Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Castillo blanco!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Deletion nominations.Edit

"Out of scope" without more is an insufficient reason for a deletion nomination. You have to explain why it's out of scope. if I see any more such nominations, they will be closed as defective in process. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: What should I do to make the reason more sufficient? Do I need to include a link to Commons:Project scope? I have been browsing through deletion nominations by other users and I found a lot of nominations of this type. While working on the categorization, I have started many of these nominations and most files were deletion without further questioning. You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mill race at Newmill - - 585777.jpg, about a random piece of landscape with half a house visible and no categorization. I think this file is useless for a Wikipedia article, at least if it's not given what the photo is supposed to illustrate. I am prepared to learn, but at this point I do not understand what I should have done differently in this nomination. Calling some of the people who have deleted files after my nominations: @Daphne Lantier: @Jcb: @Sealle: @Well-Informed Optimist: @Moheen Reeyad: Can you help me understand what I did wrong in my nominations? Castillo blanco (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
See examples of "not realistically useful for an educational purpose" in COM:SCOPE. That image could be regarded as a landscape including the building, and the fact that it's uncategorised is neither here nor there. A minute's research could easily provide at least a location categorisation since it's a Geograph image and therefore has geocoords. We are also not here to provide images only for Wikipedia, but for the world. Unless you explain why you think the image is not in scope, it's extremely unlikely that such nominations should, or will, succeed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
That image has an exact coordinate; it is easy to categorize by location. Lack of categorization is not a reason for deletion -- only if it's not even possible for others to figure out what it's a picture of. This is a collaborative project; other users can add categories. It is a picture of a landscape -- and used as an educational photo on Geograph, meaning it's possible to be used as an educational photo here. I don't think you have a good understanding of COM:SCOPE, from a spot check of several nominations at least. A few are reasonable, but several are not (and I reverted an inappropriate speedy tag as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Castillo blanco: Your nominations are fine in general. Most administrators will judge the files themselves if they see an 'out of scope' nomination. Only a small selection of admins need you to spell out a detailed explanation. Also the result of an 'out of scope' nomination may differ from admin to admin, because this is often not an urgent reason for deletion and it's difficult to draw a hard line between what's in scope and what's not. I will see if I can categorize this file to get it off your desk. Lack of categories is not on itself a reason for deletion (we have a huge number of files without categories), but it may influence the outcome of an 'out of scope' nomination. @Rodhullandemu: Why did you speedy close this DR? I see no valid reason for speedy closure. The nomination is not that odd. The file is rather useless if you ask me. I think you should undo your closure and grant the DR its normal time. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, in several years here I've seen some useless images. But that's my opinion, and as an admin judging a deletion nomination I'm not a mind-reader and have no clue as to why a nominator thinks an image is of no educational use unless a reason is provided- not necessarily a detailed explanation, just a hint beyond a reason too broad to be considered serious. As a lawyer I've also seen many instances of defective process, and things without rationale I generally consider to be defective. Under mild protest, I will reverse my closure but would like to see an expansion of merely "out of scope". Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
That was OK to speedy close I think. If a file is useful for Geograph, it's useful for here. For example, if someone was making a geograph-like site, they could use this image, meaning it's useful in an educational context. May not be useful in a lot of contexts, but that is not the SCOPE criteria. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I came here through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miles', J.D., home - NARA - 280176.jpg. What were you thinking? Multichill (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: Is it really necessary to approach this relatively new user in such an offensive way? The messages of today seem to be the first they ever received from fellow users. So maybe it's worth trying to approach them in a more mellow way? They seem to have good intentions, so maybe it's better to first try to get them more familiar with our labyrinth of established practices than to piss them off as a first step? Jcb (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
That is a fair point, but on the other hand, for first-time uploaders to have their work dismissively sent to a deletion request and only a rationale of "out of scope" (without any explanation why, putting the onus on the other person to figure out what the reason might be), can be considered even more rude, unfortunately. This user does seem to be wanting to do the right thing, but deletion requests (and especially speedy deletion tags) are not the best places to be making mistakes. Something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Penal Codes in Xuanyun Region- Public Notices WDL4704.jpg should never be made, if you watch deletion requests for a while and get a better feel for what actually gets deleted. There are differences between admins, of course -- some want to curate "bad" images -- but a few of these were pretty far out of bounds. There are plenty of outright copyright violations which are uploaded (i.e. copies from the web marked as "own work" when it's obviously not, that sort of thing); policing those would be far more helpful then trying to determine the exact borderlines of COM:SCOPE. If in doubt for those, just leave them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I will do my best to read a number of deletion nominations and learn from them. Do you have a few examples of nominations I should read? Castillo blanco (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello Castillo blanco, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Castillo blanco/common.jsEdit

Hi Castillo blanco, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Castillo blanco/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 5 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 1 character 2: Expected a string and instead saw {. - Evidence: {{Speedy|Outdated}}
  2. ISSUE: line 1 character 3: Expected ':' and instead saw 'Speedy'. - Evidence: {{Speedy|Outdated}}
  3. ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected a JSON value. - Evidence: {{Speedy|Outdated}}
  4. ISSUE: line 1 character 9: Expected '}' and instead saw '|'. - Evidence: {{Speedy|Outdated}}
  5. ISSUE: line 1 character 10: Expected '(end)' and instead saw 'Outdated'. - Evidence: {{Speedy|Outdated}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 05:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

Deletion request - you failed to motivateEdit

I fail to understand what the reason is for deletion request. (File:Gunilla Carlsson.Dirk Niebel 1c399 0350.jpg) I also fail to find the deletion request, so I can discuss the DR. Please provide a link to the DR.

Please explain, in detail, what the reason is for the DR. Also explain what is different with the permission in this picture, from a very recent picture


Should the recent picture also be deleted? If not, why not? Both pictures where uploaded the same way, by commonist.

You write "English is not my native language". What is your language, maybe I can communicate in your language? --Janwikifoto (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that photos from an external website should have an OTRS tag. This photo has a web address in the metadata. My native language is Spanish. If your Spanish is better than your English, don't hesitate to contact me in Spanish. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No hay ningun traduccion official del LICENSIA. Pero los conditiones legales son

y no hay ningun texto OTRS.

The OTRS - as I understand it - is a way to assure Wikipedia that the uploader has permission. For example if you upload my pictures, with my permission. Then Wikipeida may want to see the permission, and that would be OTRS. Los Wikipedia gente han complicado los textes, mucho. Pero NO EXISTE ningud "licensia exclusiva wikipedia" - y ahore tienes el texto legal, que you ha leido antes de upload. El contractto (texto licensia) as validao. OTRS es alo otro, extra. --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Janwikifoto: I don't think Castillo will be able to understand the more-or-less-Spanish-alike gibberish you uttered. Apart from that, the text of the license is irrelevant for this case. Please contact OTRS instead of filling several user talk pages with bullshit. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles projectEdit

Hello Castillo blanco, you've marked several images from the Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project as categorized, although they are just categorized in the county categories. I'm working at the Category:Northumberland at the moment, and so I saw this image, which you've tagged as checked: File:Goat Fence and gate at Carter Fell - - 848216.jpg, for example. The county categories are just main categories, the files in all these categories have to be categorized more differentiated. Please finde the location of every file, before you tag them as categorized. Thank you! --Tine (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Does Charity Empower ?.webmEdit

concerning the Deletion nominations

I have changed the copyright of the original video on youtube channel The Vrinda Project from Youtube standard licence to Creative commons see On The Vrinda Project Channel ⇒ Does Charity Empower ?
I have also written to

Is there anything more I need to do?

Ok, I have removed the tag. Please add proper categorization to the file. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Your warning about File:Haredim vs indipendence day2.jpgEdit

I saw your warning about this photo. I made big efforts to repair and to edit the information about this photo. I will be glad if you can see my edit and respond me if it's sufficient. Sincerely yours, אביתרג (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You made a photo of a poster. That poster is created by somebody, who has copyright on that poster. If you want to release a photo of that poster into GFDL/CC, then you need permission from the author of the poster. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


You have made a lot of good work and I made you autopatroller. Thank you! Taivo (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Castillo blanco (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

permission missing tagEdit

Hi Castillo blanco, I went over some of your recent edits. Thanks for your work! But sometimes, you get ahead of yourself with the permission missing tag. Please watch out a bit more carefully if there really is no permission granted. Chaddy (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree on all three files. I have now started normal deletion nominations for these files. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
All these three files are below the threshold of originality and therefore not capable of being protected. Chaddy (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for notifying me. The File:إيقونة بوابة مختارة.png is a modified version of the original image, and I just changed the color to gold. Please note that this image is used in a big amount of pages in arwiki. If there is any other information needed; please don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks.--ASammour (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Castillo blanco (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

deletion request imagesEdit

Hi. I am actually to busy to put whatever the hell you need for these 4 images you want deleted. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] but as is true, its states I took the photos. Even with permission of the artist who was my friend at the time. If you really want to delete stuff go right ahead. But this is a waste of time and good resources.

All the files need permission from Goodiepal. This permission has to be registered by OTRS. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Coa fam ITA de atti.jpgEdit

Please, see [5]. At end of the history you can do what you want. I'm no more interested. But keep in mind that the images like this are about 10.000 (all my production). Bye --Massimop (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Massimop: Did you draw the lions and the tree yourself? Castillo blanco (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
In [6] I declared I draw using software LEDA (Les Escus des Armes). This software includes a lot of images, as lion, tree, star and so on. --Massimop (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. That's a pity. Using a software is one thing, but using the library of that software causes a problem here. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Čeláre.pngEdit

Hola. I don ´t know how to contact you, that´s why I write here. My email is After reading please erase this comment: I made corrections for author and source of one of my uploaded pictures, but after saving there are errors, missing information about author and source. I am author and also source. Please help me how to correct this. Picture:Čeláre.png Thank You in advance. Zsolt Zólyomi --CkPapa (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Jmabel has solved this one for you. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion taggingEdit

Please don't tag images without any obvious copyright issues as "no source". If File:Coat of arms zolotonosha 2.png had been deleted for example, that would damage the project.

You can help by adding a source, or ask the uploader on their talk page to do so. If you question the accuracy of an image, please use {{factual accuracy}}. If you think it's fake or fabricated, nominate the image for deletion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:ADH 0016 A. Damhoeri - Bunga Talang Mamak.pdf had pending OTRS. No reason to tag such files for deletion either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
And File:Corvo.png had a clear source. Be less trigger happy, please. Tm (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
As had File:Cotes-Inde du Sud.png. Tm (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: The taggings were in principle correct for both maps. In contrary of what Tm states, these two maps are not sourced at all. However, for such old uploads, we prefer a regular DR instead of a 'no source since' tag. Jcb (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco, Jcb: I do not agree with the tagging of Corvo.png and Cotes-Inde du Sud.png. Corvo.png says Ritad av sv:Användare:Chrizz. I think it is possible the user did draw the map by himself. Cotes-Inde du Sud.png says Complété par Shiva-Nataraja à partir d'un fond de carte conçu par 2005, Gérald Anfossi. Gérald Anfossi is the original uploader User:Nataraja from frwiki. They are not no source at all. I do not think they need a Deletion Request either.--Roy17 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, a user drawing Cotes-Inde du Sud.png themself from scratch is so unlikely that we can safely disregard this option, at least per COM:PCP. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: Do you not read??? à partir d'un fond de carte conçu par One thing I'm sure is you definitely dont know what's written on the now defunct website: Un Point C'est Tout est une association qui veut mettre à disposition du public des cartes du monde, libres de droit de reproduction, des cartes où tout le monde peut écrire, dessiner et raconter son histoire, sa vision du territoire... (underscored by me).--Roy17 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to come to an agreement first and to contact me then? Castillo blanco (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We agree about the files I mentioned. There is some disagreement about the files Tm mentioned. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Castillo blanco".