Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

Note

• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
  

I'm very infamiliar with this venue. Furthermore, I'm very uncomfortable using it, given the stated nature being apparently "complaining about specific users". For me, users are equal. I'M NOT HERE TO BE COMPLAINING ABOUT ANY USER. I'm here as one of our admins this morning kindly advised me to post my recent issue here, indicating that it needs to be 'discussed' prior to be technically fulfilled. 16 of my uploads: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] were renamed last week in a series of multiple identical acts out of nowhere by one of our users, and given that the names which had existed prior to those acts were valid and that the renaming was invalid I naturally need to fix them back as they were. But, alas, since I can't delete the automatically-generated redirect pages for each of the entries, the restoration to the exact names is impossible. I put a lot of care in each of my contributions. Probably no admin actually needs any further proofs of my total commitment to Wikipedia and the enormous improvement of this proj during the intensive last 3 years is transparent. Most of you have intersected me in my plentiful work and have seen my thoughtful and bold job and this is why I'm well-credited. Having mentioned that obvious shiny fact, I'm very concerned that the user who committed that series of renames onto my upload gallery had another agenda than actually truly caring for the Commons media usability. You can easily see that they were further acting in a rude fashion when I rushed addressing their talkpg, but I'm not concerned about this; some people are rude and it's ok. I was weirded as hell by both the rename act, being a display of illiteracy and carelessness, and the allegations on me as if my contributions are careless; but it's OK. I need to only restore the 16 filenames as they were. This task shouldn't be dismissed, I suppose. It's been a week that I'm extremely frustrated due to having 16 files in a corrupt fashion which I can't let basing on both my familiarity with our rules and the care I regularly put into my fine uploads. Including their naming. Please allow this trouble to be repaired as soon as possible. If there's any point that any user wishes to illustrate to me they can openly do so, by talk and not by actions that contrast the guidance of COM:RENAME. Looking forward to getting the filenames restored. Thank you, Orrlingtalk 17:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the administrators that User:Orrling contacted and who suggested that s/he bring the matter here. Orrling has over 50,000 edits and has contributed images from underrepresented parts of the world.[17] Many of the filenames used by Orrling do not entirely satisfy the criterion, "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen" (Commons:File naming). For example, File:Finland.jpg is not very informative and is so generic that it invites overwriting by naive users. However, none of the COM:RENAME seem to apply. While the name given by Orrling is not very helpful, it is not the "meaningless name" of Marcus Cyron's edit summary, either.[18]The relevant criterion of COM:RENAME is, "Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays" (my emphasis). Regarding Orrling's request, I am sorry that s/he is unhappy about the file moves. I would encourage Orrling to choose more meaningful and helpful file names in the future. I'd suggest to Marcus Cyron that he follow the guidance of COM:RENAME more carefully, or seek to change that guidance. Also, I think he would be more effective if he were to be more patient, kind and helpful to users that question his actions.[19] None of the files are in use and they are recent uploads (last few months). I see no obstacle to moving them back to the original names, but I think the new names are, for the most part, more meaningful and helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose moving these back to the original names. I think Marcus's moves were covered by renaming criterion #3: Correct misleading names into accurate ones. INeverCry 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The names were simply not usefull. That's all. And - where is the problem? Did Orrling realy need to "sit" on these image names? If he really want his files used (and if not - we don't need the files here), we need useful image nemas, usuful descriptions and Categories. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) PS: I never had a problem, when other people here found a better name for my images and moved them.[reply]

COM:RENAME is a guideline and it was written vaguely for a reason. Personally, I think the renames were both unnecessary and an improvement. So let's just leave this alone. —Mono 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most renames were «both unnecessary and an improvement» — that is also also my opinion. While User:Marcus Cyron could find much better targets for his file renaming zeal (leaving the suspicion this is a case of harassment), User:Orrling is coming across as someone who doesn’t understand that, once donated, these are not “his files” anymore. The only issue here that matters more than pandering to prickly personalities is the accusation that some of the new name are incorrect in their syntax or grammar or even spelling: Orrling thrown this accusation around, but didn’t substantiate this. Those should be dully rerenamed, if they are indeed faulty. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is something I need to respond to, so shortly said - I appreciate the message to me, my main effort for covering informativeness in filework goes in file's categories, and selecting my filename for Finland.jpg simply meant that no file with this title had existed yet, which I basically come to cover up for, as there must be a "Finland.jpg" in our library. Beside that one all the rest of the Sunday renames are a sad performance of total freaking-out-of-mind and disregarding of don't-do's. No need to attempt to present it in a different way. No need either to try to refer to any clause in our rename guideline because it's irrelevant and many of the renamer's renames are in such a bad English that only this should bring to question their possession of a filemover tool. The renamer had an agenda that is nothing with caring for the actual files' usability. No one will buy that any of the renames was needed. Having said that, as soon as the files retain their previous shape as recommended I will see them as the last upload by me with a "countryname.jpg" naming. However, collaborative and civil terms are not optional here but one of our pillars and I do strongly opt to get the filenames back so I can be whole with contributing them and future ones. Orrlingtalk 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, misleading names are a problem. This is why we have criterion 3 of the file naming guidelines. Clear and accurate names are needed and important. The above renames were needed. The new names are a definite improvement. INeverCry 21:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Misleading* names? Like what, may I ask ? :) No. You well know that no filename given by me is misleading, and also that our rules don't allow "improving" short and correct names just because they're short. And finally, my sincere desire as the contributor of those files is, simply, to have them with the correct names which I have selected for them, and I'm sure my heartbreak is no gain for any of our clients. Orrlingtalk 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not being renamed just because they're short. They're being renamed because they're generic and meaningless. 1st of May, for instance, is a meaningless name that gives no indication of subject. INeverCry 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the old days of the internet, when everybody was trying to catch the best domain names. But that's not the game we should be playing over here. If there really must be a "Finland.jpg" in our library, which I cast doubt on, I'd suggest a national flag, a map, or a satellite view of the whole country rather than a snowy driveway to a random farm house. Even then, "Finland flag.jpg", "Finland map.jpg", or "Finland satellite view 2008.jpg" would be more useful names, since it will be hard to find the one and only picture that symbolizes the whole country better than any other. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3 is "Correct misleading names into accurate ones". While I agree that the new names are more meaningful and helpful, for the most part, I question that they are justified by Criterion 3. That said, "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen" (Commons:File naming). If users follow that guidance, they should not expect their filenames to be changed. Names like Finland, Akko, Normandie, Congo, Philly, Old City, Shoeshine, etc., are so non-specific as to be unhelpful. However, aggressive renaming should be avoided. "In general, Commons aims to provide stable file names as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." (COM:FR) File:Italy.jpg, uploaded in 2006, is a case similar to File:Finland.jpg, is used multiple times by other projects, and has not been renamed. Orrling says in "selecting my filename for Finland.jpg simply meant that no file with this title had existed yet, which I basically come to cover up for, as there must be a "Finland.jpg" in our library." Please consider redirecting such names to File:Name.jpg, instead of giving your file an imprecise name. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an acceptable and helpful idea for handling filenames in the future. I disagree though that the filenames mentioned by you are unhelpful, for the most. The Finland image is a depiction of a distinctly-Finnish moment. Same with the others, being each a depiction of a reliable, distinct representation of the respective place/existence, the way I as the author experience(d) them. Orrlingtalk 18:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this conflict/issue before going to my vacation and sad to see it is continuing still. Although I agree with renaming to a more subject identifiable name, I see some license violation problems in renaming neglecting the interest of the contributor. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4c: "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (ii) the title of the Work if supplied;..." So it is better deleting such files than renaming, if we are not willing to host them here with the author accepted names/titles. (It seems to me those files are very low in quality to spend that much efforts here.) Jee 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing you sadness that this is still going on, let me reply concerning the wording of 4.c.ii of CC-by-sa 3.0: Provided that the original filename as submitted (which is only argueably «the title of the Work»…) is registered in the file history, the legal prescritions are met. (This, of course, is simply my opinion and IANAL). -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License info in file history may not be enough, if the author demands aggressively for it. So I just tried to include it in source. I think this is enough we need to care if author has complaints in renaming. Jee 07:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been several inputs here during the past 24hrs and all are appreciated as part of our important talk tradition, also it's been explained to me that this venue is a must-throughway to get the needed name reversal of my contributed files. Now, that this was said and discussed, please allow restoring these names as requested and recommended in the two first comments. Mentioning that Commons is full bottom-to-top with generically-named files will be a waste of time because you all know this fact very well. As much as you probably understand fully that attending just my (brand-recent!) contributed batch last week was a mere channel of spiting me due to reasons that have little with the topical rename routine. I could link right here now dozens of files that have existed for long (and are in use on wikis!) with names that would qualify for the "re-treatment" - ah, but no, it is my uploads, my nurtured voluntary thoughtful and pure-good far-horizoned contributions that happened through the joyful disinfection spree, which some of you are trying to back-up. It should be stressed again, that more important than any renamer's factor are - (1) the illegitimacy of using one's filemover rights in direct contrat with the rename policy, as shown, and (2) the fact that I have shared in multiple ways my personal editorial wish to have back these uploads' names as long or short as they were since they were 100% valid and are important to me. Understanding that the renamer's act was the least necessary Commons task, plus my uttered deep objection to the imposed new "names", I humbly believe the request should now be fulfilled, please. I'm simply asking to undo the unagreed renames without much ado. Once I've asked for it, it is obviously unjustified that I would need to combat for this. I could of course reference criterion #1 - Uploader's request - but I know you don't need it. Policies might be vague, what isn't vague is my very simple, stable and sincere request to reserve my universal right to my fully-correct filenames. I don't have to be under no police's radar while so many areas on Commons are as messy and truly need fixing. Not I. This is clear for each of you glancing at my contriblist. Viewing the improvement seen by all areas of the project, the prolific neat care taken by me daily. None of you really believes the suggestion that fixing the thousands of filenames on Commons should begin with mine.

I am, simply and purely, desiring to not have my filenames modified in the way they just went across. Everything can be said by all kind of users, and I even may be inclined to review some files from that batch and elaborate their names as soon as the set is restored, but no reason can be raised or applied to deprive me as their caring uploader from the naming feature. No reason or argument can be applied to make me devastated. The confidence I have in this environment is critical. Orrlingtalk 15:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring the edit history of File:Boy.jpg to everyone's attention.[20] Uploaded by Orrling in February 2012 as File:UrbanBoy.jpg, it was moved by Orrling to File:Boy.jpg in September 2012. Marcus Cyron changed a category in November 2013, but let the name stand. It is not used in the mainspaces of the sister projects. I think the history of this file illustrates the importance of educating our contributors of the importance of choosing meaningful and helpful filenames. Conscientious users like Orrling should be encouraged to redirect vague filenames to File:Name.jpg. I'm sorry that Orrling is unhappy. I think File:Boy.jpg is a good picture no matter its name, but the name, File:UrbanBoy.jpg, is better. That Orrling moved it to File:Boy.jpg suggests to me that s/he doesn't understand or isn't aware that "[t]itles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen". I don't think that a request to rename a file to a name that is generally thought to be less meaningful and helpful would be honored under criterion #1. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well-encouraged by this comment to adopt the above-proposed guideline in my future uploads. Some images by me need the “seriality” in their names, others are simply of a fine consistence across my contributed gallery and I’ll assimilate into most future ones the need to be more specific or precise. As you see, still no action was taken to fulfill my technical request and I hope that within the next few hours the 16 files will be repaired and I'll be able to implement improvement on a few of them, upon need. Orrlingtalk 18:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of the past three days no new comment was added as to contrast my argument or to respond topically on the pressing request made by me and to show how it's not applicable, and at the same time, however, no restoration was apparently done yet through my 16 uploads from their unconsented name status to the names given by me as both requested, argued and recommended lengthily above. To remind, this is a technical barrier that needs to be overcome with a one-admin's-simple-click and I was instructed to send it forth here at this page, where I'm vulnerably exposed, for this goal, while I would then naturally expect that this would have been already fulfilled like I asked, showing that my correct-yet-short filenames are my stable and valid contribotor's preference and that neither of the 16 filemoves was necessary while it was, certainly, in contrast with COM:RENAME's criteria and with collaborative spirit. I‘ve mentioned that assimilating some more specificness into filenaming in future uploads could be accepted by me and even applicable onto some of the 16 files that are already present, once restored. I‘ve clarified that I am not in a wrangle here over either a particular user or project guideline and can be addressed with whichever fellowship request regarding my prosperous activity. I believe that the area which was not enough covered yet in my discussion was the alleged renamer‘s motivation in performing his/her batch-act within an hour in the night of December 22nd onto random images contributed by me. I now believe that my conscientious choice to not address the 'personal' dimension in this horrible episode could be wrong, as it leaves unstudied a great visible part that could lead others to understand why my humble request should be fulfilled without a hitch. This is not a request to reprimand or sanction the user. I don't have such need. I'm here since 16 files on Commons were a target of a personally-guided harassment, that had nothing to do with the project's sake, and unlike other types of contested edits, this one technically can't be undone by me. You may rather need to see the questioned process' backround in a clearer and wider view and understand that my cause is the cause of this project's transparent and fellowship-guided tradition and infrastructure. These tradition and infrastructure were now violated abruptly and all I want is to peacefully and quietly undo it, not come against anyone. For this I would need to explain more elaborately why the renamer's act was one that is immediately reversible.

Apart from written policies, there's the well-known and well-practiced plain fact that filenames are totally within the uploader's say (so long as not misleading or offensive). However, there's also this issue: Why should my newly-uploaded works merit being in the focus of a „renamer“, while the identical name-pattern(s) which has just-now attracted the rename fire are introduced and practiced across our media library in plenitude with so-many files that are named similarly but have never been visited by either the renamer or the few ones attempting to support him? Leaving aside sarcasm for a moment, we know the answer. - Some here believe I have been or am a wrongdoer in this place or another, and are, just like when "renaming" those media donated by me, piling-on for that with nil matter context or reason. You all well know however, just like I, that prolific and highly-helpful editors get some figure of respect and consideration. This is probably natural. But when I'm talking about the unusual disrespect flung at me by the renamer, I'm not talking about this kind of expectoration nor this, but about the disrespect simply in the fact that s/he believed that my contributed files are fair subject of skeletal modifications in the name of "meaningfulness" and "usability" while not applied on, say, less-active editors with (far) less-precise filenames. This is hopping over almost every unwritten rule on the way to repress me and "teach me a lesson". Should you support such process and its results? I simply wish to contribute the files with their names as given by me. As I'm not here to educate but to reserve my filenames as long as the files are on Commons, I'll demonstrate in a comparative method why I stand behind my filenames. This is ironic that I need to do so instead of being editing. Each of the files that were renamed, is a direct and clear representation of the subject suggested by the name given by me, hence lengthening it was against our policies and was done with poor motivation. As follows:

• How many filenames that are the names of neighbourhoods actually correspond with, let alone cover, the place in their title? West End in London? The Marais in Paris? Lasalle in Montreal? And prominently the Castro in San Francisco. The image File:Covent Garden.jpg is not less characteristic of Covent Garden than File:Plaka.jpg is to Athens' Plaka or File:Red Light District.jpg to Amsterdam's Red Light District, to only mention two examples, and renaming it was not needed; surely not more than would be renaming File:Hampstead.jpg or File:Chelsea.jpg. (Or plenty of others.) In this light, and because Covent Garden.jpg is an on-the-mark name, I would like to retrieve the name back.
• An image name can't tell everything about the image. When it shows, for example, two women, I fail to imagine a good reason to modify the apt name. There's similarly also two dogs, three cats and so on, and there's even a man. Some would say that these might be too "meaningless", maybe "generic" or even "unhelpful". The user who renamed my contributions doesn't think like that, I guarantee it. My guess is, he only cares about File:Two men.jpg. What a wonder. Since the only thing which is more absurd than to rename such a file in this way is to have a „renamer“ with substandard English enough to not know even that "in Kishon Street" is a mistake, I can't really say much, and don't actually care much either. I would like to just retrieve my exact name back.
• File:Swedish Hostel.jpg, noting the capitalization, is a name of a specific, trademerked business, in a particular address in only one location known to Commons. I had no success looking for other "Swedish Hostel" images, which would invite possible attempts to brace the existing filename, I did however find no end of other fantastic facilities for my next travel, like a hotel, a hostel, a ship, a house, a cemetery, a bar (with a happy hour on Sundays) and a nice campsite. When Hard Rock Cafe.jpg and Japanese restaurant.jpg - although "generic" - are used by sister projects, it is 100% invalid to rename Swedish Hostel.jpg in the light of "usability" nonsense-mumbles (not to mention that the summary "changing from meaningless name" is a straight lie), and I would like to retrieve the name back.
• We all love artworks, as much as wiki loves monuments. A statue, a graffiti, how about some dance. Oh, and check out this jewel. None of them, by the way, maybe except the "jewel", needs to be renamed more than a thousand others do. Renaming File:Sculptures.jpg was a part of a mission which was uploader-oriented rather than filename-oriented. (Sculptures.JPG has evaded while Sculptures.jpg was affected.. how "random"?) I would like, and have the right, to retrieve the name back.
• In which way is File:4th of July.jpg less "misleading" or "generic" than File:1st of May.jpg? No, 1st of May.jpg is in NO WAY a misleading or generic name for my photo as it is a fronting shot of an existence which is synonimous with the very idea of the title "1st of May" given to the image by me, almost a prototypical representation of that universal holiday. Still why not rename if we can? Renaming File:Sunday ease.jpg, in a similar gross way, indicates that the renamer is either bored out of their mind or is seeking to clash against dedicated contributors, to which sadly I'm not ready. When attending "1st of May.jpg" and "Sunday ease.jpg" s/he probably meant that other occurrences like 25th of July.JPG or Friday.jpg are rather OK, and how about August? Festival? Gay Pride? Christmas? Not that I think that they all need to be renamed. But had he already fixed File:1985.JPG and File:1990.JPG before rushing to save Wikimedia from outrageous anomalies such as "1st of May.jpg" and "Sunday ease.jpg"? No, and it's OK too. I would just like to retrieve both names back.
• Sectors: Restaurant yes, sports yes, post yes, even city council yes, shoeshine no. Why? Because I contributed it :) . Shoeshiners yes, but Shoeshine.jpg no. Why? We'll probably never know the answer ;). That my Shoeshine.jpg is most-meaningfully a depiction of a shoeshine activity more than this is transport or this is education seemingly doesn't matter for the "diligent" renamer; I, however, find this rename a near-vandalism, and would like to retrieve the name back.
• Images named Countryname.jpg have a wide span of possible content that would still not make it ambiguous. Be it a coat of arms, a satellite shot or a national sports team and even a typifying sample of nature, all are entirely legitimate. While the 22-December renamer "contested" File:Congo.jpg and File:Finland.jpg, with the false suggestion that these filenames were "misleading" and "meaningless"(!), he obviously was less interested in countries like Japan (in fact a festival in Germany but nobody told you) or Russia (a racing horse in Australia), and plenty others such. He is apparently only interested in Congo and Finland, which is beautiful I think, only that in these two cases the names were very correct and unambiguous; also his noble tolerance to Mongolia and Slovakia is remarkable. The thing is that we can always argue about any filename that it isn't enough "meaningful" or specific or long as we would wish. Is this a reason to engage in renaming files that are correct? You know that the answer is no. Congo.jpg and Finland.jpg are, each, a precise, unique and irrecurrent capture of a distilled moment that could only happen in the respective country and in no other place portrayed by my geographically-sensitive camera, they're not at all the cases that justify a rename, once the name was chosen by the author; and nothing can support such acts of raging agressive renaming. Needless to add that each of them covers the named-country better than Israel.jpg or Peru.jpg cover their named-countries, but I don't think any rename should be done when unagreed by an accessible uploader. For the reason that Finland.jpg is indisputably as much Finland as Italy.jpg is Italy, and that my Congo.jpg is as much Congo as Morocco.jpg is Morocco (- and neither of these names is less than perfect for its image), I insist on retrieving both filenames back, having already said that these will be my last uploads with a countryname.jpg titling.
• Let's look at some landforms, start with a grassland, continue with a beautiful wetland, walk through some marsh and end in a cold tundra ...Oops. So what about File:Savanna.jpg? Renaming it the way it was done was a near-vandalism, and I would like to retrieve the name back.
• Musical groups. We all have listened to Duran Duran, REM, UB40 and The Killers, and we even know that the Beatles had a fifth anonymous member. The blind rename of File:Mukta.jpg qualifies for vandalism, as it is causing the file to no longer be within the direct search when searching for that ensemble; and I would like to retrieve the name back.
• File:Chicago.jpg is a panoramic depiction of a town with this name. Eqivalent to several others with this name pattern on Commons, it covers a better notion of the given place than e.g. File:Glasgow.jpg, File:Delhi.jpg and many other cityname.jpg images around here, with no one to argue the names are "too generic"; and it surely is a much more reliable title for the depicted city than what we get with the German town of Ulm (= Oops, a church in Romania) or the French city of Lille. Only few examples. I'm also sure that with a bit of effort we all can find the Empire States Building in File:NYC.jpg. Which makes the rename of File:Akko.jpg and the one of File:Philly.jpg both a near-vandalism, and I would like to retrieve both names back.

The above range of images (all other than mine) dates from 2009 in average, a considerable time that could be utilized to rename all of them, if needed, plus hundreds others, at least the odd ones.. But it hasn't been done. Two-thirds of these images are in use in 'main-space' Wikipedias. We learn from this that there's no problem of usability when the image is good. The title is no factor for this. You all have lived with the files in this overview incredibly well all this time - and I live with most of them quite well too.

Having made this point clear, I'll ask once again to restore the above-bolded 13 filenames; 3 others I can handle myself as the filenames given by me are changeable, File:Old City 02.jpg - I'm not happy with this name, File:Normandie.jpg - deserves a better name, File:Schelde.jpg - I wasn’t happy with the name in Dutch and will turn to English.

Those not handled by my movertool are those which reqire the exact name as it was on 21st December without adaptations, therefore, would you kindly restore them (13 in number).

I know it might be not easy to admit that one was wrong, so no blaming, just be helpful. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 08:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with User:Mono here: the renaming was unnecessary, but appears to have been an improvement. Orrling: I honestly can't imagine why you are putting effort into arguing with this. Admittedly I didn't read every word you wrote here, but it's because I'm not willing to waste that much of my time on this as well. Perhaps one or two might actually be detrimental; Orrling, if you have a case that some of the new names are inaccurate or misleading, please focus on that. And, Marcus, please in the future focus your renaming efforts on names that are actually misleading or meaningless. As you can see, there are people who are touchy about having their files renamed, and there is no reason to rub people the wrong way to move pictures from adequate names to slightly better names. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus isn't the problem here. Most of these were clearly inadequate and/or misleading: File:Two men.jpg, File:Finland.jpg, File:Philly.jpg, File:1st of May.jpg, etc, and the others weren't much better. Marcus was justified in renaming most, if not all, of these. If a rename is needed, no user should have to be afraid of another user taking an ownership position and causing problems. Orrling is wrong in this case, so why put the blame on Marcus? INeverCry 16:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second User:Jmabel's comment above. Personally I've never considered renaming files other than ordinary housekeeping, and have also done some renames similar to those described above. I really don't consider it much different from correcting categories (though I am very well aware that adding/removing categories is something everybody can do, while renaming is a bit more limited) and I have never run into any conflict over it. On a side note I can't help but wondering, if there is more merit in User:Sitacuisses's comment, than otherwise meets the eye here, though one should always be careful about second-guessing other peoples motives. Search engine ranking wise I'm sure that Finland.jpg and Congo.jpg strikes out better than their new names. One a side-side note, I just checked the extended history of those two files (any admin can confirm this): Finland.jpg has been used three times before (all various passport front pages) and 'Congo.jpg four times before (more varied imagery). --heb [T C E] 16:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry 16:22, It's OK to think I'm wrong here. But understanding that media contributors have their minimal say – for the example, in the wording of one's uploaded work – definitively can't be optional here, simply for the reason that our media contributors are the flesh of this project, and you might contest this notion and have full right for doing so but reducing arguments to "taking ownership position" is plainly incorrect, and for the following hint about "causing problems" I will better leave uncommented, because, if confronting a clearly-substantiated misconduct of an editor by another –as I did– and pursuing equality and transparency in the auspices of the Wikipedia spirit is "causing problems", we might agree quite little on the essential groundlayer of this workplace. As I'm fervently motivated by the Wiki cause and volunteer for millons of readers, it's less tolerable that I have my sweepingly-valid imagenames revoked in a cynical act and then need to know that I'm the wrongdoer when seeking to quietly undo it and feel right again and go on. You have not shown how my names were inadequate or misleading, while I have shown my stance.

Jmabel ! talk 16:11 No blame on you for not reading every word in my long section. Will appreciate a lot if you find the time to still read. But the thing is that you have indirectly replied to yourself: This issue is very strongly important to me! yes... That it is so badly unbearable for me to have the gross (re)names is the only reason I argue myself here or elsewhere days and nights, no other reason.. Putting this amount of effort should indicate that I indeed have a big-time injustice case needed to be settled backward. I can't help in focusing more on the faultiness of some of the new "names", all of them are faultily worded or scripted and none accepted by me and they're regarded as a batch for a reason; it's not about part of them. You wouldn't quite want to host a file whose title reads "at the Normandie" or "in the street", right? You get further ideas from the examples discussing Mukta and Shoeshine in the subsections above.

--heb [T C E] Oh well. if you're an admin it may seem to you that renames are no different from any other type of editing but this is so wrong, and the reason I'm here is that I can't move back my uploads to their desirable status. This long discussion shouldn't have been developped. Because my matter is so simple. I just want to keep my consistent filenames; moving them was both indisputably unnecessary and dishonored by me, and leaving the sutuation as it is is hurting me and is a damage for some of the files. Orrlingtalk 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orrling, it's time to face up to it -- the original renamings may have been procedurally abrupt, but there's no consensus to rename the files back to their original names. The parallels you've adduced are of images which many would say also have inappropriately vague and generic names. In any case, you've been known to do things in a procedurally abrupt manner (without suitable consultation) yourself... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, though, Marcus, you sure seem determined to make this so that no one will be on your side. Part of my message (and not ) here was "Marcus, please in the future focus your renaming efforts on names that are actually misleading or meaningless." And now you rename, without consultation a photo of mine that was perfectly well named, moving File:Middletown, CT - 128 Washington St 01.jpg to File:Oddfellows Playhouse, Middletown, Connecticut 01.jpg. There is nothing misleading or meaningless about naming a photo of a building by the address of the building rather than by the name of the business that happens to be currently in the building. As explained in the caption, this building, nearly a century old, was originally an American Legion Hall; it is indeed now the Oddfellows Playhouse, but it's been that for less than a third of its existence. I'm not going to revert you, because the name you used was also OK (though in my opinion less so), but I will repeat, please in the future focus your renaming efforts on names that are actually misleading or meaningless. There is almost always more than one reasonable name for a photo. The idea is not to go around the Commons arbitrarily renaming other people's photos to your personal taste. The idea of renames is to fix misleading or meaningless names. - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m having a similar issue with another user (User:Tm) who doesn’t have filemover rights and whose renaming requests of my own immediately previous renamings were done by User:Marcus Cyron on s/his request. I raised the matter in his talk page, but never got a reply. Just like Mabel, I’m not going to re-re-rename these files, life is too short for such drama, but it stings that the new names are worse than my own suggestions while litteral thousands of files with utterly meaningless names this user imported from Flickr remain untouched. To make a long story short, User:Tm’s portfolio includes a gazzillion things named like ABC123456 7890123456789.jpg; I renamed a (camel’s) handful to ThisHereThingySo&so.jpg, and User:Tm less than 1 h later marked them for renaming to More Verbose Yet Less Unique Description (7890123456789).jpg (argueing, i.a., that filenames must have spaces…), and Marcus accepted these renamings. While Orrling above maybe coming across a bit off-kilter over his filenames, it seems that this obsession affects more than one of us. And while Orrling is a regular user with a vast amount of good categorization work done, Marcus is an Admin who’s name shows up (to me, at least) only in problematic non-productive contexts, especially keen on bending rules to have “indecent” media items removed from Commons. Not a pretty sight. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jmabel. File renaming criterion #5 clearly does not apply to File:Middletown, CT - 128 Washington St 01.jpg. Neither does Criterion 3, "Correct misleading names into accurate ones", apply (invoked by INeverCry above). I agree with Tuválkin (User_talk:Marcus_Cyron#Renaming_trams), also.[21] In the examples cited, the names Tuválkin chose may be a bit opaque to the general reader, but probably not to anyone who is seeking to illustrate a Lisbon tram. I think Tuválkin acted in accordance with the criteria of COM:RENAME in these examples.

Marcus Cyron, please follow the criteria of COM:RENAME. Those who disagree with its guidance may suggest changes at Commons talk:File renaming. The guideline points out: "Commons aims to provide stable file names as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." If in doubt, don't rename. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need help in moving the 13 files I've discussed above to their names given by me as the author. There's rather not much being asked here. I've specified very elaborately the reasons for leaving my uploads' names as I had named them basing on that they are correct; I can't move back to them myself as they're "taken" by redirs and so, simply, can you please solve this and restore my filenames. This should be only technical, once I've asked for this with the merit of my contribution of those files. I believe I can now expect that the requested simple action be taken and to have these media files with the names I gave them, while I'll then be as much open to hear insights on possible necessary renames in regard with any of them. The names imposed on these 13 files are contested by me. Please reverse the acts. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 03:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one appears to agree with you that the matter is merely a "technical" one... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orrling, what you mean by these types of moves? Jee 10:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my morning note- I believe with all honesty that once a move was procedurewise problematic and there happens to be a directly-concerned editor challenging it, it should be reset. I'm in no position of anger toward the renamer, I even respect them; because it's not helpful if one deals with what has been done and obviously his acts can be softly and easily undone without anyone affected; what is problematic is when bad results are left around to ferment. I've shown how my file portfolio was the last reasonable centre of specificness/"helpfulness"-guided re-naming interest, and can't see a reason why this is taking this long to perform what's asked for. I'm being told that we are short of Admins. I honour this possible point but would appreciate if this is now done. I've meanwhile rescued 3 files from the original list of which I did myself contest the original names by me, and as long as the rest 13 are dawdling in this open discussion I'll look for names for any one of them where I can somehow relinquish my original name, and save work. Most, though, (which include but not limited to Shoeshine.jpg, Mukta.jpg and Savanna.jpg) are mandatorily the names I've already given to them. Orrlingtalk 19:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these renamings are correct, some seem not entirely necessary but are improvements nonetheless. I think you may be right about Mukta.jpg (given it's the band's name), but with generic names such as that there is always a risk of your work being accidentally replaced by another uploader in the future. And the reason we're short on admins is at least partially because of long meaningless AN reports such as this one. Relax, you've donated the work (which is obviously appreciated) but now things will happen to the photos which may be beyond your control. So far I haven't seen anyone supporting your requested moves back, otherwise I'd suggest putting it to a vote. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 12:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to recommend that you begin using more descriptive file names in the future: File:GBG.jpg and File:Tanzania.jpg are obvious candidates for renaming, just looking at your most current uploads. I don't intend to lock horns with you over this, just saying... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long meaningless AN reports or not (whatever this comes about to say, while it's clearly not fulfilling my request), this current issue concerns 16 of my uploads which can't be against my will with the "names" that they were given in the batch act of the 22 Dec, as I have clarified very sincerely, and, with all good will - and I've shown here as much of it as I can display - I don't see how trying to tell that the renames were improvements, as a possible reason to not satisy my humble request, can be helpful. This topic harboured at this desk only after it's been suggested by one of you who was casually addressed with it that the required reversal of the renames would be made possible through sharing it here. That the request is also supported in the second comment is probably not enough to hold back assertions such as these made by the last commenter, which saddens me. Nobody talks here about votes. Uploaders' preference on ground features such as one's filenames (being the careful names of the works donated) is not an optional idea to like-or-not. Everyone knows this. Everyone also knows that nothing truly justified the renames while with them I'm obviously profoundly discontent. However, this matter has been waiting here now with me broken each day that's gone with the images still unreasonably in that status, while it should have been helped over so soon as it was articulated that as the uploader I simply opt and desire to not have any such "names" formatted for my contributed media. Encouraging to use more specific filenames in the future is one thing (that is appreciated), having the alien-imposed (re)names onto the above-listed images (and implying that they should be accepted) is another thing and the two have nothing to do with one another, and I believe it can't be clearer. Oh another thing that's clear: my filenames are not "descriptive"; they are pointy, adequate and correct. I think the last concern is having a file accidentally overwritten.., as such overwrites can probably be so quickly undone. ---I decline the proposed 'improvements' for the reason they were badly and carelessly made, in terrible contrast with any consistency and topically unnecessary. Now that the list of to-reverse files has been hardworkingly cut back to 5-6 - after I've helped the very most of the rest, the files that are left are those who should only bear their precise original names,as minted by me, and no other variation; and my request to delete them is absolutely no expression of drama nor anger. I similarly don't seek to attract anger from anyone, that's definitely not my goal. I just need your assistance. I've asked for it. And I need you to respect it as much as I respect this place. Orrlingtalk 06:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To be frank: it seems you are wasting everybody's time with some very low quality contributions (sorry, I review File:View of Akko from the south.jpg in 1:1) and ton's of words. Added to my ignore list. (It doesn't mean I agree with Marcus Cyron in every point.) Jee 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of the contributions is beside the point. The question posed is whether the Orrling's original file names should be restored. If you must comment on quality, please use one or more criteria to explain how the contributor could improve his or her work. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already spent a lot of time for him. You can see how people started to neglect his long comments. Sure, you can encourage him to use the "smallest file-names available" as we do in registering new domain names. Jee 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Orrling, while I understand that changing the file names upsets you, do you see how others see the names you choose to be too generic, and therefore have a desire to give the files more specific names? I would also ask: if you care so deeply about the names, how would you feel if I were to digitally alter one of your images and then reupload it under any name I wish? I ask this not because I intend to, but to highlight what rights you are releasing your images under when you upload them to Commons with CC licenses. The act of uploading a file to Commons with a CC license gives reusers (in this case the community) the ability to do pretty much what we wish with an piece of media, and use it how we want (as long as we follow the attribution clauses).

It seems to me that if a simple rename causes so much distress, other alterations could be far more concerning to you, and you may wish to reconsider contributing. This is not to say that I wish you to stop contributing, but merely that you should fully think through your contributions, and the repercussion further down the line.

Back to the topic at hand, are you requesting the deletions simply because of the renames? And if so, would you be able to suggest specific (NOT generic) filenames that you would be happy with your images having? This may be a way of solving this impasse without resorting to deletion of contributions over a very small and simple matter. Liamdavies (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably two parts here. It's perfectly right that the imposed status causes me distress - it's the name of the file, not some hidden category, right? - but it's totally unrelated to other alterations, of any sort (like categories, license etc.). Uploader's valid say about their donated media's name can't be denied. This could encourage me to discontinue contributing media. This is a no-gain situation. If you remake any file here and then upload it with your uploader's account details and thus with any name that you wish that's apparently superfine. This is totally beside the discussion, I'm afraid. The titles one gives to one's works when contributing them (or at any other time), chosen carefully and being an adequately-reliable representation of one's image's content or idea, are the names of these works on Commons, and as long as they are not deceiving, offensive or meaningless it's not reasonable to spend any moment on questioning them. But while questioning (anything) is always legitimate, actually modifying names (which are, as said, not questioned in any COM:RENAME parameter) – when the uploader is clearly within access for the renamer,and the renames are performed on very-newly uploaded works – is obviously as abusive as can be and is a straight violation of WP:POINT, poorly disguised in false arguments of caring for specificness and "helpfulness" in a repository full of much-older files with bashing "generic" names that have never been contested by him or anyone. It's very ridiculous that some responders attempted to portray a reality in which targeting rather the filenames of an uploader who's presently-active, involved, helpful and well-licensed meets any logic. And of course I see how they might find File:Two men.jpg "generic", just that I know (and they do too) that it's a fully valid name while many names by other uploaders are as much or more ambiguous and generic without being attractive enough for even the pettiest change desire. So what upsets me is that I need to be battling to get the new "names" reversed from, that I can't remove them myself as casually as they were inserted, and the unacceptably personalized circumstances in which the rename was actually done. I recently had to put effort on finding alternative names for 8 or 9 of the files, like you're suggesting, to save them from deletion, and after this, the five that are eventually going to deletion are indeed the rather small handful of images that in no reason can bear a variation of names other than (respectively) "Shoeshine.jpg", "Swedish Hostel.jpg", "Savanna.jpg", "Mukta.jpg" and "Akko.jpg" - images that have each no jot of a reason to be hosted with any different name, not that the others had one. If this is, as you rightly call it, a very small and simple matter, I'd guess the files should just simply all get their names back, it's most elementary. No, they aren't any more generic than tons of other Commons filenames. I've shown it in my 08:04, 2 January message. Orrlingtalk 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orrling, the "tons of other Commons filenames" are files which many people think are also poorly-named, so that argument is unfortunately rather weak.... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to report, that Liamdavies is very harshly attacking another wikipedists in the community discussion and doing mass changes without finished discussion in a way, that he suggested. Thanks for quick solve of this problem, — Jagro (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second this appeal. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jagro: You should notify a user when you bring an issue to AN/U concerning their actions. I've done so. In this case, it might have been better to let him have a chance to respond to your concerns voiced at his talk before bringing the issue here. AN/U is meant to be a last step to be used if other attempts at resolution have failed. INeverCry 20:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to here in my most recent addition; Liam is informed, now. The discussion (rather, the last installment of it) has been hapening since March in the linked page (Prague) and had a recent resurfacing/forking in a separate one (Hongkong). Seems that User:Liamdavies cannot comprehend the notion of concurrent category trees, and has gone now, finally, to move categories in filepages and child categories^{(-- Tuválkin ✉ 20:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC))} using Cat-a-lot, instead of adding new ones. Either he’s being technically clueless or pointingly spiteful (diff), but he should stop, either way. Not wanting to talk on Jagro’s behalf, but ANU seems the one thing that had not yet not been tried to solve this matter. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to the party. Yes, I was probably harsh to Sju, but they have seriously pushed my patience with continual dismissing and - obvious - failure to look at a word I have said. I would ask that any admin acting on behaviour look at Sju's continual belittling of others as well (I understand this is petty, but feel it to be pertinent). I am merely creating a parallel tree of categorisation, I am not undoing any categorisation, and my actions (of creating a parallel tree) are almost unanimously endorsed by the CfD. My changes are also removing a huge amount of COM:OVERCAT, there were (are) many cases of both parent and child cats being in the megacat Category:Trams in Prague by registration number, breaking it down by model removes this. (Examples here: parent and child, both residing in the same cat - clear COM:OVERCAT. There are many many many more examples of this.) Liamdavies (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the uninitiated, tl/dr: Some of us (apparently everybody except Liam) think that things «the megacat Category:Trams in Prague by registration number» is a good thing and should include one category for each fleet unit. Some systems will have fewer subcateries while others, like Prague here, a lot. This is a feature, not a bug. Liam was told how to adress his concern (how to find images of a given tram by model, regardless of individual fleet number) without touching this, but he has been unable or unwilling to avoid conflict. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I just highlighted - but you ignored - the megacat is riddled with COM:OVERCAT. My changes are addressing both my concerns and removing the massive amount of overcat. How would you propose to deal with the overcat issue otherwise? Liamdavies (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to you how overcat can be avoided (or undone) in both discussions (Hongkong and Prague) and gave you one established example (Lisbon). Now, avoid forking the matter yet another time. This discussion here is about your actions against consensus, not about categorizong. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this other discussion proves that User:Liamdavies can be reasoned with and consensus can be achieved. What he is doing to the flat category of Pragque trams, though, by either malice or clumsiness, is unexcusable and needs to be undone. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All arguments to the the Liamdavies'es proposals are wroten in the appropriate discussion and it is not practical to shatter the discussion. If the participants are not able to understand or accept each other, some experienced users or admins should help to mediate or arbitrate the discussion there, we should not to duply the discussion here. Let's keep aside User:Liamdavies'es verbal attacs - we can understand and pass his frustration. Let's focus to constructive solution of the probems.

I personally accepted the Liamdavies'es complaint that the detailed categorization (as well as modular principle of categorization itself) have some disadvantages but I objected that it has some big (maybe even bigger) advantages also. Though a compensation of the disadvantages with some overcategorization or paralel or quaziparalel flat-categories can seems to be a solution in a short-term view, it disrupt heavily the modular structure of categorization and such paralel categorization impedes an effective maintenance of the content of the current category structure. I expressed sympathy for User:Liamdavies'es wish (and supported it in principle) but i objected that it is not a sufficient reason to destroy or thwart the current very useful and presice categorization structure (as his recent steps did).

Unfortunately, Liamdavies started his massive changes maybe in good will but without consenus and with some errors.

• he removed the numeral sort keys from the subcategories which were moved within the categories "by registration number". This fault can be fixed by bots but we need an support by admins to give the work request for bots. I suppose, this fault was not intentional and Liamdavies will have no objections.
• he undercategorized his new categories. The new categories can be useful and kept. However, the category "Tatra T3 in Prague by registration number" should be surely a subcategory of "Tatra T3 in Prague", etc.. If it isn't, that is a clear fault (which should hide that the new flat categories caused a factual overcategorization). I fixed the category structure already but we should decide whether the massive overcategorization of thousands of images should be fixed by bots immediately or we should wait for some more effective tool which should enable to look through subcategories more effectively (see the next point).
• I would like to appeal to you all for supporting of the bug message which asks an option of direct displaying of the content of subcategories as a systematic solution of Liamdavies'es wish (shared by me and others) without destroying the modular categorization structure and its benefits. I think, such tools would be not very difficult (and maybe exist externally already) but they should be integrated to MediaWiki directly. --ŠJů (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw., I can confirm that en:Wikipedia uses the word "overcategorization" in substantially broader meaning than Wikimedia Commons does and that too detailed categorization can be considered as "overcategorization" in that broader sense. However, such "overcategorization" can be uncomfortable but is not incorrect in principle. Liamdavies requieres a real overcategorization (in the narrower meaning used at Commons - ie. flat-categorization of images even though appropriate more deeper subcategories exist already). Anyway, we can search for consenus on exceptions if we reach an agreement on it but it supposes that the participants of the discussion accept and understand the basic principles of categorization and are willing and able to listen each to others. As it appears to me, Liamdavieses problem was a lack of that in this discussion, but naturally, it is diffucult to judge objectively - he has apparently a similar opinion about my participation. --ŠJů (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please to confirm the bot repair request: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Repair of Category:Trams in Prague. --ŠJů (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to support the bot work (ie. removal of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague from Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number‎). Why shouldn't Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague be a parent category for Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number? Bidgee (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee: ???? Please read once again. Surely, Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number‎ (if exists) should be a subcategory of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague - that's what Liamdavies [omited https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tatra_KT8D5_in_Prague_by_registration_number&oldid=113536318] and I [repaired https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tatra_KT8D5_in_Prague_by_registration_number&diff=next&oldid=113551120] already. The request for bots is "Images which are included in at least one direct subcategory of Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague by registration number‎ should be removed from Category:Tatra KT8D5 in Prague". That should repair the mass overcategorization caused by Liamdavies (here). Do you mean, it is not clear enough? --ŠJů (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, this isn't discussion about categorization, this was notice for administrators about mass changes without consensus and attacking another users in a way, which can NOT be tolerate on any WM project. But it stays without any reply from admins and user didn't stop his work after messages from 3 users and discussing with them… BTW user was noticed on his talk page by me and I hope, that reminding feature working well and link to this discussion was provided by it. — Jagro (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you didn't inform him of this discussion, INeverCry did. Also per the notice on AN/U "Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence", the only evidence you've given is a borderline uncivil comment and his contributions, please give us diffs of the alleged behaviour. Bidgee (talk)

“Alleged”, you say?… -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've made an allegation that you've given very little diffs to support. As I've stated, it's up to you to give the evidence of the alleged behaviour, it isn't up to Admins to search though every contribution Liamdavies has made (our time is limited as volunteers). I'll be closing this in 24 hours if you can't give the diffs for the allegations, one diff isn't enough and I've warned him about that comment. Bidgee (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure your valuable time is scarce, Mr. Admin, Sir. The choice of word, "alleged" (instead of "percieved" or some such, if you really want to play judges), seems however to be unrelated to matters of expedity, and more like an unneeded potshot at the initiator of this section. So Jagro (not me, I just come over for the popcorn) gets roasted three times now for not warning Liam, for there’s time enough for that, and on top of it he’s being called a presumible liar («you merely allege, my good man — for the Truth shall be decided by the Admins!»). If you had given this 0,001% of the admin attention given to the Prikasso Affair, you’d notice that Jagro refers «mass changes» like this, linking to LiamDavies’ special/contributions page. There’s no single diff to be shown, because Liam made one change on each of hundreds of pages. One times hundreds of destructive changes he had been warned by several other users not to do, in a discussion started in March 2013, and which he admittedly did on spite and in apparent incomprehension of the everybody else’s needs. That, Mr. Admin, is the matter. Want hundreds of diffs listed here? -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncivil sarcastic comment is unhelpful. "Pricasso drama" has nothing to do with this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, keep it up and I'll close this discussion, it's all talk with very little evidence (diffs) over a content dispute. Bidgee (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagro, I'm sorry but I suppose, the main purpose of COM:AN/U is to solve the problems (i.e. repair the damage and prevent a new damage), not to escalate the personal controversy and insist on personal revenge or punishment. That's why I focused the factual solution.

@Bidgee, you seem to be not willing to find the 1660 last edits of LiamDavie in his history page (as was directly linked by Jagro at the top already) even though the problem and affected items were described thoroughly - should we link all 1660 diffs separately here?

For the case that some competent admin will visit this page: the mentioned "mass changes without finished discussion" are Liamdavies'es ca 1660 edits since 9. 1. 2014, 16:21 to 9. 1. 2014, 20:44 UTC. The problems on the edits are:

• he created 10 new categories (an example) which were undercategorized which caused a future mess and overcategorization (see Improper categorization of categories is a cause of over-categorization for explanation). The changes were not accepted in the previous discussion, especially the undercategorization of the new categories is clearly against commonly established rules of categorization and it damaged heavily the categorization structure.
• he copied ca 1000 or more images from the categories of individual vehicles to the category of the type (an example), although the categories of individual vehicles are (should be) categorized by type, thus additional categorization of individual images is a clear overcategorization. Such overcategorization impedes an effective maintenance of the images through a modular categorization system.
• he removed ca 635 categories of vehicles by number from the established category Category:Trams in Prague by registration number and removed their sort key (an example). That was a real harm and disabling of the category. Such a change was clearly not accepted in the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like it noted that Sju's acusation that I created COM:OVERCAT is disingenuous, and it was actually that through edits such as this that created overcat to them blame me with, and action the bot request. I would request he be warned for such behaviour; it is completely unacceptable to create a situation then blame others for it. Liamdavies (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The afformentioned overcat situtation which Sju created and I removed has been reinstated by TM, as have my comments been removed by TM. Attempts to deliberately create COM:OVERCAT to undo edits and blame me are uncalled for; I did not create COM:OVERCAT with my edits and to create a situation of COM:OVERCAT and then accuse my is libellous. I request that directions be made to both Sju and TM not to make edits creating a situation to impinge the credibility and competence of other users, it is both disingenuous and deceitful. I created two distinct category collections (which Sju subsequently - correctly - grouped Category:Trams in Prague by registration number by type and by model Category:Electric trams in Prague. The edits in question can be found here: [22] & [23], [24] & [25], [26] & [27], [28] & [29], [30] & [31], [32] & [33], [34] & [35], [36] & [37], and [38]. I would also note that in the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague there is clear consensus for a parallel tree - opposed almost solely by Sju - and I have had my ability to understand questioned many many times by Sju who confuses concepts of understanding and agreement. Liamdavies (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removal from bot requests was acidental, but i have to say that you Liamdavies are creating an unnecessary mess and havoc in this categories. Tm (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liamdavies continues with massive unconsensual changes which damage the categorization structure and are symptoms that Liamdavies doesn't understand their principles. E.g. he created paralel duplicate categories like Category:Media of Tatra T3SU in Prague with unsystematic name (some of them were even not properly categorized under the parent category like Category:Tatra T3SU in Prague) (diff example) and moved the overcategorized content to them (an example). Even though there is a sympathy for the desire to look through the category tree more effectively, there was not consensus achieved that Liamdavies should create some overcategorizing paralel flat categories which should be even not properly categorized. --ŠJů (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The advice given by me to Liam (inspired in what was done for Lisbon trams) was to leave existing categories alone (something he seems unable to comprehend, indeed) and create, for each category about a series, a set of “quasi-flat” subcategories populated with all its images (which should remain individually categorized also with fleet numbers, of course), split by some convenient visual criteria: "Views of So-and-So trams in City" and "Interiors of So-and-So trams in City" would achieve his goal of having a pick-a-tram-by-series album. Sadly he could not be contented with this benign arrangement and had to go on righteously vandalizing in good faith (!). -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalkin, the recent changes I made, which Sju undid, created what you suggest. They did not touch by number cats, simply removed images from the parent and placed into a child 'media of' cat, it was done to maintain flat parallel cats, and remove all over cat. Liamdavies (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that you «did not touch by number cats, simply removed images from» them — you’re contradicting yourself. Creating categories and inserting them in a tree is half the work, the rest is populating them with files (and child cats), which work you admit to have undone in spite of stern admonishing from everybody else not to do so. Meaning you’re either very daft, or you’re assumed everybody else is and would be duped. Well, not. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent moves I made (which I have recreated) did not touch the by numbers tree - to say it did is 'very daft'. The CfD clearly endorsed a parallel tree, now created. I have not undone any of my own work, Sju undid some which I will not push further, do not mistake or distort my actions, that is deceitful. I do not see any clear stern admonishing from everybody else I see you and Sju, but no admin and no other non-involved editors. Liamdavies (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility mentioned by you was mentioned also by me at 21 March 2013 in the discussion. Btw, the FastCCI launched recently is also an effective tool to display subcategories - a bit similar to that requested in the bug report. --ŠJů (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The parallel categories I created contained zero overcat (whereas the moves you just instigated created overcat) and were endorsed by the CfD. I would ask that an admin look into the warring behaviour of Sju who emptied the mentioned categories above, which were subsequently deleted for being empty. The CfD clearly has an overwhelming consensus to create a parallel tree - which I did. To accuse me of creating overcat, and then intentionally creating overcat to dismantle said tree is more disingenuous behaviour from Sju. Liamdavies (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have recreated the parallel cats that Sju emptied and deleted. The desire for their existence is clearly endorsed by Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague. There is unequivocally an overwhelming consensus within that CfD for a parallel cat tree. Sju: stop being pointy. Liamdavies (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is with the Irish Air Corps flag. An SVG of the file was originally uploaded under the name File:Flag of Ireland Air Corps.svg. There were a few problems with the file that Setanta Saki uploaded, including the badge and roundel being distorted from their original shape (they are supposed to be circular but were ovoid and bent). I uploaded a correction, but Setanta Saki kept reverting me even after I explained the distortions. Then the user had Fastily delete the file all together under a false reasoning, and they uploaded what is essentially the exact same thing including my work (as it includes all my corrections) under a new name File:Ireland Air Corps Flag.svg. The reason for this I have trouble imagining, except perhaps so they can make it look like this is 100% their work, but this behaviour and abuse of the speedy deletion process is absolutely inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint is quite literally bordering on the ludicrous. Firstly I personally spent my time and effort creating the svg flag in question from scratch using the currently used gif file as a guide. I then uploaded my work to assess it (not yet quite ready for use) within minutes fry1989 had tactlessly simply reuploaded it with a different colour without any discussion.

I then politely used this colour but as stated the file was not fully ready for use so i then went on to correct a large number small details which are only apparent on close inspection. Fry1989 then once again uploaded the old version of my file which contained none of my numerous fixes but had two parts that he now said were round, I wasn't exactly sure what he meant as they were round before to the eye and matched the gif overlay, but i realized he meant exactly mathematically "round" but this was only a minor two second fix compared with all the small detailed ones which were once again absent. Due to the reverts and alterations i put in a request to have a history clean up of my created file (I am the author )before he once again reuploaded the old version of my flag. I then decided it might be better to try and resolve the issue before the clean up occurred and so deleted my request, which one can check but it was carried out despite this. I resent fry1989 saying I gave false reasoning for a history clean up of my file. Although i am sure the user in question does a lot of fine work, I think they should be discouraged from what in essence could be seen as hijacking other peoples work within minutes of an upload without at least having the courtesy to discuss any issue with the author. I am sure most Wikipedia authors could find this quite irritating (i was still not ready for it to be used and had not linked it to any page or file it was essentially only moments old and was to be a trial file). My new svg file now contains all my updates and also the perfectly round badge et al. Setanta Saki (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous? What is ludicrous is that you kept reverting my correction to the roundel and badge which in your version were distorted from their natural shape. What's even more ludicrous is that you would have the file deleted and then just upload it under a new name, which was completely unnecessary when you could have kept uploading your fixes and alterations to the current file and when you're all done it's all one file together with a visible history and attribution of all the relevant changes. The first file had no indication it was temporary, that it was a work in progress that you wanted to have deleted when you were finished with it. That doesn't look good, what am I supposed to assume your reasons for that were without an explanation? And really, I'm hijacking other people's work? I was trying to help you, the least you could do is be thankful. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and removing a DR notice from a file while the DR is still open doesn't make you look any better. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok again i didnt ask for the file to be deleted i asked for a history clean up, secondly i explained to you that your uploaded file which had the mathematically round badge also had none of the previous numerous more detailed fixes. I hadn't explained any of the fixes because they were small detail things that i spotted on inspection, one example was the yellow strip was viably on the eagle badge, the lettering, the claws etc etc but you just were simply uploading my old flag with a perfectly round badge. I do appreciate help but you can seem to be very blunt in your actions its called discussion and compromise. Like i said i don't mind which file of mine is used as long as its the best one and contains fixes, i would like a history clean up of my original as its messy and will load more slowly. Setanta Saki (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have now twice removed that DR notice from the file while the DR is still open. This is the behaviour of trolls and yet you come to my talk page asking for compromise? All I tried to do was help you and instead I get this mess. Why do I even try anymore. You can NOT remove a DR notice from a file while the DR is open. Wait for an admin to close it and stop disrupting the DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You started the complaint thread before even talking to me the author of the flag, then you made up some sort of conspiracy and falsely accused me of requesting a file deletion under pretense and now you are calling me a troll. I simply said your actions on my file and others such as here File:Royal Standard of Ireland (1542–1801).svg could be seen as being slightly intrusive (even if good) by an author who has just uploaded a file he put work into without any prior discussion. I had no issue with you helping out on my file but you were simply uploading an old file with errors but with a badge that was perfectly round. I Apologize for trying to talk to you on your page Setanta Saki (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really keeping track of the details of the back and forth, but Setanta_Saki, it seems that in almost all the file versions you've uploaded (all except the most recent), the triskelion in the corner was not very circular in proportions. I know that Fry1989 can sometimes be annoying, but things might have gone more smoothly if you had graciously accepted correction on that point, at least. That's part of what goes along with exposing your work to public view... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnonMoos ya I understand what you are saying, in retrospect I wish I had copped immediately he meant perfectly round and included it as another fix, but as I said I was just using the gif overlay to gauge the size so at the time it seemed ok. Once I realized what he meant I altered the measurements to be precisely round. I was not intentionally discounting his opinion. However there was a lot of more time consuming issues that I had fixed prior which were not included in that round badge reupload. Fry is a top guy im sure but as I said it can just be a bit of a shock for an author to have his work changed within moments its upload without a quick discussion or message although I had no problem with him helping. Hope that clears things up from my perspective.Setanta Saki (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caomhan27, do you fall back in old patterns? Please be positive and support other editors. --High Contrast (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year HC, I can only aspire to your perfection ;) Setanta Saki (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will not reach it :-) Instead of this you are causing problems again. Then, as User:Caomhan27, you made many extreme mistakes here and on the English Wikipedia. After two admins were involved to "handle" with your extreme community time wasting behaviour, you played the purified user "who will never do any bad things again". Now, as User:Setanta Saki, you show that this was a lie again. Sad to see. Support User:Fry1989 instead of putting obstacles in another user's way. It is up to you to change your behaviour in a positive way. This is your last warning. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi at all. Please, can an admin look at this little edit war? Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem appears that Category talk:Architectural elements is still a redlink. Considering the number of reverts, that should not be the case. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This new User Macrobrachium loaded as a "newer version" a new and totally different image of an image over an existing image HERE that is not at all the same (not a crop, etc., either) as the original image. That is, the user used the same identical image filename but a totally different image. Can someone fix that mess. Both images should be kept because they are different (though I am not sure the validity of the license of the new image), but kept with different names so they don't interfere with each other. Thanks for a helping hand as I have no clue how to fix that mess. Mercy11 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone fixed it. Thx! Where is the other crustacean image now located at? Mercy11 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at File:Atya lanipes.jpg. It needs a license, etc, so I left instructions for the uploader. INeverCry 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For context: User_talk:Fastily/A2014#These_3_DRs

Is it acceptable for an administrator to simply ignore another editor when they point out that their explanation for deleting a file directly contradicts the wording of a policy?

I use the phrase direct contradiction deliberately - he deleted 2 images for containing elements of copyrighted work that in his opinion didn't fall under COM:DM, explaining "the image is of high resolution, meaning someone could [extract the copyrighted portion] for unauthorized personal gain". COM:DM#Crops_of_de_minimis_images however states quite clearly that "Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not allowable does not imply that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies.".

I use the word ignore because, after I pointed that out to him, he made no further reply. He simply let the section be archived from his talk page.

Ultra7 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several things:

1. Nobody here (not me, not any other admin, or any other editor for that matter) is under any obligation to respond to you. We're all volunteers, and everybody's time here is a valuable donation which should not be taken for granted.
2. In case it wasn't obvious, I disagreed with what you said. I made it pretty clear on how to proceed: either crop out the non-free content and re-upload, or proceed to COM:UD. I find it utterly nonsensical to fruitlessly argue in circles with you, because a) nobody is going to make any concessions, and b) I have better things to do with my time (and for the love of God I sure hope you do too).

-FASTILY 20:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are expected to respond to anyone with reasonable queries about their decisions, it's called being accountable - UD is not an alternative to that. As for point 2, instead of railing at me for wasting your precious time, why not instead read and understand the actual complaint? This has nothing to do with me not noticing your initial disagreement. I am taking issue with your refusal to answer my follow up point. It was a simple question, so I'll ask it again - why does your expanded deletion rationale directly contradict the wording of the policy? I have lots of better things to do with my time than this, so please, just answer the question, and I'll get on with them. Ultra7 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra7 those 3 images are of the identical buses from similar angle. The only thing distinguishing them from each other are bus size copyrighted billboards on their sides. It is rather clear that the billboards are the main subject of those photographs. as such it crosses the threshold of de minimis; nobody has to crop them to view the copyrighted material. --Jarekt (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, for a number of reasons, but the purpose of this section is not to re-hash the content issue (that can wait for UD or another venue), it's to address the issue of Fastily's refusal to explain the contradiction between the policy and his expanded rationales. If he is indeed thinking along the same lines as your last point, then I fail to see why he finds it such a problem to spend the few seconds to type out words to that effect (or to give a different explanation). Ultra7 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the content side, I would say the images would pass COM:DM, if it weren't for the fact that they explicitly state (filename) they are for showing the advert. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a number of things to say on that too, but like I said, I'm not here to discuss the content issue, I'm here because Fastily said one thing, while policy says the complete opposite, and he doesn't seem to think he is expected to be able to spend a second of his precious time explaining that apparent contradiction to other users. Ultra7 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm separating this comment out for separate feedback. As bad as it would be in isolation, it's much worse when read in context of how much of other people's time will be wasted if he has indeed completely misread the COM:DM policy. As someone who works in this area, I can say with a high degree of confidence that there are several thousand images on Commons that have the exact same issue he claims existed here. If he has got it wrong, other volunteers will be wasting years of their time needlessly blurring a tiny portion of each one of those images, for no good reason. In that context then, the 'don't waste my precious time' tone of his response to what is a simple question, is utterly deplorable. If it were me in this situation, I'd be taking as much time as was necessary to make sure anyone who was making reasonable queries like the one above was completely satisfied with my logic, even if they disagreed with it. Ultra7 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to make it abundantly clear what the issue is as I see it (which is not the underlying content issue as the first two respondents seem to have thought), let me see if I can restate it more simply:

• Commons:Administrators states: "Administrators are expected to ... be prepared to work constructively with others ... [they should] understand and follow Commons' policies .... [and they] have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position"
• Commons:De minimis is a Commons policy, and it states quite clearly that what people could crop out of an image is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it is allowable under de minimis at original size
• Fastily deleted those files claiming they were not acceptable under de minimis, because the non-free portion could be cropped
• He has twice ignored requests to explain this apparent contradiction, because he has "better things to do with his time"

Given the above points, how can anyone here possibly be OK with Fastily's conduct in this case? He apparently doesn't understand the COM:DM policy, he definitely isn't interested in working constructively with others, and he definitely appears to think that being a very busy administrator confers on him some kind of special editorial authority. If anyone disputes the factual accuracy of anything I've just said, then just say so. But if people just want to ignore this report and I later find out it's actually a pattern of behaviour for this user, then believe me, I will have no qualms about turning Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fastily (de-adminship) into a blue link. Ultra7 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laurian D. is a fresh sockpuppet of User:Beleiutz. Could an administrator please block the account and delete all the copyright-infringing images they're uploading? For further reference see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beleiutz, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz, and the archives of this page. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Denniss. CU didn't turn up any other socks. INeverCry 22:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Did CU establish any link to previous accounts? If so this could be mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz. (Not that it's really necessary, mind you, since the behavioural evidence alone is overwhelming). —Psychonaut (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately CU only goes back 3 months. The other accounts are long stale, so no connection can be established, and there's no indication of any recent accounts being created besides the above one. INeverCry 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Mirciulescu and User:Andy Kisss? Last activity 18 December and 5th January, both blocked at en wiki as socks.--Denniss (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The individual results say these are connected, but on different ranges. I've blocked Andy Kisss. INeverCry 00:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lately prepared five of my uploaded images (the five that have corrupt filenames that I couldn't reverse) for deletion validly requested by me being the uploader, instead of marking them "Speedy". In the last hour this user preformed a "closure" on each of the deletion commands 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 (invalidly - without having the deletions satisfied and without a reason or mandate to overrule the deletion request) and left a false closure comment replicated in each of the pages. I'm not familiar with this high-level disruptive pattern luckily, but assume such behaviour is dangerous for our cause in the way it opens doors to possibly more such repressive and ill conduct. Clearly uncustomary seeming, it is a severe burden for me and a waste of my editing time because I apparently will need to restore the requests, which are harmonious with earlier discussions. The user's actions are recorded in this log. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 08:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathies with your attempts to keep the file names intact; but unfortunately we have no such policies. Eventhough your argument that it is the author's right to choose the "title"; the "title=file name" is not well defined here. That's why I added "Original title=<the name chosen by you>" in the file description and advised you to do so in others too. The more you can do is (if you really need it) to add {{Information field|name=Title|value=<the name chosen by you>}} in "Other_fields" at {{Information}}.

Please read https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode #7 b. "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above." Jee 08:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this general note, but the legal dimension is the last I'm involved in and isn't part of my work here, it seems to me quite irrelated, as a volunteer contributor that relies upon community guidelines and the benefit of the project and not upon general legalcodes (which are OK). Obviously, adding the code you're suggesting is no solution, because for these uploads only the author's title applies, otherwise I wouldn't go caring this much about the title modifications. Orrlingtalk 09:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orrling, ever since you were thrown into a semi-petulant tizzy by the file renamings, you seem to be making less and less sense. If the fallout from this leads to your departure (forced or voluntary) from Commons, you will really have no one to blame but yourself... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here? :) Jee 09:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it away from GBG.jpg, which is a completely meaningless name, to the previous filename, File:Göteborg inner-city canals.jpg. I have also move-protected it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why; I've explained that GBG is a most common abbreviation for that city in the local language (as NYC is in English, for example). That image doesn't need a more verbose name than this as this is a representative image of the respective place. Orrlingtalk 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the place then. Same difference frankly. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the file mover right of Orrling. Pleclown (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]