per nomination". Is "nomination" generally understood to mean "the current active status of all discussions in the nomination thread"?
(2) I understand May Day to be a well-known holiday in Russia, and one of historic political importance, most notably evidenced through the US government's documented maneuvering against the recognition of May Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day
Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe.[18]
I consider it to be a serious matter if all portrait-quality images of a foreign political leader have vanished from wikipedia, leaving holes in unrelated pages—I wrote to you upon this basis alone. Based upon the dates of nomination, I believe the nomination may plausibly be associated with an incredibly well-known political stance of the US government, and many of its citizens. As we are both aware, wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view. Lcdrovers (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I had typed more, which was lost. That is fine, as it helps me to focus on the matters of greatest necessity:
- Your exercise of deletion authority at all given the clearly extant discussion invalidating the basis of its claim, seems to indicate either that I have grievously misunderstood Wikipedia deletion policies, or that it was a mistake, by way of reverting that mistake. I can ensure the political hair table is addressed.
- Separately, the nomination thread appears to demonstrate misuse, or even potential "weaponization" of the policies and resources wikipedia provides regarding copyright claims to images. Setting aside the specific behavior of anyone in the thread, copyright law is well-known for its history of misuse to quell freedom of expression. It seems inarguable to me that this nomination thread demonstrates that editors (I include myself) and admins need help to navigate and evaluate such claims—in particular, the relevant legal determination was not clear.
I have some familiarity with this area but I would like to understand where/who would be the right next step to discuss improved education over copyright legal claims.
1.) While Nakonana's point is generally correct that publication in the US is murky pre-1978, it only represents a theoretical in this case. Abbe might have stuck it in a drawer until his estate initially published it in 2005. There was no concrete evidence refuting User:Howardcorn33 that 2005 is the earliest known publication. If proof of earlier publication is submitted, it could be undeleted sooner (Abbe had a 1934 book, if it was published there, I could restore in 2030). COM:PCP says if there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file, it must be deleted. I probably should have stated that Nakonana's point is not evidence of earlier publication.
2.) I do not dispute the importance of this file. If it qualifies under enwiki's non-free files policy, I could temporarily restore so a version could be transferred under that. I can assure you that I am not an agent of the United States government (In fact, I actively oppose any government's attempts to censor Wikimedia projects). Copyright is my only concern here, it is not my business how enwiki or any other project uses a photograph of Stalin. Yes, copyright law can be used to control information (I am already aware of this). The central point of the nomination was that the photo had a false source and what appeared to be a false license. Our reusers count on us having public domain or freely licensed files, and as the evidence shows, it appears to have been an unfree file. It will be restored in 2044 if there is no evidence that proves my conclusion wrong. I hope this answers your questions. Abzeronow (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
Done even though color was slightly different, 2nd 
Not done retouched version. Abzeronow (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
_003.jpg)
Shabe (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
_retusche.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2011.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_All_60_aboard_perished_(16210096179).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg#){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Libyan_Arab_Airlines_JP6534748.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGroup_photo_with_believers_and_parish_priest_in_Kfarboran%2C_Tur_Abdin_%28early_20th_century%29.jpg&diff=1153154845&oldid=1104264286){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMembers_of_the_Diyarbakir_Assyrian_Ancient_Community_Musical_Ensemble%2C_4-30-1914.webp&diff=1153153918&oldid=1102013396){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arameans_of_the_Dawronoyo_Movement.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1157712661){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arameans_of_the_Dawronoyo_Movement.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1157713853){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arameans_of_the_Dawronoye_Movement_During_its_Early_Stages_in_Syria.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1157716232){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arameans_of_the_Dawronoye_Movement_During_its_Early_Stages_in_Syria.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1157716289){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mor_Ndiaye_(2025).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg_and_File:Union_Jack,_1x1.svg){kind=link}
.svg-20250909022000){kind=link}
.svg-20250908210200){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
