User talk:Iruka13

December 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Star Mississippi. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Star Mississippi 02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi: diff on this comment. — Ирука¹³ 09:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The entirety of your interactio at File_talk:Zuni_wolf_fetish_with_medicine_bundle_and_heartline,_carved_by_Stuart_Lasiyoo.jpg#Fair_use_rationale. But also your conduct for which you've been warned multiple times. This should be considered a final warning. Star Mississippi 12:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

conduct

words or actions? — Ирука¹³ 13:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Iruka13, your words and actions are confusing me. On the talk page of File_talk:Zuni_wolf_fetish_with_medicine_bundle_and_heartline,_carved_by_Stuart_Lasiyoo.jpg you gave me a hard time about the licensing, and your words were difficult to understand. Regarding the Zuni wolf fetish file, I made the changes you suggested and I also provided a great deal of information on the fair-use rational on both the file page and the talk page. An administrator, Explicit, came by and approved it. Then on the talk page you told me to add a different license and provided an example, "Golden Lion". I did that (change the license from what Explicit approved.) Then you told me not to use the PD license which was exactly what was on the Golden Lion file. This is extremely confusing! I went ahead and changed it back to the version I had when Explicit approved it. I am not sure if the problem is that your English comprehension is not good enough to communicate clearly and politely, or if you are repeating the very behaviors that got you indefinitely blocked from Commons, and several other language Wikipedias (Russian, Ukrainian) - for wiki-lawyering about images and bad faith contributions, and tangential nonsense. What is your purpose here on en-WP? Courtesy ping to Star Mississippi for insight. Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The administrator Explicit didn't approve anything. He only rejected my specific request. Now another administrator will come here and explain everything else. Or ban me.

And I didn't say you have to use a different license. I said you can use any other free license. — Ирука¹³ 16:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

for photo — Ирука¹³ 16:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You specifically said Netherzone: add a photo license to the file description page using this example. Honestly, I do not think you should be giving people advice on how to license photos. Perhaps it's because, according to your user box, you only have a en-1 basic level of English. I don't say that to offend you, but to simply point out that the communications have not been helpful - at all. These discussions have been a waste of editors time, and maybe you should wait until your English is more competent before giving "advise" on something so complex as photo licensing. (It is already complicated enough, without adding to the complexity.) I'd like to assume good faith, but this behavior seems to be exactly why you were blocked on Commons, RU-WP and UK-WP. Netherzone (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this time I said and did everything correctly. It's not because of my English.

I gave you the shortest way to issue a file license. And I gave you extended information on your request. — Ирука¹³ 16:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iruka13 I warned you, and the disruption has continued which is why you are now blocked. When the block expires, you will need to change your manner of engaging with other editors or your en wiki block will match that of the other projects. This is your last warning. Star Mississippi 16:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, Pppery: could you please explain what i did wrong in this (pls) and this discussion? — Ирука¹³ 00:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

My purpose here is to work with files according to the rules. is not how you speak to fellow editors especially when given the discussion with experienced editor (courtesy ping @Explicit, @Netherzone) have varied opinions on the license. Regardless of whether you were correct in this instance, please treat your fellow editors as you would like them to treat you. Star Mississippi 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Diab al-Mashi.png

How does a low-quality still from a critical documentary conflict with the documentary’s market role? Would appreciate an explanation of your rationale. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not low quality. — Ирука¹³ 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This is absurd. It is very clearly low-quality—have you seen it? I downscaled the image without changing its actual size in pixels. Moving to delete it rather than further discuss downscaling comes across as a tantrum. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Do I have the technical ability to delete files? — Ирука¹³ 15:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Gǃo'e ǃHu.ogg

You tagged this as needing permission, and that the creator needs to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, the creator does not have email; the word was spoken into WhatsApp. Even if they did have an email account, it would have no connection with the website that published it. However, everyone along the way says that there's no copyright. How should we precede? — kwami (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to either contact VRT yourself via email, or ask this question on WP:MCQ, because I don’t see any option other than deleting the file. — Ирука¹³ 07:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 16:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely bizarre

I know this account is blocked for one week by Star Mississippi, but when they return, I feel the need to ask why they're spending such an enormous amount of time nominating images for deletion (especially when many of these seem so flimsy and when they seem to do barely anything else here). Moreover, I feel the need to ask how this is even permissible behavior; it feels like a variant of Brandolini's law, where the amount of time required to refute a nomination is exponentially greater than the time required to make one. That is, it genuinely feels like the amount of deletion nominations being created about unrelated topics ought to be impermissible without prior administrator approval, because it takes up so much editor time to review each of these. I would almost think in light of this behavior that it'd be valid to hold an RfC about expressly limiting the amount of pages a single editor can nominate in a given time period without prior administrative approval – although I've genuinely never seen anyone do something like this before now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur something seems "off". Netherzone (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Im still assessing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 28#File:Backboard shattering.jpeg, where they are involved. —Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in photo licensing and my on wiki time is limited. If the block needs adjusting please feel free to do it or have someone implement. This was meant as a last chance, not a lenient block @Bagumba @Netherzone @TheTechnician27 Star Mississippi 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Please also see File talk:Diab al-Mashi.png ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Brought to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reading this thread, they honestly seem to be behaving – I know it's bad conduct to say this – like a colossal jackass. Even I'm not that bitterly confrontational at my absolute pettiest. That said, "wrapping a rock in a basketball"(TM) and throwing it at a backboard to recreate a backboard smash is priceless and will live rent-free in my head for the rest of time. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Besides that, they're not even familiar with file deletion rationale. They nominated for deletion a file I uploaded with the one-line nom "is CC-BY-ND". I don't know where they got that from, since it's not at the file nor the source, and they seem to refuse to accept that they either read it wrong or made it up. There may be a file problem in that it needs a different tag elsewhere, but this is not something they mention. It's giving if you're gonna be SPA, at least be CIR. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule against being a single-purpose account focused on one specific topic area, especially one like file deletion which is neglected by most of the editorship. There is no rule against being a free-content maximalist, and Iruka13 is not the first person to hold that opinion, and they won't be the last. I'm not even convinced this block was justified (but I won't be using my own admin tools to push the unblock button).

Iruka13 has 3000 deleted edits, mainly in the file namespace, so they clearly are nominating things for deletion that the admin corps agrees should be deleted as well, which is generally thankless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Iruka13 has 3000 deleted edits [...] so they clearly are nominating things for deletion that the admin corps agrees should be deleted – aren't deleted edits, edits that Iruka13 has made and which have been reverted? Isn't that suggesting they've messed up in file namespace 3000 times or have I got that wrong? Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A deleted edit in this context is an edit to a page that has since been deleted. So that means they've made 3000 edits to pages which were later deleted, mostly files, which is (IMO) a good thing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: I think where they are facing resistance are cases where they say animation or a 3D editor should be used as a replacement, or they tell other editors to buy the license to the image and then donate it for free. Are there any guidelines or precedents on these specific topics?—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not my impression. I think Iruka13's position on non-free content is within the Overton window, and they're getting into trouble because they're being very active in that area, very argumentative, and not very good at communicating their point to others (possibly due to lack of English skills). or they tell other editors to buy the license to the image and then donate it for free - This seems like a misinterpretation - the idea of asking photo authors to consider releasing their photos under a free license is supported by policy before resorting to a non-free image is reasonable and supported by policy where it makes sense (i.e. see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) (but money usually isn't involved in that process).

Finally, some closing advice - if you return to editing, it would be wise to accept that your standards for when a non-free image is warranted are much higher than consensus, and thus not push so hard to enforce them over others' objections, and not bludgeon the process with multiple comments when you are disagreed with.

Holding counter-consensus positions isn't a bad thing - I have several myself but I know they're counter-consensus and don't try so hard to push for them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery They're getting into trouble because they're being very active in that area, very argumentative, and not very good at communicating their point to others: I'm not active at FFD. So I'm willing to consider aninmation and 3D editors if that's an established practice, but those specifics were never forthcoming. Regarding "misinterpretation" over donations, their comment was:

And of course, anyone can buy the rights to one of these photos and relicense it as free.

Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that one quoted comment is downright bizarre. Even the most stringent non-free image people I've come across have never expected any such thing.

I'm not particularly active at FfD either - I just noticed a backlog had accumulated so cleared it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to you lifting the block if you think it was incorrect @Pppery. Mine was less for the file disruption and more for wikilawyering around their incivility which has been a cross project issue so I unfortunately think we may be back here again. Star Mississippi 02:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I am still not going to lift the block, although it's not one I would have issued. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iruka13, this edit [1] seems like targeted retaliation. It also does not make any sense whatsoever, and I will be reverting your edit. Why did you add it when the article, Zuni fetishes does indeed include free images, and it also has the fair-use image which I added. The Fair-use photograph provides important visual/aesthetic details that cannot be seen whatsoever in the free images. These small details are culturally important to the Zuni people.

I as the the uploader released my rights to the photograph which I took, and although the object itself might be subject to copyright (although no evidence of copyright can be found), its use for educational/encyclopedic purposes is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: 1. This is a historically significant work containing specific visual and material qualities that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows a major type of work produced by a specific tribal culture. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. The image has no commercial value whatsoever. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Please leave me alone, and stop following me around, it is really disturbing and makes me feel unsafe here. Netherzone (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iruka13, would you please stop stalking me in your "laboratory" as seen in this diff: [2]. It is weird that you are using "invisible text" for part of the text in your "laboratory". You are frightening me as I have said above and making me feel very unsafe here. Why are you targeting me? It's creepy. PLEASE STOP as I have previously asked you to do. Pinging @Star Mississippi for advise. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick note on File:University, Zuru.jpg

What HTML are you talking about? The source there is EXACTLY where I got the image. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not Iruka, but it is generally preferred to have links to pages that contain the image in context rather than the URL of the image file itself (which offers no information as to content or provenance). This is also what the tag applied by Iruka says, so I consider the tag perfectly appropriate. Felix QW (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello not Iruka, does the current source cut it? I’m not very familiar with files. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It does show a blurrier version of the current file, so it is certainly better than nothing. Ideally, you could just link to the post from which the original file has been taken. If that isn't possible, then from my point of view the current link is better already. Felix QW (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Université d'Angers Logo

Hello! I wanted to ask what was your concern about the source for the following file (it includes website name and direct link to file): File:Université d'Angers Logo.jpg. Best regards. MirkoS18 (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Generally preferred to have links to pages that contain the image in context rather than the URL of the image file itself (which offers no information as to content or provenance). — Ирука¹³ 11:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Krug Park

Hello, I noticed that you nominated for deletion a file that I added for Krug Park (amusement park). Well, here’s the thing. If a picture was published in the U.S. before 1978 and lacks a copyright notice, then it should be in the country’s public domain. In the case of the postcard image that I added for the article, the picture was published when the amusement park was relevant. But the place closed in 1940. Also, the postcard has no copyright notice. Mickey in a Dress (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You haven't indicated where you got this image. We should always cite the source of an image. — Ирука¹³ 02:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

army CID DUI

Iruka13, i noticed you wrongly marked the image of the U.S. Army CID DUI for deletion, i properly put the licensing information in the description that specifies the creator of the image as the U.S. Army institute of Heraldry. As such it is in the public domain and can be sourced per both the U.S Army CID official site of https://www.cid.army.mil/The-Agency/Our-Mission/ which shows the DUI on that page and the from the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry official website.Rukia8492 (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please provide a link to the image you are talking about. — Ирука¹³ 04:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I found this image. I have marked this image for deletion due to lack of attribution of where this image was taken from. We should always cite the source of an image. If other files you have uploaded are missing attribution, please provide the source. — Ирука¹³ 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Alexander Pushkin Foggy Bottom, Washington.jpg

Concerning Special:Diff/1265952318, was the Flickr and CC information on Commons? In that case, it's suspicious as Flickr always uses version 2.0 of CC-BY-SA, not 3.0 as you specified on the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Based on the contribution of the user who uploaded the image to Commons, I assumed that the image was under a free license. The image search engine returned this image. I set the most appropriate license. Ideally, of course, the administrator should look at the source/license of the file removed from Commons. — Ирука¹³ 02:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tsehay-Bank-main-logo-2024.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tsehay-Bank-main-logo-2024.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Iruka13!

Happy New Year!

Iruka13,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

A file deletion

Hello. I saw your message on my talk page here — regarding deletion of a non-free usage file. I notice it has been replaced by an image that is in the public domain in this article. So, I don't have a problem with deleting the non-free file as an orphan. And keep up the good work. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Uprising and Heibonsha images

I've added the URLs of the pages I've sourced them from. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

More stalking

Can I add myself to this, @Star Mississippi & * Pppery * - because this named user - @Iruka13 - has similarly been stalking me around this site.

As an example, one of my photos was tagged by them for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file.

Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons.

The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead, @Iruka13 has chosen to deliberately stalk me around this site over many months.

I wondered if it was just me - but now I see from this talk page that, among other people, @Netherzone has experienced the same behaviour.

There's no way it'll only be the two of us. We each make edits in different fields and have no connection apart from what's on the page. There are users such as @Kingsif expressing concern too. Plus @TheTechnician27. That's all on this *one* talk page that only goes back six weeks. How can one person cause so much drama?

I don't understand how this is allowed to continue, given the user has already - apparently - been banned from Creative Commons.

Ultimately, I just want this person to leave me alone. It's unsettling to receive constant harassment from this person - and it clearly isn't only me. Peterspeterson (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this editor @Peterspeterson, but as I mentioned to @Netherzone, my on wiki time is limited. I do think you or NZ have a valid case to bring to ANI. You're free to mention my block. I have not revisited it as at least one admin saw it differently, but I do believe their conduct is not becoming of a collaborative editing environment. Courtesy cc @Pppery Star Mississippi 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Go to ANI if you wish, and we'll see what the regulars there think - my position on blocks, especially of long-term editors, is notably out of touch with the community so I don't think anything I can say will be useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have done this. I just want this user to leave me alone - and I'm not the only one. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have pretty much stopped editing since the stalking began, I'm deeply freaked out about this. The last time someone wiki-stalked me online and it was brought to ANI, the disgruntled editor and their partner then started stalking me in real life, found out where I lived and worked. I would rather not participate in WP at all if the personal safety of volunteers is not respected nor valued. It seems wiser to simply find a new hobby than be pushed around and followed around by an editor with a known history for this type of conduct. Netherzone (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm completely with you here. What Iruka13 is doing is absolutely abnormal, obviously unhealthy, and total jackassery, creating a truckload of work for experienced editors to counter their spurious, birdshot approach to copyright noms. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

" There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)"

Discussion on the Admin Notice Board is here - cc: @Netherzone - @Kingsif - @TheTechnician27

Feel free to add your experiences. It won't only be us. I'm so sick of it. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Mitigating inserted comments

Regarding User talk:Stefan2#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 18, using the syntax < br /> in posts to create paragraphs can sometimes lead others to mistakenly assume that it's OK to insert a response in the paragraph break because this is how things work on many online forums which have A "quote" feature; the other person sees a gap so that's where they respond. Using {{pb}} can sometimes reduce the chance of this happening because there are no visual breaks in the source version of the post. I can't say it would've made a difference in this case, but it might be something worth considering in the future. Anyway, this is just a suggestion. If this happens to one of your posts again, you can use {{Interrupted}} to help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

License tagging for File:BD1 Gallery logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:BD1 Gallery logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)