Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Shortcut: COM:AN

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Note

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


Steam narrowboat President[edit]

Can someone please move Category:President (ship, 1909) back to Category:Steam narrowboat President? This is no more a ship than I'm a mermaid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done, you're welcome. Achim55 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. It's worse than that. User:Blue Elf has (re-)named a bunch of categories about similar narrowboats, (see Narrowboat) using "ship" in the name. These can be seen in Category:Narrowboats by name and all need to be fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may have happened, but I don't remember renaming any other categories about narrowboats to ship. But the naming convention is that almost all categories for watercraft use ship. The only exceptions I can remember right now are tugboats, submarines and maybe drilling rigs. So undoing that renaming goes against the naming convention as it is for now. Blue Elf (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dispute that that is the convention, but if it were it would be in error and would require correction. Where is this supposed convention documented? Category:Steam narrowboat President has been so named since 2010; Category:Spey (narrowboat) has had its name since 2014; Category:Bluebell (narrowboat) and Category:Redshank (narrowboat, 1936) since 2016 Category:Narrowboat The Lady Edwina, 2019 - some convention! Tugboats and drilling rigs are seagoing; narrowboats are (rare exceptions for television) not. Narrowboats are not ships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Ships has the naming conventions (see "How to name the category"). I'm sure many long-standing categories don't follow that format, but from what I've seen it's pretty universal. Most of Category:Narrowboats by name follows that format. Looks like that was being formalized in 2011 (the instructions are transcluded from Commons:Categories/editintro/ships) which has only been slightly tweaked since 2011). You may disagree, but I tend to follow that format too, and I don't find it at all problematic, and it's certainly not "wrong". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever Category:Ships says is irrelevant, because narrowboats are not ships (in any case, it says nothing about categorising narrowboats; and neither does the 2011 discussion). If most of Category:Narrowboats by name follows that format, it's because of recent - and fallacious - creations by Blue Elf. It is utterly and completely wrong to refer to narrowboats as ships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's pretty much the convention for any named-watercraft category as far as I've seen, as they end up in Category:Ships by name. The definition of "ship" vs "boat" is pretty nebulous; there are about as many definitions as you find sites that try to define them. Narrowboats seem to be about the largest ships possible to navigate those canals; I can see them being called "ships" under many definitions (especially back in their cargo days). Of the ones in Category:Narrowboats by name, most are certainly not recent, and while Blue Elf is probably the second-most prolific category creator there, it is a very distant second. There are only a handful which do not follow that pattern, though of course that does happen sometimes. Is there a particular naming pattern on external sites for those vessels? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, ship in this way works as a marker for categories for (most) watercraft. We could have used watercraft for this, but ship is shorter and easier, and even though it clearly isn't 100 % correct, I believe it is the preferrable word to use as such a marker. Blue Elf (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What does "marker for categories" mean? MediaWiki has no such thing.
The vessel-specific category has [[Category:...]] markup added to it. That puts it into a category. Nothing parses the name and looks for a string match as "ship". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems perfectly fine as a convention to me. The example above is a lightship, which is still a ship. If there is a particular pattern in use externally for a type of ship (naval ships often do have different naming patterns, and maybe that particular type does too), then follow that but change DEFAULTSORT to use our conventional name so they sort correctly. I still don't understand why you think it's bad and/or incorrect, and it's also been pretty consistent for over 11 years now. I've seen pretty much most experienced editors use it. It gives a consistent format so that sorting happens by name and then build year when inside other categories, helps distinguish ships named after people from categories on that person, etc. It does help visually to know instantly that something is a ship category when you see it. I don't see a good reason to not use it, really. Machines may not parse it, but humans do. I think the decision was to not have many different ship types there -- arguments over what is a boat vs a ship vs a specific type of ship etc. If they are all just "ship", it calls it out pretty specifically. Otherwise, ships are often named the same as other people, or concepts, which already have their own category names, and it probably reduces the chances of miscategorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But light vessels aren't "lightships", they're light vessels (only a handful were ships). Ships have propulsion, light vessels (almost all of them) don't, they're moored statically and moved by tugs when needed.
Distinctions of boats and barges can be even more obvious. Calling narrowboats "ships" is ridiculous.
Why is Commons so regularly antithetical to basic accuracy? Even when there's no downside to doing it right. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so it's simply about what the definition of ship vs boat is. By many definitions I see, narrowboats could qualify. By other definitions, probably not. In any event, by the wording of the guidelines, the idea was to remove any debate about ship vs boat vs barge vs whatever from the category name, and use a generic catch-all term for all of them, with the actual vessel types being defined via category inclusion instead. "Ship" has the benefit of being short, so it appears that was the word settled on, despite any questions of accuracy. If there are any new definitions of vessel type made, or splitting up a category into more specific subcategories, such changes are then just category changes not needing renames. I tend to agree it's better to have explicit ship type done that way, and am fine with the settled term of "ship" used generically in the category titles, especially given the thousands of categories that use it by this point. The contained categories are where the accuracy goes, to me, as they could in theory get more accurate or more specific over time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd prefer the general pattern Name (type[, year]) like Mars (tugboat, 1982) or America (ship, 1995) or Spey (narrowboat). --Achim55 (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wording on the guideline seemed to prefer to move more specific types down to categories, presumably so that changes (or identifying more specific types) don't end up requiring category name moves, but a simple recategorization instead. I guess "tugboat" and "submarine" were grandfathered in, but the guideline does specify that anything more specific should be in categories instead. 4. Submarines use "<name> (submarine, <year>)" and tugs/towboats use "<name> (tugboat, <year>)". All other types are identified by category:Ships by type. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The wording on the guideline" Which "guideline"? if you're referring to the wording on Category:Ships, then your argument is circular, and the wording irrelevant, since narrowboats are not ships, and nothing written on that page - apparently without wider discussion - binds categories about narrowboats. That "guideline" is also contradicted by the wording at Category:Boats, the existence of which, along with a set of subcategories such as Category:Boats by name (which, contrary to the assertion above, is not in Category:Ships by name), shows that there is precedence and plenty of scope for dealing with narrowboats without misdescribing them as ships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some more narrowboats that I would like to categorize. Would it be okay to do that for now, and then continue the discussion about the naming of these categories later? Blue Elf (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It will never be OK to categorise narrowboats as ships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of the 76 subcategories of Category:Narrowboats by name 62 wrongly have "ship" in the name; a further three wrongly have "tugboat". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the three that have "tugboat" in the name, two are classified as Vessel type "tug" on their pages at National Historic Ships. [1] [2] The third one has nothing at Vessel type, but Subfunction "tug". [3] Blue Elf (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:隐世高人[edit]

This uses makes constant edit war. We need someone who can explain him the rules in his own language, I think. Thanks in advance, Wieralee (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The romanization writing system for the Japanese word 鳥海 comprises two accurate and one inaccurate in terms of the Japanese language pronunciation. The inaccurate one is Chokai, while the two accurate ones are Chōkai and Choukai. but Choukai, in the practical use of the word's romanization, is the most infrequently used (or the most uncommon) of the above three, and therefore I believe that Chōkai is the best romanization option. Other Japanese words with macrons after romanization have the same three writing ways as those words in the romanization of the Japanese language, such as 扶桑 (Fusō), 金剛 (Kongō) and 大淀 (Ōyodo). 隐世高人 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons is a consensus-based community, which means you should not perform category moves/reverts without consensus, even if you think you are right. Read Commons:Rename a category and follow the instructions; otherwise you might be reported here again. (And JFYI, Chokai is indeed the accurate romanisation of 鳥海: according to the regulation on the Japanese place names adopted by the Government of Japan, place names are to be written in non-macron form of romaji.) Yasu (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there's always this problem with the o vs ō in japanese transliteration.
i think this problem is best handled thru a broad discussion (like an RFC) by the japanese commons users or the japanese wiki community. they should decide which transliteration system commons should use.
other than that there's not much we can do. they are different systems of transliteration instead of outright errors. RZuo (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo, 隐世高人, and Wieralee: Japanese speakers appear to discuss on Commons at Village pump Commons:井戸端 and Help desk Commons:ヘルプデスク.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so? RZuo (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[email protected][edit]

I sent a report in to [email protected] per the note at the top of this page, more than 24 hours ago. Result? Crickets. That seems hugely problematic as well as disgraceful. Who is responsible for monitoring that email account? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(non-admin comment) @Tagishsimon: Wikimedia Foundation Legal department ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The note should be amended and rephrased to: e-mail Wikimedia's legal department because general VRT agents don't have access to this queue and it is not operated through VRTS either. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the Mail address for very urgent cases is [email protected]. But I also thought the response for the not so urgent cases would be faster. At least if the case is obvious. If the case is not obvious it can take a while. You can also send a mail to any administrator to perform a regular deletion until the WMF goes into this case. GPSLeo (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
56 hours on, still no response (bar the automated receipt-of-email notification), still no action. I think we can now take it that Commons / Wikimedia's illegal content response system is broken. I note the suggestion that I email an admin to have them delete the images, but I'm loathed, because of the content involved, to go outside the mandated path for handling such content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(non-admin comment) @Tagishsimon: I understand your emotions and I'm sorry but Commons VRT volunteers don't monitor that email. This email is completely handled by Wikimedia Foundation legal department and Commons "unpaid volunteers" must not be blamed for "not responding to an email that they cannot even see". Please. If you want to hear response from Commons VRT agents, you can send an email at any such queue, for example, as guided on Commons:Contact us/Problems. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not blaming anyone here; nothing I have written suggests I am, and 'emotion' is not involved. I understand it's WMF's responsibility, one they're failed. It's well worth people on this board knowing that WMF are failing to act in a situation in which we rely on them. This platform should be demanding to know why. The images in question have now been deleted, albeit it took the intervention of a WMF Trustee to make it so. The user account does not appear to have been blocked, however. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tagishsimon, clearly you're unable to divulge much about the details of your legal request, although it appears to be a deletion request and abusive user you're involved in. Legal matters often concern confidentiality of communications, and email is anything but confidential. Perhaps the legal department was unable to reach you via a secure channel? Perhaps they were unwilling to discuss legal matters with a non-admin? (You do not appear to be an administrator of any kind on any project...) so perhaps you do not have standing or privilege to continue communications in any sort of legal proceeding they may anticipate.
I've known people who often respond in a different mode of communication, such as in-person, after receiving an email, because it is more personal and more confidential. But we have no idea of the details of your case, and we're unable to mind-read WMF attorneys, so I'm honestly not sure why you're bringing this issue for administrator scrutiny, as sysops can't do any of that, either. Elizium23 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tagishsimon I've experienced a lack of response from the WMF after reporting child pornography as well. I'll email and ask them about it.
In the meantime, please email me (Special:EmailUser/Mdaniels5757) with a link to the file page so I can revdel it immediately and also email [email protected] the link so it can be hidden from admins. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carl Franz Bally & Peter Bally[edit]

Recently, File:Carl Franz Bally.JPG was renamed to File:Peter Bally.jpg. They are different people, so the redirect should be removed. Also, the talk page got moved to File talk:Peter Bally.JPG, please move this to File talk:Peter Bally.jpg. bdijkstra (overleg) 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current state is: Yann deleted File:Carl Franz Bally.JPG. Mdaniels5757 deleted Commons:Peter Bally.jpg. File talk:Peter Bally.jpg is currently tagged for speedy deletion (to make space for moving File talk:Peter Bally.JPG there). I also tagged Commons:Peter Bally.JPG for speedy deletion. TilmannR (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gbawden: please undelete File talk:Peter Bally.JPG and move it to File talk:Peter Bally.jpg. bdijkstra (overleg) 12:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done - thanks to all involved. --bdijkstra (overleg) 16:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
please delete File talk:Peter Bally.JPG because it has no base page. The redirect serves no purpose. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Copyright_violations: Help needed[edit]

The category is currently very full, help is needed to work through it. --Polarlys (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a good dent, but still ~200 files. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urgent: Template:Motd/2023-02-18 (en)[edit]

please change the link from "China–United States relations" (referring to the china after 1949 only) to "History of China–United States relations" in Template:Motd/2023-02-18 (en). RZuo (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done @RZuo: Please double check Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File merge request[edit]

Could someone overwrite/merge File:Farmer meme with apostrophe.jpg to File:Farmer meme.jpg? The former is a typo-fixed version of the latter, created by another user at my request. IMO there's no value in keeping both since they're basically the same file. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Veikk0.ma, please copy your request onto Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests, thanks Ellywa (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done. No action here. Ellywa (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Meteran listrik Indonesia.jpg[edit]

On behalf of the author of this image, I'm asking the administrators for help in removing the old version of this image. That version includes the customer's data, which allows others to use it for accessing personal data. I appreciate your help. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. The file is nominated for regular deletion, discussion is going. AN does not need to be notified. Taivo (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. So sorry for my confusion. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image[edit]

Hello! Is there a chance for this image to remain on Wikimedia Commons? Thank you! Maks (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(non-admin comment) @Максим Огородник: If the source and license is identified, and if those are compatible with Wikimedia Commons, I would say, yes, otherwise no. What is the source of this work? The image that is in the background, is it freely licensed or does it possibly come under the freedom of panorama? ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and unfortunately, the blur image is out of scope in my opinion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, no. So I put a blur on it. Maks (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo was taken in Ukraine, where there is no freedom of panorama. Maks (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible Gejzir.owski sock[edit]

Jackerbox openly claims to be reuploading images by blocked user PolishBoyInUK (talk · contribs), who was blocked for uploading misidentified hoax images and being a sock of Gejzir.owski (talk · contribs).

Jackerbox's File:Hel Skyline Poland.jpg had a long description about how they were reuploading PolishBoyInUK's image and hoped they wouldn't get into trouble, File:Jastrzebia Gora.jpg just credits PolishBoyInUK as the creator (it also appears to be a misidentified photo of Rotmanka, rather than Jastrzebia Gora, as well as being a copyvio). Belbury (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(non-admin comment): @Belbury: COM:RFCU is the right venue to file such requests that are related to sockpupptery. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: That page says that Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases; pursue other options first, such as posting on the administrator's noticeboard and is what led me to post here. A user openly announcing their reuploads of a blocked user's hoaxes doesn't strike me as a very difficult case. Belbury (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Belbury, cool, okay! ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked indef. On my screen for more than a year. Thanks for notifying! Achim55 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi--need someone to take care of File:Gordon love durham university improved.jpg. Vandals already blocked on en-wiki. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Account blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

revdel previous revisions[edit]

Hi, can any admin please revdel previous revisions of the following files due to privacy reasons? File:A kitchen garden in Kashmir.jpg, File:Maize leaf with droplets of rain on it.jpg and File:Green leaves of a walnut tree with budding walnuts.jpg. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Uploader's request on creation week. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Gejzir.owski sock[edit]

Behavior matches Jackerbox cult (talk · contribs) three sections up. Videogame copyvios and dubious photos of Rotmanka in Poland, and Xavier's File:Waitrose, Towcester, UK.jpg matches the datestamp and EXIF of Jackerbox's File:Towcester town centre building.jpg. Belbury (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked indef. Thanks for notifying! --Achim55 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May be sock[edit]

大家好，這是轉至[4]的內容，寺人孟子於此地被封鎖的兩天後，氏子建立帳號，這是氏子上傳的第一張照片 「File:桃園市立大溪木藝生態博物館藝師館內展示的古董架.jpg」，和寺人孟子上傳的最後一張照片 「File:桃園市立大溪木藝生態博物館四連棟內展示的建成商行模型.jpg」 間隔約10分鐘，比對兩個帳戶的照片數據近似，氏子或可能為傀儡帳戶，再麻煩管理員們判斷了。

此為Google翻譯：Hello everyone, this is go to the content of [5], two days after 寺人孟子 was blocked, 氏子 created an account, this is the first uploaded by 氏子 The photo File:桃園市立大溪木藝生態博物館藝師館內展示的古董架.jpg, and the last photo uploaded by the 寺人孟子 about 10 minutes apart File:桃園市立大溪木藝生態博物館四連棟內展示的建成商行模型.jpg, comparing the photo data of the two accounts is approximate , 氏子 may be a Sock account, and let the administrators judge.--Mafalda4144 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing the name of the folders[edit]

Hi

Where can I submit a request to change the name of following folders:

  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1900s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1910s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1930s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1940s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1950s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1960s
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1970s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1980s‎
  • Category:Actors from Iran born in the 1990s‎


to

  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1900s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1910s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1930s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1940s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1950s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1960s
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1970s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1980s‎
  • Category:Male actors from Iran born in the 1990s‎

I didn't use MOVE, because it creates a redirect.

Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=734988823"