User talk:Túrelio

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

---

ATTENTION: Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

noframe

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

---

Please keep discussions together:

• If I was starting a thread on your talk page, please answer there. I will watch your talk page.
• If you started a discussion here on my talk page, I will answer here.

All requests for and notifications of re-use of my images on Commons have been moved to Requests & Notifications.

If you can't find a comment or an older discussion here, take a look whether it is in one of my archives:
Archive1 (latest), Archive2 (2007), Archive3 (2008), Archive4 (2009), Archive5 (2010), Archive6 (2011), Archive7 (2012), Archive8 (2013), Archive9 (2014), Archive10 (2015), Archive11 (2016), Archive12 (2017), Archive13 (2018), Archive14 (2019), Archive15 (2020), Archive16 (2021), Archive17 (2022), Archive18 (2023), Archive19 (2024), Archive20 (2025).

Deletion of Category:Images of Split

Hi, you deleted Category:Images of Split. Please, can you undelete it, because I had in mind to adapt it to: Category:Images of Zagreb and Category:Photographs of Zagreb. By the way, I used the German Wikipedia as a model (Stuttgart, Berlin, Hamburg..). Thanks Vhorvat (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi,  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that. So far, I've analyzed a lot and compared three or four German categories and two Croatian ones. I need to take a break to make some things clear to me. Also, to see if a structure of multiple categories can be created, which is what I have noticed in other countries. I had to simplify some things, for example removing municipalities from the categories, because there simply isn't enough material for them, and we don't have districts. Let this category remain until further notice. I'll definitely be here in one day. Vhorvat (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Though with its current tagging as duplicate it will likely become deleted by any of my colleagues. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I had the old window open so I didn't notice this reply. I thought if this would be resolved positively you would remove the duplicate tag. Vhorvat (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I think I solved the problem, please check. Description: From the very beginning, it bothered me that the categories Cities Photographs and Cities Images are very weakly connected, or rather not at all. But I also noticed at the very beginning that the categories States Photographs and States Images in the German part of Commons, which I consider a model for Counties in hr, are connected differently, simply logically and well. For the City of Zagreb, which has the status of City and County, similar to Berlin and Hamburg, I will wait and see how this goes. Vhorvat (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Aufräumen in bei Kulturdenkmalcats

Hallo Túrelio, danke schön, für deine Aufräumaktionen bei den Kulturdenkmalcats. Bei manchen Cats ist das verschieben aber nicht notwendig zum Beispiel bei Cats wie

• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Einfriedung (Erfurt)
• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Schule (Erfurt)
• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Turnhalle (Erfurt)
• Category:Schillerstraße 33, Wohnhaus (Erfurt)

Die einzelnen objekten haben alle eigenen Eintrag in der de.wp in der de:Liste der Kulturdenkmale in der Löbervorstadt. Mittelfristig bekommen die auch alle einen eigenen Wikidata-Eintrag. Die Thüringer Denkmallisten nutzen eine Vorlage mit Upload-Funktion, diese zieht die entsprechende Commonscat (im idealfall die vom Objekt), dies ist jetzt "nur" die vom Gebäude und nicht die spezifische. Gibt es einen Grund warum du diese Cats verschiebst oder war das ein Versehen. Viele Grüße Z ^thomas 07:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Z thomas, ich habe da einfach das von TOMMES-WIKI gesetzte Skript (badname ...) ausgeführt; die Einzelschritte werden dabei automatisch ausgeführt. Wenn es um die redirects geht, die können bei Reaktivierung der momentan gelöschten Kategorie einfach wieder entfernt werden. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hallo Túrelio, hallo Thomas

zunächst erst einmal ein herzliches Dankeschön für die Mitwirkung an der Wikipedia.

Die Unter-Kategorien zu den einzelnen Denkmalobjekten hab ich ganz bewusst zusammengefasst. Zum einen um die Kategorie-Pfade möglichst "flach" zu halten und zum anderen (das war für mich der primäre Grund der Zusammenführung) die Auflistung analog der "Denkmalliste der Stadt Erfurt (Stand: 04.1.2022)" zu führen. Hier Werden die Denkmalobjekte adressbezogen mit einer zugehörigen Objektbezeichnung (z.B.: "Wohnhaus + Einfriedung") geführt.

Sukzessiv wäre ich auch dafür die Wikipedia-Listen (u.A. de:Liste der Kulturdenkmale in der Löbervorstadt) dahingehend anzupassen.

Beispielhaft hierfür wäre:

Category:Gustav-Freytag-Straße 6 (Erfurt)

Hier hab ich schon mal die Wikimedia-Kategorien zusammengefasst, ein Wikidata-Objekt angelegt und die entsprechende Wikipedia-Liste dahinhigehend überarbeitet und ergänzt.

Was meint ihr dazu? :-)

Liebe Grüße Tommes

Tommes (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You were wrong about the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v10gRb49jBQ Please check it again and click the filter Creative Commons. Thank you. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi James Kevin McMahon, I assume you refer to File:Glenn McQuaid at DIFF 2026.jpg. While I am surely not flawless, the source-video That's A Wrap! Looking back on DIFF 2026 is definitively not under a compatible CC license. Youtube videos under a CC license usually show that license in the fold-out area (click on: More ..) below the video-frame, which is not the case here. Do you have other evidence? --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I got the same barnstar for tagging the file.
What James appears to be getting at is that when you search with the "Creative Commons" filter enabled the video shows up in the results. Which is very strange indeed. My best guess (speculation) is that YT maybe hides the free license because it detected a song? But they forgot to exclude it from the filtered search results. Guess I found a bug in YT. If the YT review bot was still around it would reject this, I'm not sure how license reviewers deal with this.
I hadn't noticed myself, but James pointed out they spent 4 hours to extract and upload two dozen screenshots from the same video. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Du erhältst einen Orden!

	Der Fleißorden
	Einen anerkennenden Orden für das Kümmern um die Berliner-Orthophotos. Herzlichen Dank für den Einsatz :) PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Gern geschehen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Цензура в русском рэпе.png

Could you please tell me if I formatted the file correctly and if it can be used in the article? I found free images of individual elements online and combined them into a single image using Photoshop to illustrate the article "Censorship in Russian Rap." I've listed all the sources and the 4.0 license, is that correct? Is there anything wrong? Нейроманьяк (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Will take til tomorrow as I've to check the license-conditions of all 5 element. --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

User:於台北王朝大酒店前抗議台塑河靜鋼鐵廠污染越南海洋的活動

Please go back to the original author's edit history; no one should have damaged that page. --楊中龍 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Chemical socks

If I'm not mistaken User talk:Stephx07 is uploading similar if not identical files to User talk:Emilysophia9. Can you have a look? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Similar type of images, but not overlapping. And as all uploads are in pdf-format, detecting the source is nearly impossible. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey Túrelio

Can you remove File:Ali larinaji in quds day (cropped).jpg since it is crop from a copyvio picture File:Ali larinaji in quds day.jpg Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Launched Roman Catholic church in the village Chystopady.JPG

Guten Morgen @Túrelio.

Bitte gucke dir das nochmals an, das war jetzt wirklich kein Duplikat, sondern ein Crop, besser gesagt eine andere Version, da auch die Bildeffekte unterschiedlich sind. Sollte wiederhergestellt werden und dementsprechend abgeändert werden bei File:Костел часів 1 світової війни.jpg, was ich bereits gemacht habe. Besten Dank und liebe Grüsse, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Den EXIF-Datei nach scheint es technisch ein Ausschnitt zu sein; ist aber tatsächlich so stark bearbeitet, dass man es als andere Fassung betrachten muss. Danke für den Hinweis. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hab Dank. Weiterhin frohes Schaffen und schönes Wochenende. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Danke. Bin z.Zt. in Urlaub und nicht ganz so aktiv. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Prüfung eines gelöschten Bildes und eines möglichen Re-Uploads

Hallo, du hattest vor einer Weile File:John Baptist Antony.png gelöscht. Könntest du prüfen, ob es sich dabei um das gleiche Bild handelt wie die beiden Bilder in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antony John Baptist.jpg? Da scheint was im Busch zu sein... Nakonana (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nein, unterschiedliche Aufnahme. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, danke dir :). Wenn es keine allzu großen Umstände macht, könntest du noch prüfen wie es um File:Stanley George.jpg vs File:Stanley George.png steht? Nakonana (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hier war es eindeutig; nun als copyvio markiert. --Túrelio (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

New GODL batch

Hi Túrelio, I've got a new batch of uploads pending review.

Thank you so much in advance. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC) ː̺ Done.--Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Help with files

Hello Túrelio, hope you doing well. I nominated files I uploaded some time ago for deletion, and now the main reason for deletion has been resolved with the relevant team, so there is no need to delete them now. How do I cancel the deletion-request?

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Roman_theatre_(Sabratha).jpg
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Entrance_to_the_ancient_Sabratha_Theatre.jpg
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:تمثال_في_متحف_صبراته_الأثري.jpg
4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:مسرح_صبراته_الأثري.jpg

Thank you! -- Aws ^{💬 Talk} 12:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:NLC471-032021208010125-3783 新疆生產建設兵團農八師石河子總場人物誌.pdf

A few years back, you added File:NLC471-032021208010125-3783 新疆生產建設兵團農八師石河子總場人物誌.pdf to the list in Category:Undelete in 2062. Your rationale (given in the deletion log for the file) is that this 2012 work would be out of copyright in 2062. I can't think of any reason its U.S. copyright would expire before 2108. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 23:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course, if it has a known author with a known date of death, that might vary... - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, I have performed this deletion on behalf of the uploader, who had requested it[1] on the day of upload. Therefore, I did take the rationale simply for granted. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing U.S. copyright never crossed their mind. I will move accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Al-suqoor_club_logo.jpg

can you upload please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Suqoor_Club&diff=prev&oldid=1361828421 Эльдар Шукоров (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Эльдар Шукоров,

this file has been deleted after being tagged as copyvio-suspected by another user. You should either try to find a freely licensed version of this image or upload it locally on :en under the fair-use clause, as explained in en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Túrelio (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Speed deletion request

Hello, @Túrelio: Please, do you can delete my file Игорь Николаев (2023-04-07)? The reasons for deletion are described there. PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done.--Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

you deleted a file that should not be deleted

you deleted photos of carla azar that should not be deleted. the photographer gave permission to use and went through all of the proper steps to be able to use that photo. Artaudthemadman (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

What file are you talking about? File:Carla Azar Jack White Tour in 2018.jpg, which was deleted in 2025? You had requested the deletion by yourself! --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe these that Krd deleted due to "No ticket permission since 20 November 2025":
File:Carla Azar - 2022 portrait press photo.jpg
File:Carla Azar - 2025 press photo portrait.jpg
File:Carla Azar drummer - official press photo 2025.jpg
File:Carla Azar - 2024 portrait press photo.jpg
File:Carla Azar - drummer 2024 portrait.jpg
@Artaudthemadman, please ask the photographer to contact COM:VRT through permissions-commonswikimedia.org, and follow through this time, thank you. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for restoration

Hi @Túrelio,

Time ago this image was deleted: Puthiya Purayil Sneha. I would like to ask if it's possible to restore it. Puthiya was a key contributor in the research the State of the Languages Report, which analyzes the presence of different languages on the Internet, including Wikipedia.

Please let me know if it's possible.

Thank you, Constanza Verón (WK?) (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Constanza,

sure, it could be undeleted, as there is no obvious legal problem. However, the image should then immediately be used on a Wikimedia project or the encyclopedic relevance of the person should be shown. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for a category restoration

I am requesting the restoration of Category:Joseph ou le vertueux ouvrier. I have been categorizing the uploads of User:Southwold1966 and he has recently clarified the wiki software has added some incorrect titles to his uploads. I have been trying to simplify some of those titles. One of them is the title listed above. I would like it restored. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. But you could have re-created it by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't completely sure that I had not asked for its deletion previously, and so I was cautious. Krok6kola (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Agnus60x60.jpg

Am I correct in understanding that anyone, even someone who is not the copyright holder, can revoke the free license CC BY-SA 4.0 for any file? Lesless (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally not. I admit that I overlooked the editwarring between you and the uploader. I will put the file into a regular DR. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There we are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agnus60x60.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for restoration

Hi Túrelio,

Thank you for reviewing the file File:Lt. General Mainur Rahman obtained from the Bangladesh Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR).jpg.

I would like to respectfully request that you reconsider the deletion.

I am a journalist in Bangladesh, and I received this photograph directly from the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) through its official WhatsApp media distribution together with the official press release.

The Daily Campus was not the original source of the image; it only republished the official ISPR press release.

I also realize that I may have selected an inappropriate license template when I uploaded the file. If that caused confusion regarding the copyright status, I sincerely apologize. It was an honest mistake on my part, not an attempt to misrepresent the copyright or licensing of the image.

My intention was simply to identify ISPR as the original source of the photograph. If the licensing information was incorrect or incomplete, I would have been happy to correct it rather than have the file deleted.

If additional evidence or a different licensing approach is required, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. I am willing to provide any further information I have about the provenance of the image.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Masumsau053 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Masumsau053,

I can undelete the file and put it into a regular deletion-request, which allows a discussion, as the case seems to be complicated. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Masumsau053, Dear, ISPR does not publish any files under a Commons-compatible license. You are not the copyright holder either. Kindly ask ISPR to send permission via COM:VRT, and ask them to include the exact license under which they are releasing the file. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Persongivingthefinger.jpg

Hi - I just wanted to clarify why File:Persongivingthefinger.jpg was deleted. The log summary points to this Reddit post, but that just seems to be a link/image embed of the Wikipedia article where this image was being used at the time. Am I missing something? Thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9,

wrt the filesize etc. I am with you. The problem is that the article on Reddit was posted 4 years ago, i.e. in 2022. But the image on Commons was uploaded in 2024. Regrettably, archive.org nd .is don't have archived any version of the reddit-article.--Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio The issue I'm pointing out is that the image is a thumbnail from the Wikipedia article embed, it hasn't been uploaded to Reddit separately. In fact, it looks like the thumbnail from Wikipedia was generated in 2024, after the image was uploaded and added to the article. It's probably that Reddit refreshed the thumbnail at this point for one reason or another. It doesn't actually originate from that post in 2022. Sam Walton (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

San Pedro de Atacama

Please consider undeleating Category:San Pedro de Atacama (town) and undoing the file moves given this previous discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Cat undeleted. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You hav deleted a lot of categories i think are utiles

Sorry, i supose you are one god or something.. I don't know why you have deleted a lot of categories i had created. Maybe there are some can be deleted, but, there are many i think are good for information about files... But maybe you are good and u have got raison... Thanks you for destroy the work of other voluntaries. Sleep good. --Pitxiquin (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't you express your concern without personal attacks? I usually delete only categories that are empty and have been tagged for speedy deletion by others users. In addition, as categories are usually deleted merely as maintenance and not for legal necessity, they can easily be restored or recreated if necessary. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

File:MP original trailer 2.png

Hi Túrelio. Could you please explain the deletion of this file, given that it is covered by exactly the same licence as all the other screenshots in the Category:Mary Poppins (film) as stated at the time of upload : they all come from the original trailer and are therefore not subject to copyright due to the {{PD-US-no notice}} licence. It seems therefore that there has been an error of judgement and that nothing prevents its restoration. Thanks in advance. Voxhominis (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Voxhominis,

I've temp-restored the file and corrected the syntax of the speedy-template, which had been added by another user. So, now you can read his rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply ! I don’t understand this contributor’s reasoning regarding this particular screenshot. If the licence has been accepted for all the others – which were uploaded in 2008 and have never been questioned since ! – then it should not be removed. Otherwise, the deletion must cover all the trailer's screenshots.

The current justification for eligibility is based on the assumption that « trailers older than 28 years are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted ». If that is not true (and some sources seem to suggest that it is, in fact, a myth), we will need to explain why Commons accepted this explanation for so long, and then carry out a major clean-up of the project!

It should be noted however that US courts have often permitted the use of still images under fair use for film analyses or press articles – which is precisely in line with Wikipedia’s encyclopaedic purpose.

Expert Wikipedians – of whom I am not one – should therefore look into this matter without delay in order to bring the project into line with the law. As an administrator on fr working to ensure that principles are upheld for nearly 20 years, I can only support such an initiative. As you’re a Commons administrator, I’ll leave it to you to raise the issue with your colleagues. For my part, I can alert some French-speaking fellows. Voxhominis (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I do interpret your approach/reasoning that we should try to obtain a meaningful discussion about the general issue. Therefore, I would propose to put this image into a regular deletion-request, which would provide as platform for a thorough discussion (even including other files with the same potential problem) without time pressure. --Túrelio (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There we are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MP original trailer 2.png. --Túrelio (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Check some images

Greetings. Could you please check on these images, and do they violate copyright? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D9%87%D9%81%D8%AA_%D8%AA%DB%8C%D8%B1_404.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D9%81%D9%84%DA%A9%D9%87_%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%A9_404.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%DA%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87_%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AE%DB%8C%D8%B2%D8%B4_404.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C_%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1.jpg WolfCapitan (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi WolfCapitan,

I understand that these are important historical documents. However, they all come from sources which are unfree. I see no chance to host them on Commons. As you want to use them on :fa-Wikipedia, you might check whether :fa does have an exception-policy, likely "fair-use" on :en-Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I discovered there are fair-use uploads on there, which there was no need to upload them to commons. WolfCapitan (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Hello! I noticed that File:Full Mode in Kodachi Dashboard.webp was deleted with the reason "Copyright violation: Screenshot of non free content (likely promotional too)." I'm trying to understand the decision. Could you explain what made the screenshot non-free? Was it because the Kodachi dashboard UI isn't under a Commons-compatible free license, or was there another copyright issue? The licences have been changed so can you please review the licences and specify if I could put them now. Thanks for your time.~2026-41280-02 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the image had been speedy-tagged by my admin-colleague Herbythyme for being a "Screenshot of non free content (likely promotional too)". (The latter is less relevant, the former is.) I therefore performed the requested deletion w/o a deeper investigation. As is see from en:Kodachi OS, the software seems to be under a non-commercial free license, which is considered unfree in the Wikimedia world. A general guidance about screenshots is here: Commons:Screenshots. --Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

But I have the permission from the developer and also he have updated the licences. And this is the message from developer. You may now use screenshots of the unmodified Kodachi OS interface and official promotional graphics on Wikipedia under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Please credit them as: “Kodachi OS screenshot, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.”. Thank you for the fast reply ~2026-41343-95 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I will undelete the image and add "Permission pending". You will please send the received permission etc. to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

can you undelete the others that you have recently deleted. Thank you and will send the permission letter soon ~2026-41382-24 (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Snarky messages

Hi buddy. I received a couple of notifications about my user page, with the last one stating "Commons is not Facebook". Look, I'm just trying to get my artist images to Musicbrainz. It's a pretty convoluted process, TBH. I'm new at this. I believe I have it sorted by creating the category, building the Wikidata page and statements and linking everything together. I removed all of the band info from the userpage. It's just confusing to someone that doesn't spend any time in this realm. The snarky comments are just frankly, unnecessary. It isn't a helpful statement in the least. So if it isn't helpful, why say it? Ultimately, I'm just trying to provide metadata information about my art to everyone out there. I think the purpose of Wiki is to provide information to people. So, if there is still something wrong with the one sentence on my user page, please let me know what I can do to follow the rules. Thanks. The Glass Identity Crisis (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is nothing "snarky" with the message you received. I first tagged your userpage with a lengthy explanation why it is not ok and requires speedy deletion. You then shortened it a bit without really solving the problem and removed the speedy-tag. I didn't block you for that, but tried to send you the message in a more concise manner, which still seems not have been hit.
User pages on Wikimedia projects are NOT "profile pages" like they are on Facebook etc. Their only purpose is to provide other fellow contributors with information about the user that is relevant to their contributions to the Wikimedia project(s). Information about unrelated abilities, services, achievements etc. and especially links to other commercial websites are considered promotional and inappropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I'll take a different path to get the info out there. I just don't have the bandwidth to wrestle with something that should be simple. Thanks for the reply. Have a good day. The Glass Identity Crisis (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Plaques referencing 2023 in Malaysia

Hi Túrelio. You recently speedied the above category, but it was only empty because an IP (~2026-39566-79 (talk · contribs)) has been going round randomly removing categories from image pages and then nominating the now-empty categories for deletion (examples: [2], [3]). Could you restore the category please? BigDom (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure.  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. As I've been going back through their contribs I've come across a few more:

Category:Plaques installed in 1952 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques referencing 1952 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques installed in 2010 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques installed in 2011 in Malaysia

Category:Plaques installed in 2017 in Malaysia

Not sure what their angle is, I've left a message on their talk page. BigDom (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Restored. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Does this file violate COM:L?

This file File:GIF of Series 4 of Deutsche Mark Banknotes.gif is partially contain File:1000 DM Serie4 Vorderseite.jpg which got deleted in 26 July 2024 per Commons:Deletion requests/German currency after 1953 because "Above files currently do not have a valid license, since they are using Template:PD-GermanGov-currency which was deprecated years ago (see COM:CUR#Germany). They are also younger than 70 years and unlikely to be in Public domain, due to age (using Template:PD-old-70, Template:PD-anon-70-EU or Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG)." Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll check this up with my admin-colleague. --Túrelio (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I've put it into a DR. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I know, thanks! Phudeptrai47540370870 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of British Airways Flight 38 imagery

Hi, following Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Airways Flight 38 crash aftermath (cropped).jpg (nominated by @Dcs002), two of my images I uploaded, File:British Airways Flight 38 crash aftermath (cropped).jpg and File:British Airways Flight 38 crash aftermath.jpg have been deleted. Now I cannot access the original pages anymore, but at the very least the non-cropped image would have had a clear link to a reply in which the Metropolitan Police expressly licensed those images under the OGL: "I can confirm that the MPS permit reuse in accordance with the regulations and we apply the associated OGL terms which are published here:...". Given this clearly goes against the reason stated in the deletion request, and was linked appropriately on the file page, why were both files deleted in under six hours from the creation of the deletion request? At the very least I'd expect the deleting admin to double-check the permission provided on the files before deleting, or am I asking too much of the deletion request system? Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

when I performed the deletion, both files carried a copyvio-speedy-tag. There was no link to the DR, mentioned by you. I seems the nominator omitted to notify you about the speedy-tags.

After reading through the linked permission, it appears to comply with an OGL license. Restored. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, although does this not also suggest that the speedy deletion process is prone to error? At the very least before actioning a speedy delete I'd expect the permission tag to be checked (as we now know it was included in the description on both the cropped and un-cropped file). Especially when file deletions have wider impact on the rest of Wikipedia, when they are unlinked after deletion, which as far as I know is not automatically reversed when the file is undeleted. FozzieHey (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No - that does not confirm that permission is given. It says it's given by regulation, and the regulation says we have to go to the Met to get their permission. It gives a link to the Natl Archives. In the National Archives website, you will find a list of Crown agencies with delegated authority. In other words, these agencies have been delegated authority to control their own copyrighted material outside of the OGL. We need special permission from the Met Police to use this image. Only a few Crown bodies have this delegated authority, and the Met is one. Our use violates the Metropolitan Police's copyright. (Note that still images are explicitly included in this.) I'm sorry. I wanted this image in the article too! I originally uploaded it a few years ago and had to take it down for this reason. Dcs002 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Seriously, did you even click on the permission link? I am really starting to get a bit concerned about the review process before speedy deletion now... FozzieHey (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did look at that message, and at the link in that message, and much farther than that. I also have an email from the Copyright Team at The National Archives of the United Kingdom, which reads in part:

"As our pages on the UK Government Licencing Framework highlight, the OGL is the default licence for all Crown bodies and is the recommended licence for public sector bodies. However, the Keeper of the National Archives grants some bodies permission to licence their Crown material outside of the OGL. The Metropolitan Police is one of these bodies. Therefore, you should contact the Metropolitan Police directly to discuss using their material."

You have to look beyond the large print pages to find this stuff, like the list of Crown bodies with delegated authority and what that delegated authority covers. I am not "that guy" who goes around looking for things to delete. I want this image in our article, which is why I uploaded it early in 2023. But this is legitimately a violation of the Met Police copyright. Their law covering this is not easy to understand nor is it easy to find, but the link I've provided (the same link provided by the Archives Copyright Team in the excerpt above) shows clearly that still images from the Metropolitan Police are covered under Delegation of Authority, not OGL, and the excerpt above should explain clearly what that means - that permission has to come from the Met, not OGL. I don't take this lightly. I wish we could use that photo, but it's a clear copyright violation, and it was wrong to restore it. I'm sorry. Dcs002 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think I can see what you are getting at so I will attempt to stop being snarky, because at least the issue is not the opening (or non-opening as the case may be) of the permission link in the first place. I think you have slightly confused Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence here. To start with, I completely agree with you that works published by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) are not immediately available under the Open Government Licence because those powers are delegated, as you say. In fact this is the very reason I sent a request under The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 (RPSI) to the MPS in the first place.

Under Regulation 7 of the RPSI, the public sector body in which the request was sent to, **must** permit re-use:

[...]a public sector body must permit re-use where it receives a request made in accordance with regulation 6[...]

.

And through Regulation 12, they **may** apply conditions on that re-use, such as through a licence:

12.—(1) A public sector body may impose conditions on re-use, where appropriate through a licence.
(2) Where conditions are imposed they must not unnecessarily restrict—
(a) the way in which a document can be re-used;[...]

That is why in the MPS' response, they stated:

I can confirm that the MPS permit reuse in accordance with the regulations and we apply the associated OGL terms[...]

The regulations they are referring to is not Crown copyright, nor the OGL terms themselves (because neither are regulations), they are referring to the RPSI in which the request was made under. They are permitting re-use because the RPSI states that they **must do**. The actual important part for our purposes is "we apply the associated OGL terms". Indeed, they are exercising the exact delegated authority that they have to do this. But for simplicity purposes, the presumed licence under Crown copyright is irrelevant at this point, because they have explicitly licensed that photograph under the Open Government Licence.

I really recommend reading the complete version of the RPSI here, because it is fairly compact, and is a really strong piece of legislation which allows us to get documents licensed under the OGL from public sector bodies in the United Kingdom (the EU has equivalent legislation, it was brought in when the United Kingdom was still in the EU), and not many people know about it.

Let me know if that clears it up for you. If not I propose we move to com:VP/C as this is, in my opinion, getting a bit too complex for a user talk page. FozzieHey (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The message from the FOI person at MPS reads as if he's passing on information from another authority, and not the authority himself. "I can confirm to you that my mate says it's okay to use our stuff as long as you follow OGL terms." Has this sort of documentation been accepted as adequate? I'm not going to oppose this image anymore, but this seems rather indirect and informal. (Yeah, that's purely subjective.) "The MPS permit reuse..." reads like a general statement, and not specific to this image. As a general statement, that would be incorrect, which is why I didn't originally give that message any credence. I didn't read that as "The MPS hereby permit reuse of this specific image..."

I remember running into a final roadblock in 2023 where an email permission was not considered adequate here. As this RPSI route is indeed new to me, I'm content to drop my opposition. I do hope this is legit, and if so, thank you for doing the work, and I do mean that. That image really adds a great perspective to what happened. If I've made extra work for you, consider it teaching work, because I've learned something new. :-) Dcs002 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

1 page pdf duplicates

Hi, examining diff is confusing. This is a pdf format file that contains a single image. The duplicate linked is a jpg file that is significantly higher resolution than the pdf containing the same single image. Something like 2,000 similar duplicates have been deleted in the past day. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hang on, I see it now. Weirdly despite the DPLA giving these exactly the same name, they are different pages. That's a headache. Damn, that's *really* bad and misleading. I hope this is a serious exception not a pattern. --Fæ (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, File:Erlandson Story on Tortures - DPLA - 36d70a48f05b4b3d369ac2e0166b54ca (page 3).pdf, File:Evaluation Report on Public Safety Program - DPLA - d0717ba03c70d60a26edc82e26287470 (page 7).pdf and File:GENERAL COMMENTS ON NSSM-67 - DPLA - d0e0c9505d1b35bf1e83b66982207809 (page 2).pdf have again been tagged by bot as duplicates when they are not (wrt content, not file-format). --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The task has a couple of tweaks now. Mismatches will automatically add to Category:DPLA duplicate names but not the same image (yet to happen automatically), this relies on a perceptual hash set at a low level. It also checks filehistory to see if the duplicate tag has been added in the past and gives up if it has so we shouldn't see repeated repasting of the template if someone does not agree.

I think this is a non-issue, maybe there's only a handful, but we really have no way of testing that assumption without going through millions of files... Fæ (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikimania 2026 — Day -1

I do not believe this category was incorrectly named. I am fairly certain it was intended to be the day before Wikimania day 0 (i.e. day 0 minus 1). I did move a few files out of it that needed to be in day 1, but there was a few files I was fairly certain based on the metadata had indeed been created the day before day 0. Izno (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It had been tagged by User:Bodhisattwa and surely was empty when I performed the deletion. Feel free to recreate it. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Village pump

Could you please look in on COM:Village pump#Bad action by "Túrelio"? It does look like you made a mistake you should probably fix. I had pinged you (since the initial reporter didn't) but you have not weighed in. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Danke

Auf diesem Wege einmal herzlichen Dank für die schnelle Bearbeitung meiner SD-Anträge. Ich nutze seit Jahren des LRMediaWiki-Plugin um Fotos aus LR auf Commons hochzuladen. Leider hatte ich bei meinem letzten Upload zu viele Bilder ungewollt markiert, die dann alle hochgeladen wurden. Super, dass du das so schnell bereinigt hast. Tuxyso (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)