Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:AN

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@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

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
16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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
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
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
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


User Hawk Aster re-uploaded my file under a different name without my authorisation...[edit]

Hello, My file File:GIGN27 Domenjod 140618.jpg, uploaded by myself in the Category: "Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale" on 14 August 2018, was re-uploaded on 29 July 2019 by user:Hawk Aster without any authorisation, under the false label "own work" and under a different name : File:GIGN Training.png. It is of course wrong and should be corrected. I now wonder whether other uploads by the same user should also be investigated. Thanks in advance & best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Domenjod: This is particularly egregious because it's a copyright violation of Commons content by a Commons contributor, Hawk Aster (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  should indeed be watched carefully. They also falsely claim that your CC 4.0 content is public domain! Anyway, the right way to handle this is to open a deletion request, and I've done so. Hopefully an admin will handle it quickly due to this discussion. Also, just so you know, you're supposed to notify users when you talk about them here—I've done that for you as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello @Psiĥedelisto:. Thanks very much for your help. Much appreciated. Now, I could not communicate with user:Hawk Aster since there is no active talk page for this user...Thanks again & best regards, --Domenjod (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Domenjod: When a talk page doesn't exist for a user you have to create it. They'll get the message all the same. I would note though that User talk:Hawk Aster was created by a bot on 23 February 2020, so it did indeed exist at the time you opened this, FYI. SNice.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk •

contribs) please always ping! 16:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Psiĥedelisto: I see. I got confused because, when displaying the file, User:Hawk Aster appeared in red (and still does...). Thanks again...--Domenjod (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Domenjod, could you please check the user's other uploads, if there are more of such uncredited "duplicates". --Túrelio (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello, @Túrelio:. All I can say is that only one of these files (the one I pointed to) is a copy of one of my own. Not sure if there is any easy way to check where the other files come from (or if they are "legal" !). Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Túrelio: Seems like all Hawk Aster's photos are stolen, but some are hard to prove. File:GIGN 2017.webp is a Getty image by Miguel Medina, in use here. File:GIGN 2017.jpg existed in 2014 and appears on this forum: [1]. File:GIGN после боя.jpg is by Library of War. They should be stopped from doing this, as they are literally lying, claiming work they are certainly not doing from Russia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All files by Hawk Aster are tagged or deleted. User is warned. Yann (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Please add a link to File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text and without padding.svg on File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg[edit]

Only admins can edit File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg, so please mention my derivative work File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text and without padding.svg somewhere there so that if someone else can't find it the work isn't needlessly redone. Sorry if this is wrong place, can't figure out how to make a request to edit protected contents. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done. Next time, please add {{Edit request}} to the file talk page. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Continuing discussion: how to deal with DRs of identifiable Afghans feeling threatened by Taliban?[edit]

Thank you kindly Túrelio for responding to my DRs. I would like to take the opportunity to continue the discussion you started here because I believe this will become an increasingly important topic as the Taliban consolidates its power. Consequently, I think we have a responsibility, and need to be prepared to preemptively mitigate any human rights risks that may fall upon the people of Afghanistan through contributions on Wikimedia Commons (and other Wikimedia projects for that matter). I proceed in two parts. Firstly, I will list some of the arguments presented against the DRs and reasons why I disagree with them. Secondly, and more importantly, I hope to continue the discussion to develop a framework of sorts through which such requests can be vetted and acted upon because DRs in regards to Afghanistan will no doubt continue and increase over time, and I can hardly imagine the Foundation has the resources to go thought all requests in a timely manner.

Argument: The images are publicly available on Flickr and other platforms.
Response: While it is true that some of the images on Commons are publicly visible on other platforms, that is something we cannot change. However, being members of the the Wikimedia community, we have the agency to do something and by removing certain images from Commons (or archiving them from public view, if that is a possibility?) we are mitigating potential risks to the people involved by reducing the scope of access to the images.

Argument: Responding to DR of people personally feeling threatened
Response: The problem I see here is that people might not know that images of them exist, and in what context they might be framed. Hence, to say that we will "only" (or rather primarily) respond to requests from Afghans themselves doesn't quite make sense to me. How is someone supposed to send a deletion request if they don't even know the the existence of such an image on an open platform?

Argument: Emailing emergency@wikimedia.org
Response: Surely one can contact the Foundation, but this seems to me like an enormously unsustainable process considering the amount of images that can be considered "high-risk." I can hardly imagine the Foundation having the resources to go through so many requests and making decisions. Besides, considering this is a community platform, wouldn't it make more sense for us, the community, to come up with a framework through which such decisions can be made and allowing the Foundation to focus on truly crucial, imminent and life threatening cases, of which there are enough.

Argument: Value to having visual records of that period of history.
Response: I completely agree with this sentiment, hence my first question would be if anyone knows whether there is a feature to archive images and hide them from public view for X amount of time, until the crisis has been resolved. If that is not possible, one really has to think whether keeping a public record outweighs the possibility that an image could put someone in serious danger (especially considering people involved are quite likely unaware of an image of them being publicly available on such a platform).

Developing a framework to deal with DRs of identifiable Afghans that may be threatened by current Taliban administration.

Considering the the chilling sophistication and activities of companies such as Clearview AI who prey on publicly available images to train its facial recognition AI and the complete uncertainly of the technologies the Taliban might use to exert control, I believe we it is our responsibility to reduce human rights any and all risks to Afghan people that may come from Wikimedia projects.

I would argue that if the image includes someone's face that is identifiable the initial DR is accepted.

Next if the answer to any of the questions below (this is certainly not an exhaustive list, so please feel free to add/delete/edit) is a "yes", it certainly pass all grounds for deletion.

  • Is the person a human rights activist?
  • Is the person a women's rights activist?
  • Is the person a journalist, blogger, academic, writer who has openly voiced their dislike of the Taliban?
  • Has the person worked at a foreign news agency?
  • Has the person worked with the US or any of its allies?
  • Was the person part of the former Afghan administration?
  • Was the person active in any of these political parties, parties that have under the Taliban been banned?
  • Does the person belong to an ethnic minority group such as Haraza, Tajik, Uzbek...?
  • Does the person belong to a religious minority group such as Shia, Sikh, Hindu,
  • Christian, Ahmadi...?
  • Has the person been targeted by the Taliban before?
  • Is the person from the LGBTQ+ community?

This is just a preliminary framework, but I look forward to hearing what you all have to say and hope we can develop a proper workflow and protocol to protect and support the people of Afghanistan.

--Mclovinplasse (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mclovinplasse: This really seems like an unnecessary, over-the-top level of alarm. Should Commons have similar policies for identifiable people in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and other countries that have poor human rights records (by European standards)? It seems like it will be used more to censor activists in Afghanistan than it will be used to help anyone, it's not like the Taliban will give us time to discuss it. The DR process is already massively constipated, remember. I find the two deletions already carried out highly suspect as well (the filenames are US gov't standard filenames so easy to bring up in Google, so I see what was deleted). Clearly this over-the-top fear is already leading to erasure of Afghans from Commons because the people in the photos didn't request them. Why are you assuming they are even still in Afghanistan much less feel threatened in any way? This feels almost colonial to me—how can you say Afghan people have any less right to be posted here than anyone else? Please reconsider. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
How image removal from Commons can help people if the images originate from other sites (like US DoD Flickr service) and are still available there? Ankry (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think the issue is determining "feeling threatened by Taliban" when not even the users themselves are aware that these photos exist. I mean, if someone contact us [credibly] because they are endangered by a photo we have published, it seems right to speedy it. But we don't know if every Afghan depicted on Commons feels threatened by the Taliban for being here. And I find remote that we can even know in most cases. Platonides (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much for your response, @Psiĥedelisto:. I prefer discussing in lists and bullet points, I hope that format is okay with you all.
1. The situation in Afghanistan is hardly comparable to anywhere else in the world. The places you mentioned have a historical record of human rights abuses hence content on human rights defenders or any dissenters of these administrations are not as readily and publicly available (for good reason). One has to understand the uniqueness of the situation that Afghanistan is in at the moment, transitioning from an American colony wherein human rights, gender equality, freedom of expression where advocated (albeit highly problematic) and infrastructures were built to Taliban rule who’s ideals could not differ more and where people are known to be persecuted for their work.
2. On the question of whether Commons should have policies that take human rights in the foreground, I definitely think it should. For instance, to think that photographs of identifiable people can be published on Commons without their knowledge or consent is rather outdated and dangerous, especially in an age where facial recognition technology has reached extreme sophistication and censorship and surveillance is increasing around the globe.
3. How can people within images request a deletion if they are quite likely unaware of the image’s existence and publication in the first place? I may be inclined to agree that it is an erasure (although I am not even remotely advocating for the removal of all Afghans from Common as you imply), but is that not justified if it means possibly protecting someones life? Are we willing to take the risk that someone might seriously be harmed? There are individuals and groups of people that a very highly threatened under Taliban rule and as a Wikimedian I feel compelled to use my agency on this platform to help protect them.
4. In regards that this feels colonial, I don’t quite understand how. Was it Afghans who uploaded these images? In a large majority of cases no, but rather any number of western colonial organisations that have not had the decency to scrub Afghani digital footprints, Afghanis that are now being persecuted as a result of this. Here are article by Reuters, Wired and Al Jazeera reporting on this.
Concludingly, I understand what I am proposing can be quite risky and can lead to unnecessary erasure of content, hence why not work towards figuring out a rubric that can protect people while also protecting content already on Commons. --Mclovinplasse (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list E-H[edit]

Something weird is going on on the subject page. The last four entries in the list, all beginning with the letter "H", do not appear on the page. When I look at the raw markup, they are all there, with apparently identical wording to those above.

Is there a limit on the size or number of transclusions permitted? I note that if I temporarily delete countries above the 4 H entries, the H entries appear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, exactly. If you see the "Post-expand include size" row in the "Parser profiling data" table below the editing box in preview mode, you will see that not only the E-H has been broken, but also other similar pages have been broken too.
The simple solution is to split the pages. Let's see what Aymatth2—the creator of these pages—thinks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I suppose they should be split. I can do that. Not sure how useful they are though. The A-B list is "countries whose names start with A or B in the English language". I wonder if this is happening on the regional lists like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Western Europe? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In my opinion, alphabetically-sorted consolidated lists are not useful and can be safely deleted. Regional consolidated lists are okay, but the most useful things are simple redirects such as COM:IRAN, I think. Let's see what User:Jameslwoodward thinks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The alphabetical lists are due to history: a few years ago, apart from a few country-specific sub-pages, all the copyright rules were in one alphabetical list as in Old revision of Commons:Copyright rules by territory . When splitting out pages for each territory was proposed, one concern was that we would lose the ability to view the rules as a whole. The alphabetical lists were to address that concern. There are very few page views. I would certainly not object to deleting them. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The reported problem does not (and will not) happen to the regional lists. Here is a detailed report, according to which none reaches even to the 70% of the threshold. So they are all safe. Currently, the heaviest page is that of South America:
4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't find the regional lists at all helpful. For me, the most logical thing is to go to the alpha lists, which I do regularly. I agree that that's not completely logical -- in most cases it would be faster to go to COM:XYZ, provided that I knew how to spell XYZ which I usually do. I'm not sure I understand why we can't simply solve the problem by further dividing the lists -- E-H might be E-F and G-H if that were the only problem. Since most of the groups are a problem, someone should start at A and set up groups that were maybe 70% full. That could be me, if I would not be stepping on toes.

I see the objection that the alpha list is alpha in English and would be different in other languages. Certainly speakers of other languages could create their own alpha lists, but much of Commons relies on English -- Categories for example. I don't know ow many of the country summaries are available in a language other than English -- I see that there is a French version for France and a Spanish version for Spain, but not vice-versa -- so it's probably not many. Thus an alpha list in another language would not be very useful. Perhaps where the country name alphabetizes differently in the native language, we could enter it in this list twice -- Spain both under S and under E. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I started them but am neutral about whether they are kept (split) or deleted. Probably simplest to split into one per letter of the alphabet. It is possible even that may not work long term though. The country-specific articles keep on steadily expanding. I think you will find fairly complete translations in French, but only spotty coverage in other languages apart from the countries where those languages are spoken. It would not be difficult to}} generate lists in other languages, just a slightly tedious job. {{CRT list2}} has the complete list, translated into many different languages. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Copyright rules by territory

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
P Q R Sa-Sl So-Sy T U V W X Y Z

I am going ahead with split into one per letter. Then we can forget about these lists for at least a few years. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Done. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please help restore the page Help:Nominate for deletion[edit]

I accidentally used 'Nominate for deletion' on this page and asked the administrator for help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tychou12 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done by Rodhullandemu Gbawden (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Deletion request File:Suchinda Kraprayoon.jpg[edit]

Dear admins,

Unfortunately, User:Annop Nakabut cannot wait for a decision on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suchinda Kraprayoon.jpg and keeps removing the deletion notice from the file description at File:Suchinda Kraprayoon.jpg even though the deletion request is still open and he/she has not participated in the discussion or stated a comprehensible reason why the file should be kept. Could you please take a decision on the deletion request and/or protect the file description for the time of the ongoing deletion discussion and/or warn the user against disruptive edits? Unfortunately my appeal to discuss and be patient has not been fruitful. Kind regards, --Bujo (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done. Annop Nakabut re-uploaded the photo. I warned him/her and deleted the file again. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Conor Ashleigh[edit]

Could someone please have a look at the files in these DRs?

The listed files were deleted because the author did not agree to publish them under a free license. However, many of the files were later re-uploaded to Commons. I'm reluctant to tag them with {{SD|G4}} because the re-uploader is an admin and likely had a good reason. Yet I couldn't find any evidence that the author has changed his mind. The author's permission would be unnecessary if the photos were taken as work for hire for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but it's not clear if this is the case. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Tagging Léna (talk · contribs) as she re-uploaded the files. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi, thanks for the tagging ! At the moment of the upload the pictures where published under CC-by licence in Flickr. Since it was from a government body, I didn't thought it could have been Flickr-washing. My take would be to trust institutions on Flickr to have negotiated the rights with the photograph to publish their works under a free licence (it is the case in my experience with working with GLAMs), so no speedy delegation but maybe a deletion request to debate to which extend we should trust the DFAT CC-by claim. Léna (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I've posted a comment asking the DFAT to confirm whether the pictures were taken as work for hire. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've definitely seen institutions screw this up, though, even ones that are usually careful. Every so often I've had to remind the Seattle Municipal Archives that they left their default CC license for their Flickr uploads on an image such as a copyrighted poster that was in their collection but was designed by a private entity. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yep. I also once "caught" Oak Ridge National Laboratory sharing an image from Nvidia that they didn't own the rights to. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dubious file overwrites - cleanup in aisle 9 & a possible block[edit]

User:Abro_shubro - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abro_shubro - is uploading porn as replacement images for various things. I've reverted his changes (to date), but the history of each image could do with porn removal; and we can probably conclude that Abro_shubro is not here to build Commons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done: User indeffed and uploads deleted. Thanks to Tagishsimon for reverting! --Achim (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

FYI: Commons:Arbitration[edit]

Hi to all. I have moved the old arbitration proposal to a new page name and inserted a page that explains the current situation. It wasn't useful having a failed proposal as the lede on the matter. I hope that this is okay, and others may wish to hack at the initial version of the text. Once we can get a stable text then we should mark it up for translation. There were not a lot of links to the page, and some of those were better aligned to a current page, than the old proposal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Vandalism filter?[edit]

Is there a filter possible preventing this type of contribution? The vandal is not going to stop, and the only other workaround I see is if I semiprotect all my uploads.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Now only available to administrators, I deleted all the uploads).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, AbuseFilter is lame when it comes to action='upload' but you may try to play with variable file_sha1 and function contains_any and feed it with SHA1 hashes of all images the vandal uses. This is kinda naive but may work if the vandal is dumb. Also you may try to build a gallery with all your uploads and cascade semi protect it. --jdx Re: 06:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I will just cascade-protect several hundreds of my recent uploads--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ymblanter: We might be able to do something based on page_first_contributor based n Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1778185835, look at user_age of contributor and then other components. If you can identify a range of pages that you have had disrupted, then I can have a look-see.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This is an LTA which on a regular basis shows op on the English Wikipedia adding images of corpses etc to noticeboards and unrelated articles. This is the first time I encountered them on Commons, probably they went after me because I blocked one of the socks or removed the images, or may be deleted the images from Commons, I do not know. I spent about an hour in the morning cleaning up the junk they uploaded on top of my images. I guess they will further attack other en.wp administrators, but since most of these are not Commons administrators, it will be more difficult for them to clean up this mess. The only reasonable solution would be prohibit uploads by non-autoconfirmed users, or at least to prohibit them upload other versions on top of existing images, but the Commons community is clearly not prepared to take this step. I myself have dozens of trhousands uploads, protecting all of them is impractical, but I protect several hundred most recent ones now. Cleaning up photos of corpses is not exactly what I like to do most during breakfast.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The cascading semi-protection is not available, meaning the only option is to protect the images one by one.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ymblanter: See Special:AbuseFilter/254 It tests successfully for those files that you fixed yesterday. You can see that it is specific, so not useful as a generic catchall filter. Just there to run for a while to see if we can get false positives.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The LTA returned and predictable hit different files (thanks @Elcobbola: for taking care of them before I saw the damage), so protection remains the only option. Since I am not the only one under attack, I seriously encourage prohibiting reuploads to non-confirmed users.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I would support such a restriction. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please restore Greek alphabet[edit]

Could somebody please move Creek alphabet back to Greek alphabet, and delete Greek script? Tidying up after move vandalism from en:WP:LTA/Wikinger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=594904382"