Jump to content

User talk:Geo Swan

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

TUSC token 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336 Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816) (cropped).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816) (cropped).jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auc…

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

~2026-45830-30 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816).jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auc…

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

~2026-45830-30 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:A public square in Chicago (9326033069).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:A public square in Chicago (9326033069).jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:A public square in Chicago (9326033069).jpg

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

ForeverFlying (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Cosplay_of_celebrities

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category discussion warning

Cosplay of celebrities 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Rose Abrams (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:Lovecrafters (33037653332).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Lovecrafters (33037653332).jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lovecrafters (33037653332).jpg

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Antimatter628 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816).jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auc…

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

~2026-45830-30 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816) (cropped).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auction (49565981816) (cropped).jpg has been nominated for deletion at
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice Moran at the 2020 CFC Annual Gala & Auc…

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

~2026-45830-30 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Lighthouses in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin

[edit]
Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Rose Abrams (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rose Abrams Lake Superior is a large lake, and we have hundreds of images of lighthouses on it. Sturgeon Bay itself has dozens of images of lighthouses. I thought it was a good idea for the multiple lighthouses in Sturgeon Bay to have their own subcategory. Somewhere, between my uploading of some of those images, and creation of the category, and your tagging the subcategory for deletion, someone emptied that category. I think the silent emptying of categories is uncooperative, and a newbie mistake. This is one of the weaknesses of relying on categories. IMO they should have initiated a discussion of the category. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's an issue you'll have to take up with them. I didn't empty the category nor do I know who did.
I usually keep my created categories on my watchlist which shows me whenever files are added or removed, so I recommend you do the same to avoid the issue going forward. Rose Abrams (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rose Abrams I am not complaining about your nomination.
What I described, the quiet emptying of categories, is an issue I have encountered many times. I did check, and confirmed you were not the one who quietly emptied the category.
FWIW, putting a category on your watchlist will NOT inform you when someone quietly empties it. This is an inherent weakness of using categories.
I called this a newbie mistake. That is unfair to newbies, as tere are some experienced contributors who regularly empty categories, without discussion. In my opinion, this practice is a problem even when the individual moving the files has a good point. In that case, if they had used a {{Move}} template, or brought the issue to categories for discussion, and their arguments prevailedː (1) a robot would have taken care of actually moving the images; (2) a {{Category redirect}} would have been left -- an important step to make sure third parties who linked to the images under their old wikilink don't get broken links.
If you have not noticed this phenomenon before, you too are likely to notice it now.
Cheersǃ Geo Swan (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - www.Army.mil (8).jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

 File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - www.Army.mil (8).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: COM:ADVERT spam url)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : ~2026-49216-86.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion (shown above) or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

  • This is highly confusingǃ
  • I tried to figure out what, exactly, is going on here. The deletion log said "(unused and implausible, or broken redirect): COM:ADVERT spam url)". I'm only human. I am subject to normal human fallibility. I am, occassionally, tricked by flickrwashing. I want to know when I was tricked by bad actors. I am going to ping @User:Túrelio and request more caution, as this was a misleading deletion log entry. This was a redirect, but not a "broken redirect". If someone had inserted advertizing or a spam URL, then that was an act of vandalism. I think the redirect should then have been restored to it pre-vandalism state.
  • What should the deletion log entry have said? I do not believe this redirect should have been deleted.
  • I moved the image from an uninformative name to a useful name, in 2015. This image existed under its original uninformative name for five years. The move process should have changed every instance, on any WMF project to use the new name. But non-WMF projects have their images served by commons images.
  • The arbitrary deletion of long-standing redirects, like this, risks making the Common seem unreliable to third party users.
  • Túrelio, may I discourage you from deleting long-standing redirects, even ones that seem implausible? We really have no way to know they are unused. We only know they are unused on official WMF project.
  • If this deletion was prompted by the application of a CSD, could you ping the person who applied that tag to this discussion? Never mind. I can see it was @User:~2026-49216-86.
  • I think it would be better if you restored the redirect, no matter how implausible it seems.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I've restored the File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - www.Army.mil (8).jpg-redirect now. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Túrelio Thanksǃ Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:David_Hyde_Pierce_in_the_1970s

[edit]
Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category discussion warning

David Hyde Pierce in the 1970s 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Useless Niamh (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not stalking

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't this what stalking (harrassment, bullying) looks like? What is your purpose doing it if not mentioned above? When you're not even talking to me? Like to stalk people much? Or just want to be absolutely sure that you have scared me enough?

If you still unaware - for you to know - it looks more then weird. So you better stop doing it. ~2026-50120-53 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-50120-53
  1. No, this is not an instance of bullying, or stalking.
  2. Every time I leave a comment for you I state that i noticed, and I believe some other people noticed, you spent hours, or dozens of hours, doing good solid work. You added categories to uncategorized images. You moved good images to better names. That was good positive work. And I've said so before and said it now.
  3. Every commons contributor has an edit history. Here are my first 20 edits, from 2005. Anyone can look at the revision history of a file or category. Anyone can look at anyone else's revision history, at any time.
  4. When another contributor seems to be making the same mistake, multiple times -- like you with your 56 questionable speedy deletions, that is a trigger to take a closer look at their history.
  5. I had to do a lot of unnecessary work to look at your contributions. I wouldn't have had to do that extra work if you had established one permanent wiki-ID, like just about every other serious contributor. I listed them for other contributors to see, in case they wanted to see your revision history for themselves.
  6. You said something, elsewhere, about me invading your privacy. Sorry, all contributors, on all WMF projects, are expected to stand accontable for their edits. They are not private.
On September 14th I left a note on User talk:Túrelio#a heads-up, [1] [2], listing 56 speedy delete requests you initiated, and he or she deletedː 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
On September 16th I left a note requesting they restore those 55 redirects.
He or she started to restore them. We can see you used the same tag on all of them {{SD|G2|[[COM:ADVERT]] spam url}} [3], [4], [5] [6], [7] [8], [9], [10] [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].
There was no "spam URL". No one, absolutely no one, agrees that the inclusion of the phrase "army.mil" is a lapse from ADVERT. Those 56 questionable speedy deletion requests? Those are just the ones Túrelio closed. For all I know, in the dark week and a half, where you haven't told us which temporary IP addrsses you were using you may have made an additional 56 questionable speedy deletions.
A final heads up -- this could have been considered vandalism. If you disagree with an administrator's administrative action, don't just revert them. Discuss it with them, politely and patiently. They are subject to normal human fallibity. There is a fora for requesting a review of a deletion decision. Again, polite patience is the order of the day there, and only go there if you still think there is a case after trying to discuss your concern with the administrator first. Geo Swan (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, listen up. This is something important you don't know. Any normal good faith contributor, like you or I, is authorized to place a speedy deletion tag. When you or I place one we are supposed to be confident that our concern will be obvious, to everyone.
If a second ordinary good faith contributor sees our tag, and disagrees with it, they are not authorized to erase the tag. If they disagree they normally change the speedy deletion to a full 7 day deletion discussion.
I said ordinary contributors aren't authorized to delete speedy deletion tags. Administrators are' authorized to delete those tags. I saw four instances where User:The Squirrel Conspiracy removed your speedy tag,with the edit summary "Not eligible for speedy deletion. If you disagree, nominate for deletion." [29], [30], [31]. But instead of doing what they told you -- open a full discussion, you reverted them. [32], [33], [34], [35]. You weren't authorized to do that.
I know you didn't know any better, so I forgive you.
Do you know that administrators are authorized to block contributors? Blocks are supposed to be administrative, not punitive. Ideally, people are supposed to be warned, prior to a block. But, blocks with no prior warning do happen. If someone is on a mad jag, the administrator may decide they have to stop them first, and explain afterwards.
You are not going to like hearing this. My best advice to you is to return to the good stuff you were doing when you weren't nominating redirects for deletion, until you have a better understanding of our deletion policies. This is the advice I would give you if you were my best friend.
And then, when you think you are ready to nominate stuff for deletion, and you add a speedy tag, if an administrator removes it, and you disagree, you start a full discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Listing the Temporary IDs someone uses

[edit]

I left notes on User talk:~2026-49216-86, User talk:~2026-48770-67, User talk:~2026-48708-14, User talk:~2026-49459-21, User talk:~2026-49420-22, User talk:~2026-46750-33, User talk:~2026-50316-97 and User talk:~2026-50120-53. This one individual has used a new temporary address every one or two days, for over three weeks. To really look at all their contributions someone would have to look at the edits made from all of their temporary IDs. I don't think a good faith look at the single revision history of an individual who established one single permanent wiki-ID should be called stalking. I don't think my good faith look through these revision histories should be called stalking.

I am going to repeat a point I've made several times. I think this individual started off doing good positive work. They added categories to uncategorized images. That was a good thing. They found images with poor names and suggested better names for them. That was a good thing. They have said they feel I am trying to drive them from the project. I am not. I have done my best to offer them what I think is good advice.

Using multiple IDs may trigger concerns they are trying to engage in sockpuppetry. They are not. It looks like they use an Internet Service Provider who assigns them a brand new IP address everytime they connect. They only used those temporary addresses one at a time. It looks like they weren't aware this was happening, and genuinely does not understand why that is a problem. Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

A tragicomic failure to understand our policies

[edit]

On September 14th, I left one of my first notes to our user of temporary IDs. In my second paragraph I tried to nicely warn them they seemed to be trying to participate here at a level beyond their level of fluency. Commons is an international project, and, even though almost all discussion are in English, English fluency is not required to participate. I warned them that it is important, for all of us, to keep our contributions within our level of fluency.

This individual was recently warned that they could be blocked if they continue making uncivil accusations. I noted, above, four edits that could have earned them a temporary block.

I don't want to see them blocked. What I would like to see them doː (1) establish one permanent wiki-ID, and use it for all their edits; (2) if they are going to participate in discussions, do so as a learner, not someone lecturing more experienced contributors as to how they are ignoring or misinterpreting policies; (3) stick to the kind of original positive contributions they were making that did not require full English fluency.

In five separate comments in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#excess_of_authority? they complained about people interfering with their "workflow". These comments expose a tragicomic failure to understand our speedy deletion process. I am going to quote the last one "@The Squirrel Conspiracy are you ready to not sabotage my workflow no more reverting my speedy deletion requests without creating ordinary deletion requests on your own?"

What all the rest of us know, and what they failed to understand, was the role of administrators, in speedy deletion. What all the rest of us know is that administrators are (1) authorized to look for speedy deletion tags; (2) read the deletion rationale, and solely on their experience and judgement, determine how the speedy should be closed; (3a) if they think the deletion rationale holds merit they are authorized to immediately delete the material, leaving a meaningful explanation in the deletion log; (3b) or, if the deletion rationale fell short, they remove the speedy deletion tag, with a meaningful explanation in their edit summary.

@The Squirrel Conspiracy is an administator. Here are four pairs of diffs, ([36]-[37]), ([38]-[39]), ([40]-[41]), ([42]-[43]) where they decline speedy deletion tags this individual placed, only to have this individual revert the administrator's closure, reinstating the speedy deletion tag. I am going to repeat, this is a tragicomic failure to understand the administrator's role.

If you look at that complaint I quoted, they accused The Squirrel Conspiracy of "sabotaging" their workflow. What this "sabotage" was was The Squirrel Conspiracy perfectly performing the closing administrator's role in a speedy deletion -- not sabotage at all

Should they be blocked for this? IMO no. They are a very new contributor, and honestly didn't understand. And blocks are supposed to be administrative, not punitive. They made these mistakes about a week ago.

However, moving forward, I think it would be best for them to agree to refrain from all deletion nominations, until they do understand our policies -- oh yeah, and start a permanent wiki-ID. Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Anon opened a claim I was a "stalker" at ANI

[edit]

Our anon opened a claim I was a "stalker" at ANI.

Due to being an ESL individual it was hard to completely understand. as of 01:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC) they made 16 more comments there.

  1. One substantive point... they linked to wmf:Policy:Privacy policy, which I don't remember reading before. It says individuals are entitled to use anonymous IP for their entire WMF career.
  2. An administrator warned them to be more civil. They weren't civil, and were blocked for three days.
  3. They also had their ID registered for an abuse filter. I wonder how that works? Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:A NATO meeting - 260923-Z-XK345-1015.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright status: File:A NATO meeting - 260923-Z-XK345-1015.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:A NATO meeting - 260923-Z-XK345-1015.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{self|cc-zero}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:06, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo_Swan&oldid=1280968722"