User talk:Taivo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Brass plaque on concrete communications.jpg

File:Fiji Students Association of Wellington 1960.jpg[edit]

I happen to notice you kept the file after a deletion discussion when it's clearly copyrighted. So I was wondering what the process to have it deleted as copyvio is. Can I just re-nominate it or is there a process similar to Commons:Undeletion requests that I would have to go through? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: Its copyright in source country New Zealand has clearly expired, see license. Why do you think, that the photo is copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has it? According to where the image was obtained from the copyright status is unknown. Although, we know who the publisher was, Crown Studios. If you look at this website the studios owners died in 1977 and 2001. I'm not sure which one of them took the photograph, but they were both photographers and ran the studio. So no one else took it. Copyright in New Zealand is life + 50 years. So it would be PD in either 2027 or 2051 depending on who we want to give the credit to. Or conversely, for works with joint authorship it goes to 50 years after the death of the last of the authors whose identity is known, which would be 2051. Personally, I don't care either way.
Other then that, it should go without saying that the reasons Stemoc gave for why the image should be kept are patently false on their face. The website saying it has an unknown copyright is in no way a clear indication that the image isn't copyrighted. Same goes for his assertion that it must be OK for Commons to host the file because admins have uploaded similar images. Like Joofjoof said images by Crown Studios that were taken before 1918 are probably OK to host because the studio had a different owner. Francis and Frank Thompson would have definitely held the copyrights to any images taken after 1936 though, which was when Francis bought the studio. The only other option is going with some weird rational like that photographs taken in studios can't be copyrighted or something. Which would just be nonsensical. Obviously the copyrights would be held by the owners of the studio. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Seems like you claim, that either license point B (Crown copyright) or point D (known author) applies. That's not what I mean. License point A applies. Point A says: "For photographs /---/ published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown". You see, here are both words "anonymous" and "creator is unknown". That means: photo does not need to be anonymous, unknown authorship is enough. That's exactly what we have. The photo is not totally anonymous, but we do not know the photographer's name either. Point A says also: "photo taken or work published prior to 1 January 1972 (50 years ago)". That means: publication data is not needed, creation year is enough. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I don't disagree with that to some degree. Here's the thing though. From what I can tell there's three possible options, 1. Francis Thompson owned the copyright 2. Frank Thompson owned it 3. Or photographs taken by studios aren't copyrighted. I'm sure you'd agree option 3 doesn't make sense. So that leaves either option 1 or option 2. Between those Francis Thompson was most likely the photographer/copyright holder because he owned the studio and had a degree in photography. Although Frank was also a trained photographer. So he could have took it. It's a pretty simple case of occam's razor from there though since it was a family owned and ran business, and both of them were trained photographers. There's almost zero chance they hired some rando off the street to take the photograph. Am I 100% sure of that? No, but Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is clear that all we need is reasonable doubt. Realistically we don't need to have an exhaustive list of every single rando that might have stood behind the camera once or cleaned the studios toilets to reasonably assume the image is probably copyrighted do we?
One more point, I don't think point A of the Crown Copyright works here because we know the name of the studio, who owned it, and who worked there at the time the photograph was taken. If someone took this court I don't think you could argue that the author is unknown just because we don't know which of the two family members was ultimately behind the camera at the time. That's just not how copyright works with things that are created as part of a business venture. Like movies aren't public domain just because we don't know who every single employee of the film company is or every single person who was involved in producing a film. You can't just be like "ah well, we don't know who the 5th guy down in the advertising department of the Star Wars film is. So clearly it's an anonymous work and therefore in the public domain" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: You say: "From what I can tell there's three possible options". That's untrue. The fourth and fifth option exist as well. The fourth: copyright belonged to company and it expired. The fifth option: copyright belonged to an unknown human and it expired. I am not totally sure, which of them is correct, but anyway the copyright is expired. And I did not say, that the photo is anonymous. It's not. It's work with unknown author. New Zealand law makes here difference. Copyright of photos (not films!) with unknown author from New Zealand expires 50 years from creation. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see how you can say you don't don't know which option is true and then also say the copyright is expired. The copyright status is completely separate from your lack of knowledge about who ultimately took the picture. What's the legal standard? Ignorantia juris non excusat? No insult, but I feel like your intentionally being obtuse about this. If you look here there are a bunch of photographs by Crown Studios that say "Crown Studios" on them. Are you really going to argue the author is not Crown Studio or that Crown Studio isn't the copyright holder in those cases? If your answer is yes, then what's the point in a photography studio as a business then? If it isn't the creator and it doesn't own the copyrights then what's it's point as a company? As far I know businesses own the copyright for any original material they have created. There isn't a special exception for photography studios or photographs. Unless the business explicitly hires an outside party to take them. Like if Walmart has one of their employees take a photograph of their store for a promotional pamphlet Walmart owns the copyright. Not the employee even though they took the picture. Which is why postcards are often copyrighted by the publisher, not the photographers who work for them. I assume in this case that the photograph says Crown Studios somewhere on it or we'd have no way of knowing they published it. So there's zero reason Crown Studio wouldn't have been the copyright holder as the named creator of the work. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: I must apologize. I was not enough clear. For example I said "It's work of unknown author" – correct should be "work of unknown photographer". We had five options. Three first (given by you) were wrong. Two last (given by me) – one of them is correct. You ask, who is author of the photo. The photo studio Crown Studio is author of the photo. (And also the unknown photographer!) You ask, who has copyright. If photo studio Crown Studio had the copyright, then it expired in 2011 (50+1 years from creation). If photographer had copyright, then it expired in 2011 (50+1 years from creation, not from death, because photographer is not known). Since 2011 the photo is not copyrighted anymore, it is in public domain due to age. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Thanks for the clarification. I think what you were saying makes sense more now. I agree that if Crown Studio owned the copyright then it is probably in the public domain now. Although I think the whole thing is to muddied for us to know that's the case or not. Which is why I think the precautionary principle should ultimately "win" out, because at the end of the day both of us are just speculating and the source of the file says the copyright status is unknown, Bullet point number 4 of the Project scope/Precautionary principle says arguments like "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" are against Commons' aims. At the end of the day everyone, including the source of the file, agrees that they don't know who the copyright owner is. So it seems pretty cut and dry to me that we should default to following the precautionary principle by deleting the image. It literally says that not knowing who owns the copyright isn't a valid keep argument. So I don't really get what your disagreement here is about. You agree the we don't know who owns the copyright and the precautionary principle pretty explicitly says that's not a valid reason for Commons to host a file. So what's your issue?
@Adamant1: Copyright was owned either by photostudio or by unknown photographer. Either way the copyright is expired. Precautionary principle applies, if there exists possibility, that the file is copyrighted. Here is no such possibility. Let's imagine, that we find a 200 years old painting. We do not know, who is painter, we even cannot be sure, that it is anonymous, we do not know creation year and first publication data – do we delete the painting due to precautionary principle? If we are sure, that the painting is two hundred years old and not 20th century imitation, then precautionary principle does not apply, because there is no way, how it can be copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Let's imagine, that we find a 200 years old painting." In that case there's zero chance that the artist hasn't been dead for 50+ years if someone ever finds out who it is. So it's not really a relevant example. In this case there's almost zero chance that life + 50 years has passed if someone ever finds out who took the photograph because it was created in 1960. Otherwise your setting a plausible deniability standard where any image created before 1972 can be hosted on Commons as long as no one bothers to look into who created it. Which I image is one of the reasons the precautionary principle goes out of it's way to say that not knowing who owns the copyright isn't a valid reason to keep a file, because it could easily lead to intentional apathy when it comes to finding out who created a modern work. Obviously it doesn't apply to 15th century fresco paintings or whatever. I didn't claim anywhere that it does or should apply to them, but IMO it's pretty reasonable to apply the precautionary principle to a photograph taken in 1972 if we aren't sure who created it. If you want to know my line, I'd say it's probably for works created before WW2 since probably most people who were middle age during that time have died off. Obviously most people who were of working age in 1972 are either still alive or at least not died for 50+ years. There's zero chance Michelangelo is going to claim copyright on The Creation of Adam though, but a family member of someone who died in 1980 claiming copyright on a work they created in 1970? That's pretty likely. I'm sure you'd agree. So what's the difference between that and 1960 then? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, according to this file, which I assume is correct because it comes directly from Commons, "a work created in the context of employment is owned by the employer." I think you'd have a hard time arguing that whoever took the photograph wasn't doing so as part of employment at Crown Studios. So like I've been saying the copyright holder would be the employers. You really have no ground to argue that isn't the case unless your going to say that what comes from Creative Commons can't be taken as correct information. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noticed you blocked John_emil_hernandez for 1 week on vandalism. I think a new block is needed based on their recent contributions. They have uploaded new versions of every flag without even notifying anyone on Wikipedia with the relevant WPs. It's amazing this type of editing can slip through the cracks as I didn't notice it until seeing it on WP Florida. The Grid (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for providing the month block. The Grid (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. Do you have any objections to the bot's unblock? It seems that the bot was confused by one particular request from Lystopad which you have processed. Otherwise COM:RFR is growing without automatic archiving... In case it continues malfunctioning, we can reblock it again rubin16 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have unblocked as for now as you seem to be inactive for the moment. I will watch the bot and re-block it if it continues malfunctioning rubin16 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request (Western Slavonia)[edit]

No problem, here are similar maps;

What should be the name of the map? Liberation of Western Croatia? --Čeha (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ceha: I think, that "liberation" and "occupation" are not neutral words. It is not clear for me, were the territories liberated or occupied, and I suggest to use filenames without these words. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not, but are appropriate. If another country invades, the part which it controls is called occupied. After that control is broken, the territory is called liberated. That should be ok.
Also the word occupation means "taking up space", for example a glass occupies part of the surface of a table.
Under strict military significance, words like control, are more appropriate, but... It can only be done if the two parties are of equal rank.
For example under control of Croatian government vs under control of self proclaimed "RSK" also has other meanings...
I don't know what should be the name of the Liberation of Croatia map. Croatian Homeland War, perhaps?
Althought part of it (for example military operation Ljeto 95) where fought in neighbouring countries...

--Čeha (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want me rename the files? Civil war of Yugoslavia – is it acceptable? First file – this is before civil war, isn't it? And then three phases, from I to III?
In addition, all the files have watermark "WeaselWorks" and they are your own work. This can create problems. Some users create template for own works and you can do that as well, the template must show, that WeaselWorks – this is you. Of course, you can simply write on your userpage user:Ceha, that you mark your maps as WeaselWorks and every map of WeaselWorks is your creation. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore category[edit]

Hi! Please restore Category:Judaism in Melnytsia-Podilska - not empty. --Микола Василечко (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Raul reynoso.jpg[edit]

See fail on märgitud autoriõiguse rikkumiseks, seega palun kiirkorras kustutada. OskarRand1 (arutelu) 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ma ei taha seda praegu teha. Fail on esitatud korraliseks kustutamiseks, see arutelu kestab nädala ja siis saab kustutada. Taivo (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn’t responded to my protect request[edit]

Hi, you almost responded to everyone’s request on [1] with the except of my request for protecting Saudi Arabian flag Aziz bm (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. Yes, this is difficult problem and at moment I do not want to take position in it. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding an image I uploaded[edit]

Hi, I’m sending this message in regards to an image I uploaded a couple of months ago (file:Zahran Tribes Genetic Tree مشجر جينية لأغلبية قبائل زهران.jpg). The owner hasn’t granted me the right to upload this image, claiming that it’s faulty and incorrect. Many of the peoples represented in the family tree dna claim that this is a false and wrong representation of them. Are there any steps you or I could take in order to delete this image? Regards. BI5427 (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speak that in Arabian Wikipedia, which uses the file. Taivo (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, one of the Arabian Wiki admins redirected me here, claiming that all right of deletion are supposed to be through Wikimedia. Furthermore, the admin who used the photo has been accused multiple times for bias racist-based edits against the people represented in the photo. BI5427 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file can be deleted only in Commons, not in Arabian Wikipedia, but it is not deleted in Commons, if it is used in Arabian Wikipedia. You can read COM:INUSE for more detail. Taivo (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Õiguste küsimus[edit]

Siin on valik faile, mille puhul tekib küsimus, kas isikul oli õigus neid lisada. Uurid talt äkki selle kohta lähemalt? Kruusamägi (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Kustutasin kõik. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help required[edit]

Hi, I have found a list of copyright violation of images from editors Malanchastar (talk · contributions · Statistics) and DoraShin15 (talk · contributions · Statistics). I have already tagged them with original sources. Please help to remove them. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Car images uploaded by EurovisionNim[edit]

Please restore some car images uploaded by EurovisionNim because the user is active again on Wikimedia Commons.

Alex Neman (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. @Alex Neman: This is not a reason to restore the images. Taivo (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tom Brown Actor.jpg[edit]

Hello Taivo, please check this file, as it came from an UK magazine, its public domain status may be unreliable. 14:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with current PD-UK-unknown license. If you do not, then you can nominate it for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sellenimeline kasutaja on lisanud mitmelt eri fotograafilt pilte. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Kustutasin kõik. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gates of Dahomey.jpg[edit]

Hi Taivo, Can you please review this image for me to ensure it conforms to legal standards?Kwesi Yema (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. @Kwesi Yema: Sorry, I was on summer vacation. Taivo (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading original and derived images from Instagram[edit]

Please remove these copyright violation images

Thanks Run n Fly (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Küsimusi tekitavad pildid[edit]

Nähtavasti isiku palvel lisatud fotod, kuid õigustesse puutuv on kajastamata: File:Aveliina Helm 2022.jpg + File:UT191201AT0565.jpg Kruusamägi (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Esitasin mõlemad kustutamiseks. Taivo (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please delete or rev-del all of User:Favonia1's uploads?[edit]

All their image replacements have been reverted, but on some devices, where the cache doesn't refresh too often, their troll images still appear as the current version. Can you please delete them from their file history? People who see, for example, a Jurassic Park Velociraptor on Wikipedia with the caption "V. mongoliensis showing large wing feathers" can potentially be misinformed. Their uploads are also all copyrighted. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like User: FunkMonk did it. DMacks (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ta lisatud materjali autorsuse osas on igati põhjendatud kahtlused. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Esitasin korraliseks kustutamiseks. Taivo (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eesti poliitikute fotod[edit]

Kasutaja Efloean on lisanud hulga fotosid Eesti poliitikutest. Samas võib siis esineda arvukalt probleeme. Nt siin on märgitud fotograafiks "Unknown photographer", aga MuISist lähemalt uurides on võimalik leida, et fotograafi nimi on teada (Henn Soodla). Samas ei ole MuISis välja toodud foto AÕ seisu, ehk vähemalt mulle jääb segaseks, et millest lähtuvalt on foto lisatud Commonsisse CC0 1.0 all. Üldse on MuIS vägagi mitteusaldatav AÕ alase teabe osas ja see on teada fakt. Ehk kui kuskil on midagi märgitud vabaks, siis asjad ei pruugi tegelikult nii olla. Nt siin on küll MuISis märge, et kujutis kuulub avalikku omandisse, aga on vägagi küsitav, kas 1994. aastal tehtud foto puhul võib tõesti arvata, et kõik õigused kuuluvad muuseumile ja kujutis on lubatud avalikku omandisse (autorsuse kohta pole kah midagi kirjas + sel ajal AÕ temaatikale üldiselt nii palju tähelepanu ei pööratud, et saaks rääkida erilisest õiguste üleminekust). Kogu see materjal oleks vaja üle vaadata ja võimalik, et arvestatav osa sellest kustutamiseks esitada. Kui see materjal hakkab aga massiliselt artiklitesse jõudma, siis võib see tekitada märkimisväärselt probleeme. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Kruusamägi og Taivo. I don't read Estonian myself, so I had to rely on a machine translation and reply in English. I hope that's fine. I used both and its source to find licence information. A museum might have been granted the rights from the photographer, even of more recent photos, but if the information is unreliable, I may have been mistaken. I'll await your assessment. Erik F (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MuIS is unfortunately too unreliable to soley use this information. Some of the images there might indeed be free to use, but we should not expect it to be so when there is no copyright information mentioned... and even in the case where there is, then we should be careful. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pls block me[edit]

this account has caused enough damage. needs to be blocked now BlueWhale27 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Taivo,

Hope you are well. I would like to apply for rollback rights. Regularly I have to revert multiple successive contributions, sometimes vandalism, example this morning, and it takes more time to click "undo" several times than only once with the rollback button. Since this tool seems granted at administrator discretion, in my case it may be the right procedure to follow. Long-time and trustful user, I request the right for the first time, and certify I will use it purposely. If any question, feel free to ask. Thank you. Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Taivo,
Hello again. I'm requesting rollback rights, and found your name from this list of administrators (sorted by recent activity). I wish you don't mind this request. Otherwise I can ask a bureaucrat or another sysop. According to the procedure, "Assigning the right can be done by any administrator, using Special:UserRights. Type in the username (e.g. Username) to be taken to a Special:UserRights/Username page. Then check "rollbacker" and click "save user groups". Please put a link to the request or similar in the reason box."
Here's my page. Looking forward to hear from you. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done @Basile Morin: I just made you rollbacker. Happy editing! Taivo (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-smile.svg Yes! Thank you very much, Taivo. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert of G6 on creator pages[edit]

Hi. I'm aware the the creator template for Ahmed Sudi and the other ones you reverted are being used. 2 things though. 1. G6 says nothing about if it applies to things that are currently being used or not. Nor from what I remember does Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion in general have a blanket rule in that regard either. So I don't really see what the issue there would be unless I'm missing something 2. To quote from Commons:Creator "Who should not have creator page: People who are not, and are unlikely to ever be, creators of works hosted on Commons, for example people like Genghis Khan or various saints. Creator pages are templates meant to be transcluded in many files." So I'm sure you'd agree that a creator with a single work/file doesn't need to have a creator template. Sure, I guess I could have manually removed the templets from the files, but that shouldn't be my responsibility when the template being used or not has nothing to do the criteria for speedy deletion. Let should it be my responsibility when the creator templates clearly should not have been created in the first place. So I'm really at a lose as to what the issue is here. Is there an actual reason you couldn't have just deleted the templates like I requested or is this whole thing just based on your personal preferences?

As a side to that I don't think a disagreement about it justifies you protecting the templates. I discussed the templates being deleted with the people who originally reverted me before I added the speedy deletion tags back to them and one of the people who originally reverted me was fine with templates being deleted. I'm not edit warring anyone over it and there was nothing otherwise disruptive. It's ridiculous to accuse me of unproductive edit warring when I discussed the edits before I made them and never reverted anyone. Let alone did I revert anyone 3 times. Discussing something and then making an edit that no one has an issue with isn't edit waring or otherwise disruptive. So there was no reason the templates needed be protected. I'd appreciate it if you unprotected them so they can be deleted once this this worked out on your end since it seems to be 100% your own personal problem. Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These 5 persons are totally unknown to me. I do not know, are they authors of only 1 work or more. I did not know previous discussions – how could I know them? The only what I saw was re-nomination of used files for speedy deletion without no apparent reason. That's why I protected them.
When deleting something, Commons software gives a list of reasons and I must choose one of them. "Unused template" is one of the listed reasons, "used only once" is not. "Galleries with less than 2 images" is listed reason, no such condition for templates is given. This makes me think: creator templates with only one use are sometimes legitimate. "Uncontroversial maintenance" is incorrect, because you saw yourself: controversy has risen.
You said: "you'd agree that a creator with a single work/file doesn't need to have a creator template". I hesitate. Please look file:Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie Vol. 5.djvu. If one of the author templates is deleted, then the authors list will become ugly, current template makes it more beautiful.
I agree to delete such creator templates after regular deletion request, but not after speedy deletion request. Taivo (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know, are they authors of only 1 work or more. I looked into it and a few of them only authored a single work. In the case of the exceptions, one of them died in the 60s and their books aren't going to be PD for a while. So there's no reason to have a creator template for them. In the other cases, only one of their works were on Commons. At the end of the day it's irrelevant how many works someone created if they aren't or can't be hosted on Commons. It's not like creator templates are super hard to re-create anyway though. Why can't people just re-create the templates when they will actually be useful?
"Uncontroversial maintenance" is incorrect, because you saw yourself: controversy has risen. I don't think this is or was a controversy anymore then it involved "disruptive edit warring" like you claimed it did. Commons:Creator makes it clear that people who should not have creator pages includes people who "are unlikely to ever be, creators of works hosted on Commons" and that "Creator pages are templates meant to be transcluded in many files". So if there is or was any controversy surrounding this it purely comes from your disagreement with what the guidelines say creator templates are supposed to be used for. That has nothing to do with me nominating the templates for speedy deletion though.
If one of the author templates is deleted, then the authors list will become ugly Are we here to make things look pretty or make it easier for people to find the information they are looking for? If we are here to make things look pretty then I could argue having Category:Creator templates full of entries for one file Andy's is extremely ugly. Same goes for them cluttering up Category:Creator template maintenance. It makes it much harder and more time consuming to do maintenance on templates when every other one is for someone that doesn't have any files related to them on Commons. The purpose of creator templates isn't to make an exhaustive list of every possible creator regardless of if they currently or will ever have their works hosted on Commons.
I agree to delete such creator templates after regular deletion request Sorry, but I'm not going to do a deletion request to have something deleted that Commons:Creator makes clear shouldn't have been created in the first place. Requiring me to would be a ridiculous standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first principles of heredity- with 75 illustrations and diagrams revert[edit]

This whole thing is getting extremely ridiculous. Is there just no instance where think it would be OK to delete a creator template? Like if someone created templates for the 7 dwarves and added them to a bunch of files would you revert me and bitch that I was removing information if I nominated them for deletion? Like I've said, the purpose of creator is to be transcluded in many files and they aren't suppose to be created for people who only have a single work. Plus like I said having a template for every random author makes it hard to do maintenance on templates. If people want to find out the birthday of some random single book author they can use Wikidata or Google. I'm sick of my edits being reverted just because you don't feel like following the guidelines though. Please stop reverting me over this ridiculously dumb crap and do an RfC about it if you think the purpose of creator templates should be changed. Or hell, at least start a discussion about it on Commons:Creator. I'm not going to stop requesting the deletion of creator templates for single work creators in the meantime though. Especially if your not willing to compromise or put in any footwork on your side to get your personal view of what their purpose is added to Commons:Creator. Adamant1 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sock puppet of Cheng123xx[edit]

@NgaiHing1612 is a sock puppet of @Cheng123xx, please block @NgaiHing1612 , thank you 01:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. I am not sure. Please request that in COM:AN/B. Maybe there are other administrators, who are more familiar with the user. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find IP says that he doesn’t know who Cheng123xx is, please remove him in COM:AN/B, thanks Hmtvie (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lock evasion , Sock puppet of AXXXXK[edit]

@Cheng123xx is a sock puppet of @AXXXXK, they always upload the images from Ngai Hing Mansion, request global lock in whole building of Pak Po Street Ngai Hing Mansion Hmtvie (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Cheng123xx is already indefinitely blocked. Commons does not give global blocks (go to meta for that) and blocking whole building is technically impossible. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]