满怀人民情怀 当好人民公仆

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

百度 值得一提的，在提高行驶品质方面，欧蓝德聘用了达喀尔传奇车手曾刚浩亲自参与了悬挂调校，在兼顾舒适性和灵活性的同事，进一步提升了操控运动感，其转向精准性和悬挂韧性在实际道路体验中也得到了普遍好评。

User page Go to my User page

Talk Page Leave me a message.

Contributions What I've done.

Sandbox The testing zone

Guestbook Please do sign

Unblock request (Jul 2025)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "The block was imposed due to a view that I was not sufficiently curating the content, names, and descriptions of large batch uploads, including Flickr batches. In an earlier discussion on my talk page (present on this archived version), I identified a number of solutions and tools to use and steps to take to minimize the instances of a number of the concerns that were raised in the block. These include: (Prior to upload) renaming or amending the titles of files when making batch uploads from my own laptop prior to upload (using a method I have figured out) Making far more effort to upload with better file names and description when using Flickr tools Putting attention into having file names and descriptions are less generic, both original names and re-names (if I’m able to figure out more information about an image after its initial upload) More caution curating large Flickr batches Use of VisualFileChange.js and Jeff G./massrename for certain solves (have experimented some with these already) Not discussed prior, but something I also intend to do is: (when issues of re-uploads are arising) leaving a redirect at the Flickr title of Flickr photos with less-than-ideal original names so that the occupation of that namespace prevents a future duplicate-upload by Flickr upload tools. Since my block was imposed, most of my time of Commons has included improving naming, descriptions, and categorization of some files. This included testing out some of the tools that came up in the earlier discussion. I will also remind editors and admins that blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. SecretName101 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)" Decline reason: "per consensus at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#SecretName101_unblock_discussion, see my comment at #Unblock discussion as well. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

SecretName101 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jmabel's point that Before you ask to be unblocked, you should be in a position to say that the stuff you've already uploaded has at least reached average for experienced uploaders in terms of naming, description, categories, and that you are pretty confident that you are down to having very few images remain that are going to be problems in terms of copyright. You've made some progress, but we're not nearly there yet. Most of your uploads (including 23,000+ images of hockey alone) still have scope, copyright, filename, description, and/or category issues. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 blocks are preventative. Not punitive, or used as leverage for pro quos. They are meant to prevent disruptive editing that would occur if not imposed.

also, you have utterly misunderstood that category. many files in that hockey category are not ones I uploaded. That category is for hockey files I have flagged as potentially under-categorized, needing potential later attention. Regardless of whether they were uploaded by me or any other editor. They are merely images I have marked as having not taken a second or third look at, or done a deeper-categorization of all notable attributes visible. SecretName101 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There are still many hundred files like File:181109-f-xs730-0107 30955253767 o.jpg not renamed. Creating redirects from the file name of the source on Commons is a bad idea. This would create a huge amount of redirects without any benefit to Commons. This is also not even preventing most duplicates. Exact (same hash value) duplicates under different names are already detected and blocked by the software. You should not upload any files until you at least renamed all files with non descriptive names. GPSLeo (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo there would be a benefit though. The benefit would occupying that namespace so that Flickr2Commons and other tools do not re-upload duplicate versions by failing to recognize that a differently-titled version of the same file exists already on Commons. And so that this could be done without having the file bare a non-descriptive title on Commons. If Flickr tools (especially Flickr2Commons) continue to have the shortcomings recognizing when some files are on Commons with an alternate title, then occupying name-spaces with redirects seems like a best solution

If eliminating non-descriptive file names all while preventing uploads of duplicate files is not a benefit, that is a significant departure from what has been drilled into me up until now. I have received this current block in significant part due to both of those concerns, and a previous block entirely for the issue of accidental re-uploads caused by Flickr2Commons's failure to recognize files existing under alternate titles on Commons.

Seems the expectations being set up for Commons users are highly easy (at times near-inevitable) to run afoul of if:

• Users cannot upload/leave files under less descriptive Flickr names, at the risk of being blocked from uploading
• Users cannot keep redirects for those less descriptive Flickr names
• Users cannot unintentionally upload duplicates for Flickr files, at the risk of being blocked from uploading

all while:

• Flickr upload tools regularly don't provide any indication that a file is already-uploaded if its Flickr title is not an occupied namespace

Is that not not setting contributors up to fail? Isn't keeping titles as redirects not a sensible solve to the other two issues that have already been reasons for blocks I have received? SecretName101 (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo And as to your point about earlier file titles still having names to improve: that's not a preventative rationale to continue to impose a block on new uploads.

Blocks are preventative, not punitive.

The point you raised does not correspond with the policy of Commons in regards to blocks and unblock requests.

Per Commons:Blocking policy:

Blocks based on disruptive behaviour should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume.

Administrators such as yourself have been entrusted with your roles for the purposes of enforcing Commons policy. So I ask you to honor the official policy when addressing this request. SecretName101 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we expect all this from all our contributors. People who are not willing to full fill these requirements can not be contributors. The upload block is preventive: If you are not willing to clean up your old uploads why should we trust that your new uploads are fine? And if you upload new files you do not have the time to clean up the old uploads. It seems that you do not have the capacity to do so even when you can not upload new files. GPSLeo (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo you are positing a question to me that is a clear logical fallacy. And you imposing a standard that goes well beyond the question of whether there is reason to believe behavior in question will resume.

I have (as my request noted) already done work towards cleaning up titles and descriptions of earlier uploads. Your claim that I am unwilling to work on that is a strawman, a false ad hominem.

Have I finished improving every last previous upload going back roughly a decade? No. Nor do community rules for imposing and lifting of a block though would not require that I do first in order to be unblocked, nor do the rules agreed to by the Commons community give any rationale to deny an unblock for that reason,

If you truly feel community rules about blocks should empower admins to use them as a means of coercing editors undertake an entire cleanup up years-old uploads as a prerequisite for lifting: then perhaps propose that as a new standard. But that is not what Commons rule have outlined blocks as being for. And I would not think you believe that your own edict goes before community rules. As a admin, you owe a duty to editors to adhere to the rules we collectively have set for commons: not your own personal edict. Need I remind you that the "requirements [for who] can not be contributors" are determined by Commons community consensus? SecretName101 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I sympathize with your situation, but I also sympathize with anyone who has, in the past, been left cleaning up after you. I've been there (though not with you, that I recall). If we were to lift the block on you uploading, would you be willing to commit to some relatively limited number of uploads per day or week for a while, until you can show that you are not leaving a big backlog for other people to deal with? And that you will commit to continuing work on your existing backlog as well as uploading new images? And if not that, what? - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel on days in which I am on Commons? Definitely.

I would do that each day, (barring days in which circumstances have me entirely off-project) SecretName101 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: would you be willing to agree to something along those lines (details TBD)? I can see it being pretty frustrating to be completely barred from new uploads, and as long as things are generally moving forward, I would think some amount of uploading should be OK; we've certainly done the same with other similar cases. - Jmabel ! talk 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I am still very hesitant about any unblock based on the replies above. SecretName101, you spent the better part of a decade creating a mess with your uploads and ignoring numerous messages asking you to curate them. That is a major breach of community trust; it is going to take significant time and effort to rebuild trust. It is not punitive to ask you to clean up your mess before uploading more files, any more that it would be punitive to ask you to clean up last night's dishes before you cook today. (In this case, the pile of yours dishes you have refused to wash has been accumulating for years).

I would be willing to consider an unblock before you have finished curating every single one of your uploads, but not when you still act as though curating uploads (old and new) is an unreasonable demand being forced upon you, rather than a fundamental part of the upload process. Nor when the majority of files just from the last 24 hours before your block are not curated, nor when your focus is on resuming mass uploads as soon as possible. You would need to start with a very limited upload rate, and preferably own work only.

Among other things, I would need to see more details on how your uploading is going to change - in particular, the behavioral aspects, not the technical aspects. Your reply above about Flickr redirects is an example of why this is needed. You express concern about whether automated tools can detect duplicates, but seem to ignore that you can detect duplicates. (I regularly avoid uploading duplicates when I open the relevant category and see that the file I'm considering is already there.) No technical solution will substitute for paying close attention to your uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 again, your claim that I have positioned myself as being unwilling to undertake re-curation of old uploads and have considered doing so unreasonable is a strawman, a false characterization. I have not said that: and have already made it known that that is a false characterization. That is not the position I am taking, and yet you persist in arguing as though it is. I ask that you cease assigning to me a position I am not taking. It is a false characterization: I have already started such work, and have already in this very discussion made clear that I am more than agreeable about continuing it.

Please cease being dishonest about what I am and am not expressing agreement towards. SecretName101 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel yes.

Additionally, if we are setting a clearer pledge: might I suggest that I perhaps commit that on days where I make a larger-sized number of new uploads: I also commit to re-curating a larger number of old uploads than I would on other days?

(of course, also being expected to do a better job than previous at naming and describing new uploads; employing what I have already laid out) SecretName101 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

To my fellow admins here: Obviously, I would support something like what SecretName101 and I have been discussing. I'd propose an initial limit of 10 uploads per day, a commitment on SecretName101's part that until the backlog is cleared the "re-curation" rate on a weekly basis will at least equal the number of files he newly uploads, that the new uploads will be up to standards, and that we can revisit the upload rate monthly, with the hope of steadily raising it and, if all goes well, eventually eliminating it. (The "re-curation" requirement would remain until the involved admins agree that there is no significant remaining problem.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel as an update, I have continued re-curating files.

this request has not yet gotten any further admin attention yet though. Any advice for how to proceed? SecretName101 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing you need to propose the details via another unblock request. It sounds like Pi.1415926535 is who you need to deal with. You'll need to address his concerns above and/or ask him to be more specific on what he wants you to commit to, and I wouldn't be surprised if the two of you need to negotiate the exact details. You've seen my suggestion for a structure already, though looking a little more at the size of the backlog my wording "at least equal the number of files [you] newly upload" probably understated the commitment you need to make: cleaning up a handful of old files a day means this would take decades. You need to commit to spending the bulk of your effort on "re-curation" for the foreseeable future. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel

Aren't administrators instructed by the community to provide warnings prior to imposing blocks on editors for disruptive behaviours?

Because I had never in all my years been given such a warning that filenames I was using were a policy violation prior to this current block episode. I especially was not given a block warning.

I received two comments in my more than decade on Commons asking me to make any changes about file names, neither worded as a warning. Neither mentioning any policies or standards, nor directing me towards them. instead , the read as personal requests. this and this

If the crux issue is filenames, is it not a violation of community instructions to administrators for this block to be indefinitely imposed on that basis? I was not given appropriate warning, as the community instructs admins to do prior to imposing such blocks.

Additionally, isn't the purpose of blocks though not to be prevent future editing behaviors? Are administrators not instructed that, "blocks based on disruptive behavior should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume."?

Am I missing something, because this very much seems out of keeping with the policies the community has set for administrators to adhere to?

I genuinely ask, because that is all written in black letter, so I want to know if there is something I am missing? SecretName101 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been here trying to help you with what it would take for you to get unblocked, but if you aren't interested and would rather relitigate the past, that is of course your prerogative. Maybe you're missing something, or maybe there weren't clear enough warnings, but still: it is clear that you've done massive numbers of uploads where your work was not up to standard. It is clear that when I first became involved in the discussion here about a month ago you were insisting that it was difficult or impossible to do things that virtually every other significant contributor to Commons does all the time, so I'm not that interested in seeing just what else you didn't understand. - Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I don’t see the need for the aggression in your reply. I genuinely am asking for clarification about the rules for blocks and how they pertain to my situation. I hoped an admin could help shed more light on what I might be missing about this, given there must be something.

Since, after all, admins too are bound by community consensus, so I am hoping to understand the relevant community consensus that is informing all of this. SecretName101 (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The aggressiveness is because you asked my advice, but seem to have no interest in taking it. Again, it is your prerogative to go another way entirely, but don't ask me to help you with a course of action that has nothing to do with the one I recommended. - Jmabel ! talk 07:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I am just trying to make sense of the situation and understand it in full. If there is something I am not understanding, all I ask is for you let me know what. And if there is not anything I am missing here, I would appreciate being told so. Regardless of whether you think it furthers your preferred path for me to take or undermines it (as you seem to believe), I am just a user requesting help fully understanding this situation. As an admin, I hoped you would help users when they request it, or point them to someone or somewhere else where they can [realistically] get help. SecretName101 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel also, do the vast majority of my uploads not pre-date the creation of a consensus guideline on file names which if I am not mistaken, seems only to have been reached only recently (only a year ago)? Again, of which I was given no notice of, nor warned I was running afoul of? And if so, why have I been very much led up until now by admins to believe this was a longer-standing policy? SecretName101 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

That is when the current consensus was formalized, not when there started to be a consensus. But 15 years ago we already had an general consensus if not a formal guideline that Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen, and a formal guideline that supported changing such names. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel No there was not. Read more closely what you just linked to. That was a proposed (un-adopted draft) policy. SecretName101 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

with a reasonably strong consensus, but not strong enough for a guideline at that time. That consensus got stronger and stronger over time, which is why it was finally promoted to a guideline.

I am done arguing this. I started out trying to help you get back your uploading privileges, but you have completely convinced me that you are more interested in re-litigating the past than in moving forward, and I'm done here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel I am only asking for clarity unpacking this. Unpacking the past has been made relevant by your and other admin's responses to my request here. I will remind you that am the one who is asserting that whether conduct is expected to continue is the key question in an unblock. You are the one bringing up years of previous uploads, hence why I was asking you whether I am mistaken that no policy was in place in the large majority of those years.

And is an un-ratified proposal not an un-ratified proposal? As opposed to a policy. It is not published with current policies, nor ratified to be one. Are editors now required to be aware of and held to policies that do not exist, for which they have received clear warnings? And assigned punitive blocks due to edits that long predate such policies?

All despite the policy stating putative blocks are not allowed, that block warnings are to be given ahead of blocks for these sorts of matters, that blocks are only to be preventative of future disruption, that "Blocks based on disruptive behaviour should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume"?

How is this not a blatant disregard for policies to which admins are required to accord to in regards to blocking?

I seriously would love an explanation for how. SecretName101 (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons will recognize already uploaded images even if the filename is different as long as the image itself (including the metadata in the image) is the same. The block you linked to was for uploading images that had been deleted, which is a separate issue from a differently-titled version of the same file exists already on Commons Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ahecht unless a bug has recently been fixed, that is not always the case. Flickr2Commons will occasionally detect duplicates of already-uploaded images that have a different name, but will also very often fail to do so.

Example: the two duplicates given as examples in the block by Pi. File:Future Lechmere Station platform taking shape. (49917232321).png was a duplicate of File:Aerial view of Lechmere station construction, May 2020.png, and File:Steel frame erection at Vehicle Maintenance Facility near Inner Belt Road (49917241901).jpg was a duplicate of File:Steel frame erection at GLX Vehicle Maintenance Facility, May 2020.jpg. Flickr2Commons failed to recognize either as duplicates of existing uploads when I uploaded them.

I believe such uploads can be avoided in the future by (especially when uploading from albums that appear to have many files already-uploaded) first searching Commons for the Flickr number associated with a file. Since (often) these will show up as a search result if the number is contained within the source link cited for the image. SecretName101 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I would just like to state for the record, that I have (in an effort to demonstrate good faith, and demonstrate how I intend to continue remediating older uploads even after my rights to upload are restored) already re-curated thousands of files, especially focusing on titles. SecretName101 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also (to reiterate) it seems the crux issue is now file names. The policy on file names was only adopted a year ago (months less, at the time the block was imposed). I had never been given notice/warning of this new policy, nor that a block could be imposed. I have outlined that I intend to adhere to the policy on file names in future uploads if my rights are restored, and have already remediated thousands of previous file upload titles.

relevant questions here:

• should a block be lifted on a user that was given no prior warning of a policy they were astray of, and who has since thoroughly outlined their intent to discontinue the editing behavior for which they were blocked (and has thoroughly outlined how they will avoid said editing behavior)?
• can rationale for refusing an unblock be based on past "violations" of a policy that precede the policy's adoption (can users be in violation of a policy that was non-existent, and for which they also received no block warnings?)
• if a new policy is adopted, shouldn’t warning be given to editors who had well-previous been on Commons before lengthy blocks are imposed for violations of said new policy/guideline (with the understanding that editors might need to be familiarized with changes to policy)? If a block is imposed on a user who was not given warning, should demonstrated intent to discontinue violating the new policy not suffice for an unblock?
• are admins free to disregard the commons policy instruction that Blocks based on disruptive behaviour should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume, and retain/impose blocks that are not grounded in any rationale of prevention?

SecretName101 (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Since SecretName101 has posted on AN asking for additional admin eyes, I want to note how I currently feel as the person who placed the block. Uploading 430,000 files without proper curation (numerous copyvios and duplicates, plus poor/missing filenames, descriptions, and/or categories on most files) is a major breach of community trust. Approximately 14,400 of them have been deleted (including redirected duplicates), representing a significant amount of admin time. Given his responses over the months since the block, especially the most recent ones, I am not confident that he has given reason for the community to trust him. Before I would be ready to support an unblock, I would need to see:

• Taking full responsibility for the past issues with his uploads, including retraction of the claims of insufficient warning. In May, I detailed the history of users asking SecretName101 to improve his uploading. This included three past blocks for uploading copyvios and duplicates; those problems did not stop after those blocks and were first on the list of reasons for this block. Because those problems persisted en masse after unblock, I find it very difficult to trust what this user says in unblock requests. Regarding filenames, when at least six different users have asked someone to use better filenames, I find it hard to believe they are unaware of community norms.
• Restriction on uploads (I agree with Jmabel's previous suggestion of 10/day) until it's clear that he understands how to properly curate when uploading.
• Agreement to prioritize curation of previous uploads, such as a minimum ratio of curated files to new uploads, such that curation of all his uploads will be completed in a reasonable time frame (such as 10 years) if he remains an active editor. He has repeatedly stated that he sees being required to curate his past uploads as punishment, which I think speaks a great deal about his attitude.
• Details about the behavioral changes - not merely technical changes - that he will use to detect copyvios and duplicates before uploading them.
• Evidence that he is nominating duplicates, copyvios, blurred images, and other improper uploads for deletion as part of curation. In 2+ months since the block, he has only nominated 1 of his uploads for deletion.

I want it to be clear that I am merely expecting SecretName101 to follow the same standards that we expect of every user. Every uploader is expected to take measures to avoid copyvios and duplicates whenever possible, and to follow basic guidelines of filenames, descriptions, and categories. Because SecretName101 has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files without doing this, and thus broken community trust, there is a lot of work to do to get those uploads up to that standard and rebuild trust. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

for "uploading 430,000 files without proper curation" is to say every single upload I have made was not curated, which is an obscene mischaracterization. I politely ask you amend your comment to avoid such hyperbole. Engage with honest characterizations please.

You say 14,400 but give me no source for that total, so I cannot scrutinize that for myself. Could you please point to where I can see this myself? If, I cannot respond fairly, and I would have no way of knowing what the timespan you are referring to covers, or what the circumstances for the files might be. Were any number of those were files deleted to be overwritten by improved versions of the same file (re-cropped, enhanced, etc.); or were perhaps re-cropped files derivative of uploads others had made (which were later discovered to be potentially license laundered); or deleted for other misc. reasons (some files have better versions subsequently found and uploaded; occasionally video files have not reviewed by admins quick enough, and need to be deleted because the original source link are no longer viewable, etc.)? I cannot discern if I have no idea where you are getting this total from

Additionally, "at least six different users have asked someone to use better filenames" is a number I once again am given no context for the origin of. I searched my talk page archives and found only two instances where I filenames were mentioned, both pre-dating any policy and being phrased as personal asks rather than warnings. Can you please give me context of where you found six users?

"he sees being required to curate his past uploads as punishment", is an incomplete characterization of what I have said. What I actually have said is that that appears to go well beyond the mandate given for blocks to to be imposed: which is that they are to be preventative of future disruptive editing. The quid pro quo of "if you don't fulfill an additional quo (well beyond avoiding future disruptive editing), we'll keep you restricted" indeed makes the imposition of a block more resemble a punishment than a preventative action. My assertion is not that curation of older files is punishment, but that the imposition of a block to mandate/coerce it renders the block itself a punishment (and also is not attached to a prevention of future disruptive edits). And that does not seem in keeping with what admins are instructed by policy to use blocks for. I do urge that admins should ask the broader community for clear consensus before expanding what they impose blocks to accomplish. I worry that poor precedent is being set otherwise. SecretName101 (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I will amend, I do now see a third personal request about file names, User talk:SecretName101/Archive 4 involving yourself. In which I questioned whether you were arguing community policy or your own personal standards, and you did not challenge that what you were saying on file names was indeed your personal standards (since there was indeed no actual policy). SecretName101 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, my intent in resuming uploads is to be more limited in what files from an album I would upload and more scrutinizing in Flickr uploads; and when uploading things be better at assigning new descriptive names before upload. I have far more interest in uploading original photographs (with better naming) and newspaper/archival photographs with expired copyright SecretName101 (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Rocky Colavito (51382858310).jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Rocky Colavito (51382858310).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Eureka Lott 14:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Robert F. Kennedy in 1960.jpg

File:Robert F. Kennedy in 1960.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. 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!

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#SecretName101_unblock_discussion —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I can see the unblock discussion isn't going in your favour, but it seems the consensus is that if you fix the files you uploaded, we can probably unblock you. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please document your fixing on this page.   — ????Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me???? 11:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)