User talk:Rereader1996

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Rereader1996!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). 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. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant

@Rereader1996: ; there is already an Elisabeth of Belgium category, complete with infobox. If you do not mind, I will ad the images to that category. If need be, a rename of the catagory can be made later. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's Correct. Category:Elisabeth of Belgium was existing already and is linked to Wikidata (Q830697).

To correct that, I just moved Category:Heraldry of Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant from Category:Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant to Category:Elisabeth of Belgium.

Category:Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant (wich cannot be linked to Wikidata) is now empty and can be deleted.

--Dodeeric (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lotje: Princess Elisabeth is titled Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant as heir to the Belgian throne, the category ‘Elisabeth of Belgium’ can be created when she ascends the throne though she will most probably have a regnal number as ‘Elisabeth I of Belgium’.Rereader1996 (talk) 22:26, 09 November 2019 (UTC)

​The problem is that you created a second category for the same person which cannot be. To solve the problem I deleted the second category. I see now that you renamed it from Elisabeth of Belgium into Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant. It is not incorrect, but it is not a good idea because it is not her name. Her name (first name, last name) is Elisabeth of Belgium. You seem to mix the name and the titles, which are two different things. Her name is Elisabeth of Belgium, her titles at this moment are Duchess of Brabant and Princess of Belgium. It means also that once she will ascend the trone, another category will have to be created for... the same person. And again that cannot be, as you can only have one person linked to one Wikidata item. But that will not become a real problem before long. --Dodeeric (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

​ Something like The king is dead, long live the queen!? Gosh, that would be weird. Lotje (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lotje: , @Dodeeric: Most of the correctly created categories as per general convention standards are named with the first name or chosen name of the heir as well as their title, for instance Category:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden or Category:Jacques, Hereditary Prince of Monaco; the category name can be its previous version as Elisabeth of Belgium (though she will be Elisabeth I of Belgium) when she ascends to the throne but until then, Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant is appropriate and neither will this current category have to be deleted/renamed as a new separate category of her regnal name can be created, as has been done with Category:Felipe VI of Spain with the category of Category:Felipe, Prince of Asturias having also been included within it. As for Wikidata items, they can always be edited. Rereader1996 (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Me and @Lotje thought you created the category Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant by mistake, not having noticed one category already existed for Princess Elisabeth. I deleted one of the two categories because if you have two categories, users will use either the first or the second depending on the category they will find first... You also said that the category Elisabeth of Belgium can be created once she ascends the throne which sounds strange as that's her actual name since her birth (and will still be after ascending the throne). By the way I have no problem with the category Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant if it is more compliant with the naming convention presently used for such topic on Wikimedia Commons. --Dodeeric (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No edit war please!

Please do not start in edit warring as you did here. Explain what you mean on the talk page, so changes can be made after consensus. See the warning on the talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not move categories while they are under discussion

Your move here was inappropriate as the category was currently under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern. As the notice states, "Please do not make major changes to this category or remove this notice until the discussion has been closed." I have reversed both your move of the category and your removal of the notice. If you wish a move to be made, you are encouraged to participate in the linked discussion. Please comply with the CfD process in the future and refrain from making changes to open discussions. Thanks, Josh (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove the notice from either Category:Birgitta of Hohenzollern or Category:Princess Birgitta of Sweden as both are important to the CfD. Josh (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has ignored this and proceeded to make changes anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rereader1996, your edits here and here are 100% against the CfD process and had to be reverted. Do not blank categories, rename them, redirect them, or move the contents between them while they are under discussion. Additionally, do not change the Wikidata link to your preferred category name as an end run around the CfD process. These disruptive edits make it difficult for others to consider your desired changes on their merits. Josh (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorting people by the last name - no edit war please! -

Please leave the default sort order for people in categories to be by their last names. All across Wikipedia projects this is the sort order that should be used when is listing people in categories. It's just like on a paper encyclopedia where you would find Titu Maiorescu under letter M not T. So, all the categories with people are sorted by the last name. Right now you have disrupted the sorting across any category listed for Titu Maiorescu for example. I will change back the default sort order to be by the last name. The category that you have created Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Carol I should follow the same pattern. There is no reason to have a personal preference on this matter. Thank you! Luanlou (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Luanlou: ; This creates the issue of those people whose surnames are alphabetically sorted with those individuals who don’t have surnames which looks very unorganised.Rereader1996 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what is the consensus on the names of kings/queens etc. You may want to research more on the help pages or ask the community. But, for the majority of people it is by the last name. Sorting by the last name does not look disorganized :) Thank you! Luanlou (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The standard practice of sorting by last names is very much a standard practice. Breaking this practice for a particular category or tree should be done by consensus as the result of a CfD. Josh (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Grand Duchesses of Russia

Stop renaming categories please, this is incorrect for Commons. --Shakko (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shakko: You will find that the Category names for most of all Junior members of an Imperial, Royal, Grand Ducal, Ducal or Princely’ Family will include the title preceding their name (Grand Duke/Duchess or Prince/Princess or Duke/Duchess) followed by the territorial designation after the name (‘of Russia’/‘of Sweden’/‘of Mecklenburg-Strelitz’), some examples here being: Category:Princess Stéphanie of Monaco, category:Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland and Category:Duke Peter Alexandrovich of Oldenburg as well as many many many more throughout commons all with the correlation of titles being included; in the case of members of the House of Romanov, this can also create the distinction between a Grand Duke/Grand Duchess and a Prince/Princess. Rereader1996 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorting people by the last name

Please leave the default sorting by the last name for people categories! It was already explained to you the reason. No edit war please! Thank you! Luanlou (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Category names

Could you stop doing this? This guy (but not only, there are more examples in your latest editions) is known primarily as "Raimundo Fernández Villaverde" or "Raimundo Fernández-Villaverde". Period. His second surname (and his nobiliary title: consort, by the way) is very obscure, to say the least. Strakhov (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Strakhov (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Strakhov: I understand, however as part of his full title, his marital title would have been included, however with the majority of my other edits, those individuals were titleholders within their own right. Rereader1996 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Strakhov: Adolfo Suárez González was the 1st Duke of Suárez so surely it would make sense to add his title as part of his category name. Rereader1996 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No. He was the 1st Duke of Suárez the same way he was born in 1932 and married to Amparo Illana, and we usually don't include such data in category names unless we find an extremely rare need of disambiguation. I was gonna deliver you the classic "please, if it's not broken don't fix it" but it fits better "please, don't break what is already fixed". Strakhov (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Including the nobiliary titles in category names could be OK for folks who were primarily known by them, not mechanically to everyone holding a title. Strakhov (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

PD: If you are applying this kind of "logic" to "people outside the United Kingdom", I suggest you to stop doing that, because it may happen things are different across different cultures. It may happen nobiliary titles, in Spanish culture, do not become an inseparable part of "your official name" after being granted. Strakhov (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sort keys

And please, don't do this either. Strakhov (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop renaming categories

Could you please stop renaming categories of Queens, Princes, Consorts and the like? Your renaming is quite extraordinary. I will just give one example, but I could give a dozen. You renamed Category:Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld to Category:Prince Bernhard, Prince Consort of the Netherlands. A brief look at the corresponding Wikidata item shows that your category names are really not common sense. Vysotsky (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: In case you haven’t realised but the complete mess of categories and inaccurate names of them, needed sorting from the range of misspellings, inaccurate titles which haven’t even been updated since the title of the individual has changed, as well as them being named to something which they’re apparently popularly referred to whereas they should be named as the official name/title; during my last edit on the Wikidata item you referred to, I had made all edits to connect it to the correctly named category though if it doesn’t connect then must obviously looked at which I will re-do. Rereader1996 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you have looked at the Wikidata item, you must have seen that nearly all Wikipedia language versions use the same name for Bernhard zur / de / van / of Lippe-Biesterfeld. I think it is quite remarkable that you want to use a different name for him in Commons (Prince Bernhard, Prince Consort of the Netherlands), a form that you call the official name/title. I would like to question your proposal. Last year Commons was visited by a comparable user who tried the same tricks. Most important message: don't rename if you can't find consensus. If I look at your talk page, you will have a hard time to reach that consensus. Vysotsky (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming categories (revisited)

Dear Rereader1996, Renaming categories with many sub-categories requires consent of the community, but (after that) it also requires cleaning up the old category, and making sure the internal links won't get lost. It would be appreciated if you would do both. When renaming categories without leaving redirects, it would be nice if you could clean up the mess you are leaving behind (broken links in Commons, broken links with Wikidata, incomplete renaming etc.). Vysotsky (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: I will make sure the categories and wikidata items will connect to others which I have categorised correctly, though I have updated most if not all with the categories but they’re clearly not connecting if you say so which I will have to recheck. Rereader1996 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You really don't seem to get the message. When renaming (as you do) without leaving redirects, you create lots of broken links and ruined categories. See this example: What links here. Please stop your renaming. It is only causing a lot of work for others. Vysotsky (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Last warning for category renames

Hi Rereader1996, you seem to have a habit of renaming categories out of process. I'll make this really simple: From now on don't rename any categories or you will get blocked. Multichill (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: Renaming Categories by going along official spellings, names and titles in opposition to them having not been updated since the title of the individual being changed or inaccuracies where they’re named based on opinion of the individuals popular reference rather than their official reference; Not to be rude but, if this is an official warning, am I able to challenge this?. Rereader1996 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It was either this or blocking you. It's as official as it gets here. The categories you renamed where controversial. How to handle those is described at Commons:Rename a category. Now every move you want to do falls in the controversial category and shall be done using the {{Move}} process. This way it might take a bit longer, but you hopefully won't get into any more arguments over renames. You can always try and challenge it at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, but you might want to consider what the alternative was before you do that. Multichill (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories (revisited)

Old habits never die. Instead of renaming, you now just make new categories in between. Look at this revision. You changed the link to Category:Anne, Princess Royal into Category:Princess Anne, Princess Royal of the United Kingdom by year. This isn't really helpful. Could you please stop changing these titles? Vysotsky (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: Changing titles? Considering the fact that it’s an official title in its full form (rather than removing that she’s first and foremost Princess Anne) as is also shown here: Category:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex by year as well as many others you’ll be able to find within subcategories of individuals by year. Rereader1996 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rereader1996, You perfectly understand what I mean. Instead of following current name forms in Commons like Category:Anne, Princess Royal, you repeatedly introduce new forms of royal names and try to spread these forms as broad as possible. See the above discussions on your talk page. A look at your contributions shows a clear pattern. Your talk page also shows that there are several people who object to your working method, and that you are unable to find approval or consensus. Pinging @Dodeeric, SergeWoodzing, Joshbaumgartner, Strakhov, and Multichill: as some of the involved contributors. Please stop your current working method. Vysotsky (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

When creating an index such as 'by year', generally the name of the main category should be used verbatim. Thus, the 'by year' index of Category:Anne, Princess Royal should be Category:Anne, Princess Royal by year. If you feel the parent category name is not correct, then a CfD should be started to propose the desired change, but the main category and its indices should not be changed or created using your desired new name until the CfD concludes that the new name is appropriate. Josh (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: To put it bluntly into your own words: “You really don't seem to get the message”; I think you’ll actually find that in opposition to your apparent assumption, the category has been created in the correct form of other categories of the same type which include an individuals name as well as title/title of designation (reminder: Category:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex by year); prior discussions were regarding categories as a whole, so we’ll not be discussing that considering this section is regarding a sub-category created with an individuals actual title rather than jargon created by users preceding their own opinions over actual factual sources. Rereader1996 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rereader1996, Main point: Wikimedia Commons is a collaborative effort. If you can't find consensus for proposed changes, you will have to follow the present framework and categories. Category changes and new categories need approval from the community, whether we like it or not. Vysotsky (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I fully support the complaints made here and am appalled at this user's complete lack of interest in following normal procedure re: consensus. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Oh please, cut the crap! I would suggest to rectify your own editorial jargon and stick to actual facts based on previous CFD’s rather than jumping on the bandwagon based on your issues with my edits due to your lack of knowledge of previous subjects as we have all seen as well as my edits being supported by administrators on the previous subjects. End of discussion. Rereader1996 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Order of Victory - King Michael I.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Order of Victory - King Michael I.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!

 

Didym (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Boy King Michael I Fresco.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Boy King Michael I Fresco.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!

 

Didym (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Bustul Mihai I.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bustul Mihai I.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!

 

Didym (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Bustul little King Mihai I.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bustul little King Mihai I.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!

 

Didym (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:S Agata in Trastevere - abiti ex voto della madonna fiumarola da Maria José dida P1070209.JPG

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:S Agata in Trastevere - abiti ex voto della madonna fiumarola da Maria José dida P1070209.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!

 

Didym (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you.. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 04:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Order of the Crown (Romania)

Please learn to read and source corectly In the romanian royal family website, the grades of this order are clearly stated:

"Ordinul Coroana Romaniei are cinci grade: Cavaler, Ofiter, Comandor, Mare Ofiter si Mare Cruce.

Membrii Ordinului sunt numiti pe viata. Numarul lor este limitat astfel, pe grade:

Mare Cruce: 50 membri Mare Ofiter: 160 membri Comandor: 300 membri Ofiter: 600 membri Cavaler: 1,200 membri"

There is not such a thing as a "Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown (Romania)" or "Cavaler Mare Cruce". Tm (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tm: Oh please, cut the crap! The order is a dynastic order of a knighthood, hence the prefixes of Knight/Dame. Your edits will be reverted ;) Rereader1996 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the official romanian website, they are called grand crosses, not knight grand crosses, as there are in the 5 grades one that is knight or Cavaler and other Mare Cruce or Grand Cross. You cannot make things up. So where is the "Cavaler Mare Cruce"?. Sources instead of making things upTm (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tm: Coming from a Romanian, these are the grades of the orders! The ranks of a Romanian order of knighthood are Cavalaer si Dama (Knight and Dame). Your edits will be reverted ;) Rereader1996 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Coming from someone that can read romanian, sources please, as your making things up. Tm (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You can speak Korean for all I care, these are factual ranks of the grades of the order as an order of knighthood, so again I would suggest you to refrain as your edits will eventually be reverted :). Rereader1996 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rereader1996\TheCommonsCorrecteur\ImperialArchivesRU or whatever name you want to be called, your sockpupettry is going to be reported and your dodge edits will be reported. Good night. Tm (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 month

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: harassment. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

You need to calm down and stop harassing User:Tm. When User:Tm removed your comment from their user talk page, you should assume they have read it. Reverting this so many times in a short span of time is harassment. --Green Giant (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

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: "Intimidation and harassment towards whom? In what form? There was no intimidation made towards anyone nor was there any harassment so I deem this block unacceptable, especially given the fact that the it’s on the basis of the same user who has carried out the same actions as I have towards myself, though they have vandalised and continue to." Decline reason: "You reverted User:Tm about 18 times on their user talk page in the space of about four hours. That is harassment, plain and simple. When they removed your warnings, you should have assumed they’ve read the notice. At that point you should have done something else. If you wish to be unblocked, you must address the block reason. Taking a confrontational approach with an administrator is not going to succeed in an unblock. --Green Giant (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

Indefinite block

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you. A CheckUser has confirmed the abuse of multiple accounts. Your existing blocked from editing has been augmented by an indefinite block for this reason.

--Green Giant (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Warranted and overdue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Recipients_of_the_Order_of_Queen_Maria_Luisa

Recipients of the Order of Queen Maria Luisa has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Estopedist1 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Austrian_Archdukes

Austrian Archdukes has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Zenwort (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Bust of King Michael I (closeup).jpg

And also:

• File:Inaugurata Piateta Regeleiu 05.jpg
• File:Inaugurata Piateta Regeleiu 06.jpg
• File:Inaugurata Piateta Regeleiu 08.jpg
• File:King Michael Square and Monument inauguration 04.jpg
• File:MichaelICloseupBust.jpg
• File:Piateta Regale 01.jpg
• File:Piateta Regale 02.jpg
• File:Piateta Regale 03.jpg
• File:Piateta Regeliu 01.jpg
• File:Piateta Regelui inaugurare 01.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Bust.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Januari.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 01.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 04.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 05.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 06.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 07.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 08.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 09.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta 10.jpg
• File:Regele Mihai Piateta inauguration 05.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Piateta Regelui inaugurare 03.jpg

File:Piateta Regelui inaugurare 03.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)