Hosta

Welcome!

I don't bite, drop me a note here or contact me using an alternative method like rileyhuntleycagmail.com, or @countervandalism/Riley-Huntley (IRC).

I work in a spirit of COM:AGF with Commons images for deletion, as well as categorizing and sourcing images.

Please do not be offended if your images were nominated for deletion or even deleted. There are processes to provide copyright permission and undelete even images which have already been removed.

If you need a really fast response to a general question, please write at the Village Pump.

Tech News: 2016-20

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin

Hi! I missed your RfA, but would nevertheless like to give you my blessing. ;-) Good luck with the buttons. Trijnstel_talk 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: Thank you, means a lot! The main page is still intact after this time, so I think I might actually last as an admin ;) ~riley (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Brandon Thaxton Image

Hello Riley. My first WIKI submission was Brandon_Thaxton The image I submitted for Thaxton was deleted. Thaxton told me he took the picture. Any advice on re-submitting the image you deleted would be appreciated. Thank you. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brandon_Thaxton_at_2016_Georgia_Entertainment_Gala_Awards_in_Atlanta_Georgia.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs)

@Joshyates1980: Thaxton could not have taken the photo if he is in it. Even if he somehow did, he is the copyright holder and has not released the image under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license as you did. Please read COM:L. ~riley (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Riley: Thank you for the link on copyright information for wikimedia commons. Is there a way I can edit the deleted photo and change the copyright, or do you suggest I go through the entire upload picture process again? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. ~joshyates1980 17:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshyates1980: Unfortunately, there is no way to change the file to bypass the copyright. The copyright holder for the media depicted is the photographer, and without their permission through COM:OTRS or evidence that the file has been published under a free license elsewhere on the web, the file will only be redeleted if uploaded again. ~riley (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Riley:I can relate to this article: Wiki Editor. Ok, so I'll just reuse the image Thaxton has on his website. Hopefully that will work. Thanks ~joshyates1980 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshyates1980 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshyates1980: You cannot simply resuse images you've found on the internet, you need the permission of the photographer and/or the copyright holder (subject) to reuse these images. Please read COM:L before proceeding to upload another file. ~riley (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent work of spamming my watchlist with your (useful) edits to my uploaded files. You are now nck-in-neck with Natuur12 when it comes to this kind of spamming. Keep it up! Josve05a (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:RyanBot

Congratulations! Task 6 was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

API change will break your script

Hi ~riley,

I noticed that RileyBot has been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// Access to http:// is going to be disabled in a few weeks. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or on the mailing list. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thats a good sign.. only one of my bots will break. ~riley (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

RyanBot isn't appearing in the list that I was given, which I hope means that it's safe (and not just making too few edits to bubble up onto the list). Do you need help figuring out how to deal with this? I can't give you an extra 20 hours in your day, but if you need information about useragents or technical help, then I might be able to help you find someone knowledgeable. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Please say you can help me. (I just tried to email you but it refused to do so.

Hello. I had an account on the main Wikipedia site under the name of User:LouisPhilippeCharles, years past, I got blocked, I forgot the password to said account. I then (a few months ago) got into contact with an admin who was able to revive my account on Wikipedia under the name of User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNEW. I was eventually blocked on that due to the spiteful machinations of another user who has taken a huge dislike to me. I had uploaded several images under the name of LPC and eventually got blocked on here (not 100% sure why) I then emailed countless people, literally begging for help but was ignored. Out of sheer anger and frustration I set up an account with the name User:JustOneDay as I wanted to upload a coat of arms I had made (" Coat of arms of Marie Christine de Rouvroy (1728-1774), Princess Charles Maurice of Monaco, Countess of Valentinois.png") . I uploaded with the correct license and it has since been deleted (Again unsure why) and eventually that was blocked. I get the feeling that a user by the name of User:Courcelles has taken to deep dislike to me. In their defence I did rant a bit but again only because I felt like no-one would bother to help or even pretend to do so.

Alas I have come to you. Only really to be unblocked on from using the Comons. I don't really have the patience to time to deal with the bureaucracy of other Wiki projects. Plus I really enjoy the commons if I'm honest. It's rewarding to build up a category. Plus I've made at least 30 overall. But yes. Please say you can help. Signed Thomas Harding (Because I am actually a human being)

If you do reply please feel free to email me on tom.june13@gmail.com (as I said my email refused to send my message.

Yes, please help me. 2.97.230.102 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the message. Unfortunately because all your previous accounts have been globally locked, there is really not much I can do. My best recommendation is to contact stewards@wikimedia.org, I imagine you're going to need a really convincing argument though based on Category:Sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles. ~riley (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw you had replied.

I really have no idea what to say in the email if I'm honest. I genuinely feel like whatever I do say will just be ignored. What should I say? I'm scared. =[

Does that email address cover the whole of Wikipedia then? Or just the commons? I'm confused. 2.97.239.252 19:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, that email address covers all Wikimedia sites, which means, all Wikipedias, Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Meta, and Wikivoyage. Well, since you socked at March, I recommend staying away first from all Wikimedia sites for atleast 6 months, then request an unlock by sending an email to the stewards. Please note that if you socked again, the chance of unlocking you will be lower and lower until it becomes almost impossible. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw your reply. Ok 6 months. Could I have an email address of yours to contact you on just in case I need your assistance? I would just like to know there is someone there if needs be. A security blanket if you like. This is exhausting. I did try to email the above address yesterday but it refused. Not sure if my email is just loosing its grip and is just being stupid. Alas yes have you got an regular contact address at all? Because obviously I'll be shot down if I dare reply here. 92.24.41.198 11:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I will send you an email containing my email address. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to contact me as well, my email is listed on my user page. ~riley (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear ~riley,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-21

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Where the update to 10.12.2008 Needtobreathe.jpg ?

Where the update to 10.12.2008 Needtobreathe.jpg ? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

fixed, thanks! :) ~riley (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You made a mistake

You reverted me the autoverified flag for "edit warring" but you made a mistake. The user who was edit warringwas the user Turnless, who whas warned yesterday by another sysop User:Blackcat who recognized that the bad and pointless reverts were the ones done by User:Turnless. In fact Blackcakt asked "him" to stop edit warring with a sound reason ("pointless reverts"). And you blocked "me" instead of Turnless, whose talk has "plenty" of complains by other users due to its easiness to revert. Congratulations: for you info, on it.wiki I have admin flags so I know how things work. On it.wiki, an action as yours against me would have been enough to ask for you to be deflagged. Have a nice day. --L736E (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, but this isn't it.wiki. You both edit warred, and in turn, you were both warned. I know your an itwiki admin, and simply, I don't care. I did not block you, as you have stated above. Yes, I removed your right, autopatrolled (not autoverified) because you have demonstrated an inability to solve a dispute properly. Take this to File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#Dispute_resolution because quite simply, you're wasting your time by informing me about how I'd be deflagged on itwiki. Want to talk about other wikis? Alright, if this was enwiki, you'd be blocked for edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is that Turnless is keeping a contraddictory behavior. My attempt was to achieve a "consistent" information across Commons maps. If you have a look at File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg, you will see that the user who posted the revision with Italy showing "civil union active" was exactly Turnless. So, on one file he accepts the situation, on another one he denies. This is my point. I was only attempting to keep things consistent and I stopped edit warring after Blackcat warned him. --L736E (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you've been told to take this discussion to File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#Dispute_resolution where I have commented on the contradictory behavior you are concerned about. You stopped edit warning after Blackcat warned him because your revision was the current one at the time, so that really says nothing. ~riley (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ping Blackcat to ask him to support me. I pinged him to flag that there was and edit war and asked for mediation. And I didn't edit after his intervention. I wouldn't have done even if the revision of the filw weren't the one I'd like the most: I had left someone else to do it, in that case. I suppose that this is a way to "try to solve a dispute properly" (ask for someone to mediate). Respectfully, don't you think so? In any case, removing the autopatrolled flag after seven years of fair contribution without "fights" or "flames" with other uses, including a long history of flagging copyright infringements, from my point of view is simply excessive. --L736E (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you did not edit after his intervention because your version was still the most recent, so again, that goes to show nothing. From my perspective, to be frank, you went running to a friend for mediation and while doing so, you did not present a neutral case therefore the "mediation" wasn't much. You should have left the file in the state it was before edit warring began (which I did) and then directly spoken to the user on their talk page and/or the file talk page instead of both being immature and having a pointless edit war. You've had the autopatrolled flag for three years, let's not get caught up in "seven years of ..." As I said, its temporary removal and I won't be surprised if Blackcat readds it considering his involvement. Autropatrolled is irrelevant to patrolling, its not patroller. ~riley (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I did directly speak with Turnless on his talk page. I skip your alledging about "immaturity". It sounds simply out of place. --L736E (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussing options and accusing someone of doing something "close to vandalism" are two separate matters. You cannot enter a discussing trying to resolve a dispute by using caps "IMMEDIATE", saying their action is "unreasonable" and "without reason" and then ending on the vandalism note. That is not dispute resolution. ~riley (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This reply confirms me that you handled this whole situation in quite an approximate way. You point to my last intervention to user Turnless, once again diregrarding completely all the previous messages I tried to exchange with him (look at the whole talk, not just at the last message) where I tried, patiently and fairly, to explain him why in my opinion he was wrong in rollbacking. Why did you disregard these interventions of mine in your evaluation? Did you notice which were the reactions from user Turnless to these first attempts for exaplainations? None, simply he didn't reply and rolled back without a word. I repeated my interventions again and, since he continued, at the end I lost my patience (wrong? yes, but it's human), due to his lack of replies (when he eventually replied, it was quite late in this history). And that's why I claimed "close to vandalims": because Turnless seemed to have ignored my points. So: it looks like you looked thing only from one side, in an incomplete way (not taking into account the whole history but only the "last" messages), disregarding Commons:GOODFAITH on my side (read yourself here above: you always started from the assumption of "bad will" on my side), you evaluated my behaviour totally isolated from my history (and also this means somehow Commons:GOODFAITH was disregarded: you rushed into conclusions ignoring my overall behaviour, not only: stating that my history "doesn't matter". Being myself an admin and check user on it.wiki, I'd said that this is not what is expected by an admin who has to evaluate a situation), you removed from your talk an unsolicited (and on my side unexpected) intervention of another user in my favour (intervention restored by the user itself, history of this talsk evidences it), against the policies regulating the usage of talks (not a good sign). Did I manage this stuff in a not-optimal way? Yes, I did. But you as well definitely managed this whole stuff in a not-ideal way. So: now: the edit war is ceased, you restored my rights (fine, thanks), so no further to debate on this topic. But I kindly ask you, for the future, to remember first of all Commons:GOODFAITH facing other users and not to stop to the top of the iceberg but trying looking at the things in their completeness. Think we both have to learn from this history. --L736E (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You've have multiple interactions with this user, yes, each interaction in regards to something different. Let's not pretend these interactions were about the issue at hand, they're irrelevant at this point. Your points previous were separate issues, and he responded to all but one of your messages so clearly he didn't ignore them. Let me be frank; I don't know your history (yes, i know you're a CU and admin on itwiki, I don't care), nor do I know Turnless' history. You both edit warred, you were both warned, and dispute resolution began. As for the "policies", you are citing, we have a talk page guideline and I am within my rights to remove comments from a wannabe admin who intervenes at every opportunity possible. I know regardless of how I respond to this, you're going to continue with your opinion so I'll just end this conversation now. ~riley (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg

Most of the time, a coat of arms SVG cannot really be "derivative" of a GIF in any ordinary or usual sense. Please nominate it for deletion through ordinary processes, where its deletion can be discussed individually. AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, you can request Commons:Undeletion if you wish but I stand by my deletion. It was listed as a derivative work in the description, and the source of the derivative work was deleted as a copyright violation. ~riley (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

However, the derivative indication seems to have been semi-stupid (using the wrong template, to start with, and possibly not placed by the original uploader, though it's hard for me to tell, since the file is deleted). Furthermore, I can't see that the deletion of either the GIF or the SVG was ever discussed in a properly-notified deletion discussion focusing on those files, and so would appear to be out of process in some respects... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read COM:CSD, both these images qualified for speedy deletion and were not out of process. As said, if you wish, you can request Commons:Undeletion. ~riley (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DVIDS & UNDEL

Replying to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-05#File:The_Royal_Norwegian_Navy_mine_countermeasures_ship_HNOMS_Hinnoey_.28M343.29_participates_in_a_small_boat_attack_scenario_June_13.2C_2013.2C_in_the_Baltic_Sea_during_Baltic_Operations_.28BALTOPS.29_2013_130613-N-ZZ999-103.jpg −

There's three issues,

1. I do not believe that OTRS tickets are needed for however many uploads may be affected (potentially several thousand). As linked in the UNDEL request, correspondence with DVIDS is published at User:Fæ/email/DoD#DVIDS, so there is no need to refer to non-public records when all of the relevant evidence, including DVIDS statements, are public for anyone to validate. A note could be added to the standard template, highlighting that the DVIDS FAQ exists, but even that seems excessive and is likely to be confusing as it would not apply to U.S. military employees.
2. For other past deleted images, there would need to be a check that DVIDS is a source for the image. However as I'm not an admin, this would be excessively difficult for me to do, as I cannot read the deleted image text page, nor can I double check that a VIRIN match in the filename actually is the deleted image seen at DVIDS. This latter point may seem arcane, but there have been many examples of several images using the same VIRIN on DoD databases and only a visual human check is entirely reliable as the SHA1 checks are unlikely to match between an original defenceimages upload and a DVIDS current file as the EXIF is changed automatically by their publishing process.
3. The consensus is not clear for other sources, such as images from military forces outside of the known U.S. coalition partners, direct agencies, or suppliers within DoD projects. Off the top of my head, I cannot highlight an image where that is the case, but at the moment even forces such as ADF which is a coalition partner is being argued/debated. The on-going debate gives me pause, as I would rather not invest my time changing templates or researching deleted files, unless this is stable and I know my work will stick. I am comfortable returning to this in several months if necessary (and depending on my availability), perhaps even parking it until I have sysop rights even if that takes years rather than months.

--Fæ (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fae I agree, no OTRS tag needed in this case. If you send me other past deleted images, I can investigate. ~riley (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, check this

All are copyvio. Please, check them. Thanks in advance.--Fixertool (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! ~riley (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No permission since

Hello. What is your reason for tagging {{Self}} images as {{No permission since}}? Per COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary evidence is not required for previously unpublished own work photos "unless the image/ file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted." Finnusertop (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The answer is in your quote, Finnusertop: "there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted." If someone else has taken the photographs, the subject needs to provide proof of copyright. ~riley (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I missed the similarity of the description and author. Finnusertop (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting

You deleted the file, but you didn't read file talk before it! Please return the file.--Мечников (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Мечников: Hello, the file is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0, according to Flickr. That license is incompatible with our licensing policy, so that's why Riley deleted it. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for answer! I chose "all creative commons" on search page of Flickr. Now I know that it's incorrectly method. My apologies--Мечников (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-22

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Filemover right

Thank you for your trust, ~riley! I shall work very hard to not let you down. Best of everything to you and yours! Paine Ellsworth (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulation!

Hi,

Congratulation on becoming an admin! Kind regards.--Mona778 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

		Good job !
		Here is a cookie.
		from [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]

Big healthy Ditto! Paine Ellsworth (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

delete

Please delete My Photographs by Kayser Ahmad Totonji category. Thanks Kayser Ahmad (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~riley (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the quick response to my AN/B report. Thanks, and keep up the good work! ★ Poké95 04:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File rename request (commons)

Hi,

Not sure how this works, but can you please rename a file I recently uploaded on Commons? (I made a typo.)

• Current file title: "Bustului lui Barbu Ştefănescu Delavrancea din Parcul Copou, Iaşi.jpg"
• File title should read: "Bustul lui Barbu Ştefănescu Delavrancea din Parcul Copou, Iaşi.jpg"

Thanks! Sb2s3 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Sb2s3:  Done, in the future you can also use {{rename}}. :) ~riley (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• @~riley:  Thank you! One more thing, if you don't mind: can you please delete the uncompressed version of this file? It's using up space needlessly. Sb2s3 (talk)

•  Done! ~riley (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• @~riley: Sorry if I seem to have imprinted myself on you, riley, but you've been very helpful before, and so I was wondering if you could please rename a badly phrased category, that is "Category:National Theatre in Iaşi", to a more suited "Category:Iași National Theatre"? I tried reading the "default" instructions on how to do this, and I admit to feeling out of my depth there. Thanks! Sb2s3 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done :) ~riley (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk page revert actions

Hi riley, Could you please share why you reverted edit I did on my talk page and why WP:BLANKING and WP:DRRC project content guidelines not followed. Thanks for your opinion. --Roo mate (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edits for the same reason Sealle did, fyi, this isn't WP, not sure what you're referencing WP guidelines for. ~riley (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:For Wikipedians

I am not fluent in English so I write to you about this edit. AFAIK "freer" is a valid English adjective and IMO the author of the first paragraph (that you've changed) had meant that an image licenced under "more free" (freer) licence should be preferred, e.g. a PD image should be preferred over similar image licenced under CC-BY-SA. Am I right? --jdx ^Re: 07:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, you'll note I just protected the page, the edit was made by another individual. ~riley (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahhhh, I'm sorry. You are right. I wanted to mark this page for translation and clicked on "This page has changes since" which shows all changes. --jdx ^Re: 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Riley, I have to ask - How on earth did you find this mistake ?, I was surprised I never even amended it and even more surprised you found & fixed it ,
Even now when searching I'll use "WP:" ... and then suddenly realize It's not WP! .... I don't think I'll ever get it I really don't ,
But anyway thanks for kindly fixing it for me :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Glad to help! I got a bit bored and I can't even remember how I came across your userpage, but I noticed so I had to fix it! ~riley (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Call Riley "The Mistake Finder". ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha well thank you - I ended up going through every single userbox and amending every single link after your fix too ,

Haha I think that'd piss him off eventually! , –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ringrazio in italiano, mia lingua madre, per non scrivere cose sbagliate. Sono onorato di questo, e spero di meritarlo.--Lungoleno (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Felice di aiutare! ~riley (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg

Hi riley, Could you explain me what wrong with you?. This work is a derivated work of this file, could you please read image description "This vector image includes elements that have been taken or adapted from this: x20px Escudo de 1871 vzla.gif.". --The Photographer (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Photographer: "What wrong with you?" is less than COM:MELLOW. It would be great if you'd relax a little and conduct dialogs instead of being judgemental and borderline insulting. @~riley, your close at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (1871).svg is fine. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-23

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

review please

Hi Riley: Could you take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GdML and see what you think about some of those uploads? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jhony jhony ha ji

Hi, you blocked Jhony jhony ha ji (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user on my complaint at the AN board. There are a lot of reuploads that I've reverted by that need revision deletion, I don't know how to tag those but it's sort of important as the copyvio images are in the history and he's reverted them back in multiple times (only a matter of time before the next sock does it again). Can you take a look at his uploads listing (just the photographs, the maps seem harmless). Thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-24

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)