Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections
Shortcuts: COM:AN/B • COM:AN/P • COM:RFPP
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
128, 127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- For page protection requests, please state protection type, file name, and proposed protection time span. See also: Protection Policy.
- Before proposing a user be blocked, please familiarize yourself with the Commons' Blocking Policy.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/B|thread=|reason=}}is available for this. - Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Semiprotect Category:Nauk krstjanski za narod slovinski
[edit]A logged-out user has been pushing what can be seen as their POV for some time now by recategorizing Category:Nauk krstjanski za narod slovinski. The available online sources, including the English Wikipedia (en:Special:Permalink/1335104863), seem to be clear that Divković belonged to the Bosnian Franciscan cultural circles, if not Croatian (Fedorovskaya). Please revert and protect. Ponor (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Previous similar campaign: Special:Contributions/191.38.217.55 Ponor (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, but totally wrong, typical anti-serb revisionist falsification well know bias from Croatian Wikipedia. He is not Croatian (or belonged to Croatian circles) but Bosnian and partly Serbian circles. According to academic source: The development path of the Serbian language and script by Jelica Stojanović. book code book pdf link - p. 178
"[...] The language in which Truber published his translation of the Scriptures was called by Friar Matija Divković, who had a book printed in Venice in 1565 ‘Christian teachings’, ‘the Slavic language’, while he referred to Cyrillic letters as ‘Serbian letters’[...]."
"[...] Matija Divković printed his books in cursive Cyrillic at the beginning of the 17th century (he himself cast the letters in Venice based on those from the manuscripts), and he called it the “Serbian script”, as did other Bosnian Franciscans. [...]"
Even the author Matija Divković stated that, you can see here "sarpskemi slovi" (old form of srpski slovi - serbian letters) (full Croatian digitalization site here). Declaration of Book Section p. 203
Also the sources listed here is also used in English wikipedia
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10024-55 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- This seems to be basically a content dispute. I don't have anything to bring to it (other than to question whether ~2026-98654-7 is correct to translate "slovenski" to English as "Slavonic" rather than "Slovenian"; could be correct for that period, though I'd like to see that followed up with evidence). I doubt any one person, admin or otherwise can determine what is the "right version" here, but I suggest:
- Stop edit-warring.
- Return the file page at least temporarily to the status quo ante plus a {{Fact disputed}} template, and leave it that way until something approaching consensus can be reached.
- Start a discussion on the file talk page, where people can present whatever evidence they've got.
- Notify about that discussion as neutrally as possible at COM:VP so other parties with some knowledge can participate.
- @Ponor and ~2026-10024-55: Is that acceptable to both of you? - Jmabel ! talk 05:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I can discuss things, but I'd like to know who I'm discussing with, and what will the consequences be for their name-calling and insinuations (already started above). It's just strange to see a long history of interest in this category from logged-out editors (editor?) when the very same edits had been reverted several times before: @Santasa99 and @TadejM can tell us more. Ponor (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ponor: I also prefer that everyone here create an account, but there is no consensus for Commons to require that users be logged in to edit, so they are not breaking any rule by failing to do that. Are you willing to accept my proposed way to proceed, or not? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I didn't report this here because of an innocent temporary account edit. I've noticed a pattern of logged-out edits in the category's history, some earlier coming from proxies in Brazil. That's what I see all the time from normally logged-in POV pushers who are trying to avoid consequences for edit warring. And given that this temp account knew exactly where to find this report is also quite telling. But let me stop there. They're misinterpreting or misusing their sources, while every wiki (from English to Russian) agrees this work and its author have little to do with anything Serbian. Ponor (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Shakeima mccrary ~2026-10159-93 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I didn't report this here because of an innocent temporary account edit. I've noticed a pattern of logged-out edits in the category's history, some earlier coming from proxies in Brazil. That's what I see all the time from normally logged-in POV pushers who are trying to avoid consequences for edit warring. And given that this temp account knew exactly where to find this report is also quite telling. But let me stop there. They're misinterpreting or misusing their sources, while every wiki (from English to Russian) agrees this work and its author have little to do with anything Serbian. Ponor (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ponor: I also prefer that everyone here create an account, but there is no consensus for Commons to require that users be logged in to edit, so they are not breaking any rule by failing to do that. Are you willing to accept my proposed way to proceed, or not? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I can discuss things, but I'd like to know who I'm discussing with, and what will the consequences be for their name-calling and insinuations (already started above). It's just strange to see a long history of interest in this category from logged-out editors (editor?) when the very same edits had been reverted several times before: @Santasa99 and @TadejM can tell us more. Ponor (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- IP self-interpreting Primary source, ie. 16th c. author himself. Late 20th and 21st c. Secondary sources from his native Bosnia and outside of Balkans are clear about Divković being Bosnian author, writing in Bosnian, while using Bosnian Cyrillic. He had no connections with Serbia, Serbian language or Serbian Cyrillic. At one point he indeed referred to a "letters" he was using being "Serbian letters" which in secondary sources are undoubtedly recognized as Bosnian Cyrillic. --Santasa99 (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Wall of text by User:~2026-98654-7 collapsed
|
|---|
Matija explicitly had connections of Serbia, Serbian Language and Serbian Cyrillic. He worked with Bučinić to make book Breve Instructione per imparare il caractere serviano - In his Nauk Krstijanski book had chapters he explicitly refered as translation of Serbian like Chapter Pocinaiu (introduction) where he says bosanski iezik sarpskemi slovi - "Bosnian language, Serbian Script" he already know Serbian cyrillic, Pershi Kako Abram (Koe Pershi izpisavshi sarpski " which written in Serbian", Život Svete Katarina Koie Pershe izpisavshi Sarspki", the same, and Place Blazer, Plav izpisavshi sarpski, (written in Serbian). His Abecedarium book he dedicated Azbukividarium Servianum. Secondary sources explicitly disagrees with your bad claim Stijovic, Dr Rada. "Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts - Institute of Serbian Language - Kulin writes Cyrillic". Retrieved 2026-02-14. (Translation): The Cyrillic script in which the charter was written is not the "Bosnian script – Bosnian script". First of all, it should be borne in mind that the so-called Bosnian script is not a special Bosnian script, as has long been known in science, but a variant of the Serbian Cyrillic cursive script transferred from Serbia to Bosnia during the time of Tvrtko I Kotromanić, and then to the neighboring part of Dalmatia. Matija Divković printed his books in cursive Cyrillic at the beginning of the 17th century (he himself cast the letters in Venice based on those from the manuscripts), and he called it the "Serbian script", as did other Bosnian Franciscans. Private correspondence in Cyrillic was carried out until the beginning of the twentieth century in the Bey families in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the name "Old Serbia" is recorded for it. We will also recall the famous couplet by Matija Antun Reljković, which he addresses to his Slavonians: Your ancestors did have Serbian style, Serbian style and Serbian writing, which refers to the use of the Cyrillic alphabet, which had penetrated from Bosnia to Slavonia in the 17th century. [..]Matija Divković printed his books in cursive Cyrillic at the beginning of the 17th century (he himself cast the letters in Venice based on those from the manuscripts), and he called it the "Serbian script", as did other Bosnian Franciscans. [...] And The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe Tomasz Kamusella Senior Lecturer, University of Opole, Opole, Poland and Thomas Brown Lecturer, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland p 976 32. The polemic on the ‘ethnic belonging of Bosanˇcica (Bosanica, Bosnian), which commenced in the mid-19th century, has become the subject of heated controversy beginning in the mid-1990s. The Serbs claim Bosanˇcica as a variant of Serbian Cyrillic because in the past, not only Orthodox but also Catholics (in Bosnia and Ragusa) referred to it as ‘Serbian letters.’ In addition, today, neither Bosniaks nor Croats, but only Serbs use Cyrillic in Bosnia. Although, one can come across the denotation ‘Croatian Cyrillic’ for Bosanˇcica, most Croatian scholars dub it ‘Western Cyrillic,’ thus somewhat distancing this script from the tradition of Croatian literacy. Bosniak scholars claim that first documents in Bosanˇcica were produced in the 10th century, but the actual use of this distinctive script began in the second half of the 13th century in Ragusa and Dalmatia. The tradition of Bosanˇcica writing flowered from the 14th to 17th century, the script used by Catholics, Muslims, and Orthodox. Few isolated families and individuals continued to write in Bosanˇcica until the 20th century (Bosanˇcica 2006; Bosnian 2006).
book [...] which tells us about the continuation of the dual name of the spoken language in Bosnia as Serbian and Bosnian [...] Matija Divkovic, who printed a prayer book, in "Serbian Letters" but in "true Bosnian language. [...]" I have collection of scanned Matija Divković pages to explain the sources quotes. Can I upload here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-98654-7 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC) |
- @~2026-98654-7: This is not the place to argue the facts of the document. And one more accusation against another user along the lines of
quite genocidal statement
will get you indef-blocked. - Are you willing to accept my proposed way to proceed, or not? - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- ok, sorry. I accept you proceed.--~2026-98654-7 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ponor: this is waiting on you to accept that proposal or not. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was basically reverting to @Santasa99's previous edit, I agree with them. A scan of a page from the work that I uploaded a day ago explicitly says "Bosnian language", and that's IF we want to follow that primary source alone. I'd still like you to protect the category, since not many people are watching it here, and there is a long history of edit warring now. Ponor (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Ponor: I take it that's a "no." In that case, I guess I'll just wash my hands of this.
- BTW: yes, it is problematic that there are people who use a sockpuppet to edit in controversial areas, but as far as I can tell, as long as they are not evading a block, and don't edit in a given area under multiple accounts pretending to be multiple distinct users, we don't have a rule against that. Even if we banned anonymous editing, there wouldn't be much to stop someone using a throwaway account for this purpose. - Jmabel ! talk 06:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I could interrupt the discussion for a sec. - semi-protection could compel these editors to create an account and thus avoid socking. Santasa99 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Same MO as Special:CentralAuth/AnaliticStar and Special:CentralAuth/TómasdeAquino2. Given that the latter user is permanently blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, and that some older edits in this category were from Brazil, I'd say this disruptive editing will not stop without an administrative action. They obviously know our procedures here, they should start discussing things before continuing their POV pushing and "Everything is Serbian" edit wars. I am sorry, I do not have time to waste on this. Ponor (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Clear sockpuppetry and cherry picking even in their own "sources": Special:Diff/1166366456. This will go ad nauseam, I'm afraid. Ponor (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know these accounts and I have no idea what they are. Making desperate accusations simply because people disagree with sources in this mess shows that you clearly don't want to contribute, only to throw your Croatian POV at me, pushing "For me, nothing is Serbian, so let's go label everything as Croatian." Disrespecting established sources. You simply disrespected the established National Library of Saint Peterburg (NLR) (where the manuscript is located) source, erasing the fact it says it is in Serbian Language and in Section Serbian manuscripts of the library. Clearly bad faith and disruptive from unsolved far right POV Croatian Wiki problem already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-98654-7 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Clear sockpuppetry and cherry picking even in their own "sources": Special:Diff/1166366456. This will go ad nauseam, I'm afraid. Ponor (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Same MO as Special:CentralAuth/AnaliticStar and Special:CentralAuth/TómasdeAquino2. Given that the latter user is permanently blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, and that some older edits in this category were from Brazil, I'd say this disruptive editing will not stop without an administrative action. They obviously know our procedures here, they should start discussing things before continuing their POV pushing and "Everything is Serbian" edit wars. I am sorry, I do not have time to waste on this. Ponor (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I could interrupt the discussion for a sec. - semi-protection could compel these editors to create an account and thus avoid socking. Santasa99 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was basically reverting to @Santasa99's previous edit, I agree with them. A scan of a page from the work that I uploaded a day ago explicitly says "Bosnian language", and that's IF we want to follow that primary source alone. I'd still like you to protect the category, since not many people are watching it here, and there is a long history of edit warring now. Ponor (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- That very source says Тип письма: Боснийский устав = Bosnian en:Ustav. But yes, keep cherry picking. Admins? Ponor (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- And Лингвистическая характеристика: Сербск. (босн.), / Linguistic characteristics: Serbian (Bos.), and it is located at Serbian manuscripts section https://expositions.nlr.ru/ex_manus/Serbian_Manuscripts/show.php?i=0ED04922-7704-4321-89A8-02ED1CDFB6B9&l=1&lang=3. You already cherry picked. --~2026-98654-7 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-98654-7: Is it too much to ask you to sign your work? Are you AnaliticStar or TómasdeAquino2? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am none of those users and I don't know them, --~2026-98654-7 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I protected Category:Nauk krstjanski za narod slovinski and Category:Hercegovina Gospel, and sent some warnings. Hopefully, that may help things calm down. Yann (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, this should help, at least for a time being. Santasa99 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Protection request
[edit]Please protect admin only for Event:Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 in Spain as high traffic page used in central notice in Spain ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Done: Fully protected for 3 months, Event:Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 semi-protected. Sufficient? --Achim55 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
- thank you -- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Keeps uploading copyvio images, after being warned. Could the user be blocked? Wikiwerner (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done blocked for a month with a strong statement that if this continues on their return, an indef-block is the likely outcome. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
FARDIN AHMED ABIR
[edit]FARDIN AHMED ABIR (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
User's upload history seems to be only uploading copyrighted logos with the claim of self produced. Some of the uploads are "okay" in the end because they're logos with text/geographic shapes so can't be copyrighted anyway, but they're still claiming them as own works dubiously. The talk page is littered with copyright and deletion notices, but no response or change in behavior. The account is also blocked on the English Wikipedia for edit warring. CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment And a bunch of re-uploads of the same copyvios after deletion.
- A block is almost certainly in order, though I'm not sure whether or not it should be an indef-block, I leave that to some other admin to decide. And someone will need to go through their uploads to see what can be kept.
- Really, though, I think this should have come to COM:AN/U, not here. And behavior on en-wiki is not particularly relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I deleted speedily most uploads as copyvios and closed one DR. Yann warned the user (first warning). No copyvios after the warning, so I currently do not block the user. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- They have resumed. File:Colors Bangla Logo (2016).png and File:Star Jalsha Logo (2019).png have both been uploaded since the final warning as "own work" when they are clearly not. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Appears to be consistently uploading non-free images as his own work. I tagged several today but there are a several in his historical uploads. JohnAdams1800 has been banned from Wikipedia for OR and persistent socking, and he includes that OR in image descriptions and is using commons to sock edit (edits from these socks show him uploading images here and immediately socking on WP to get them on wiki). First notified about permissions issues in Aug 25. Seems to treat "own work" and "CC4" as arbitrary after repeated deletions.
Uploaded as own work Source: This presentation
Uploaded as own CC4 Source: No CC4 given
This and this are clearly using street map data without a source disclosed, and appear to be screenshots from a news site.
Just a screenshot from a news site uploaded as own work
Uploaded as CC4 Source: No CC4 license stated
Syllabus for a class Source: UT Dallas copyright notice requirements for syllabi ~2026-65219-2 (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- IMO File:Rising inequality and unequal access to education in the United States.pdf and File:Educational polarization in 2024.png are too simple to have a copyright. Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's still not his own work, just as the other two above aren't CC4. A lot of his uploads are recreations of plots from others using their underlying data. I didn't flag those for that reason. ~2026-65219-2 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Data do not have a copyright, and do not belong to someone. Sources should be provided through. Yann (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. I only raised a concern for plots that were actually made by someone else, directly taken from another source as screenshots, and uploaded as "own work" or with a license that doesn't exist for that plot. That's much less ambiguous, and he has a pattern of ignoring warnings about content and rights usage on Commons and his image summaries are being used as an end-run on his OR that got him banned from en-wp, where he's still trying to sock back in his commons uploads.
- None of the concern raised here is about the use of underlying data. ~2026-65219-2 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but drawing a plot from these data doesn't automatically create a copyright. It depends of the complexity of the plot and the data. Yann (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- This entire line of reasoning only applies, if it does, to the first linked image. And it still isn't the uploader's own work. ~2026-65219-2 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but drawing a plot from these data doesn't automatically create a copyright. It depends of the complexity of the plot and the data. Yann (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Data do not have a copyright, and do not belong to someone. Sources should be provided through. Yann (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's still not his own work, just as the other two above aren't CC4. A lot of his uploads are recreations of plots from others using their underlying data. I didn't flag those for that reason. ~2026-65219-2 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
PI-CNESST
[edit]PI-CNESST (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Ironically, after demanding we take down their PD-textlogo we actually need to block the user as they haven't been verified by COM:VRT, and their username says they are an inspector for CNESST. The file is perfectly legal, but their username is an obvious trademark and username policy violation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Remove protection from File:1792 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania by county.svg
[edit]I'm the original uploader of this file, I would like to upload a new version since the map's data is outdated, but it says I can't and that only people with auto patrol rights can change it. I don't know why this happened, but can someone remove its protection or remove its protection temporarily so I can update it? HistoricalRonan (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ziv as protecting Admin. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- @HistoricalRonan: protection removed. If you have any other files that were blocked back then due to incessant move requests, you can contact me directly on my disk. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of Ayakln
[edit]Globally blocked & locked user:
- Ayakln (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
now has the following sockpuppets active on Commons, confirmed by CU results from other wikis:
- Poom2014 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information): blocked on thwiki based on CU result
- So Monggo (SVG Files) (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information): blocked on enwiki and thwiki based on CU result
- Tendoom (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information): confirmed sock puppet on thwiki based on CU result
- Tendoomn (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information):
It looks like a duck to me
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I am pretty sure this is the same user:
- ~2026-11107-52 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
痛Designism (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty to revert the two edits the TA made to your talk page Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Zara Larsson photo
[edit]For some reason, these files are attracting much vandalism by temporary accounts and new accounts:
- File:Zara Larsson Midnight Sun European Tour (cropped).jpg
- File:Zara Larsson Midnight Sun European Tour (cropped 2).jpg
- File:Zara Larsson Midnight Sun European Tour (cropped) (cropped).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Semi-protection might be useful for some time. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done, protected for a month. This should be enough for now. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)