User talk:Iruka13

Archives

2019, 2020, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 50 days are automatically archived 5 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Please do not place messages on files that have been on Wikipedia since 2007, without providing any clue as to how to comply with your demand.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some freely licensed files as PROD. I already retagged as {{Mtc}}, pending automatic transfer. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at File:ALANG at Tree Burn 3.jpg. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! –DMartin (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to File:Good Grief.png, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Tagging files as no license instead of just adding a license creates more work for everyone. Please stop. –DMartin (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding } to user talk pages.

Volten001 ☎ 03:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The file is COM:TOO UK, please read that page. I have reverted your edit. Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tagging three non-free files I uploaded before as PROD, why not WP:FIXIT these non-free use rationales yourself? P.S. I already fixed some of the rationale myself. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13: Seconded. Please see File talk:Genshin Impact Melusines.png for an example of what I mean. Gommeh 📖   🎮 13:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed PROD tag and saw no copy on Commons. I have retagged as {{Mtc}} pending automatic transfer to Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iruka, how are you doing, I have a question as I don't know the policies as deeply as you... for uploading non-free logos for organizations' respective articles, can I use their Facebook page as a source? For example, for Conservation International Liberia can I use https://www.facebook.com/Conservationliberia/ ? Thank you for your help, Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourecoveredinbees:Facebook is an acceptable source for things like logos, but it would better to grit it from an official website or press kit. That logo should be uploaded to commons under pd-textlogo as it’s simple geometry, and therefore not copyright protected.–DMartin (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] OK, thanks for your help Dmartin. Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi Yourecoveredinbees. Thank you, I'm fine. The image may be taken from any source, as long as it fully matches the official image. Preference should be given to official sources, whether a website, social media page or press kit. If the question is asked in the context of my edit on page Conservation International Liberia, then the .svg format is preferable for logos. — Ирука13 08:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] OK thank you Iruka, I wasn't sure how to treat images taken from official social media accounts. Have a good day! Yourecoveredinbees (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concern regarding Iruka13. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to respond to the concerns raised here, and quite promptly, because otherwise you're very likely to find yourself blocked. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, That's fine. I've deleted the image from the page. Ericoides (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after further review I have recategorised the above as PD:INELIGIBLE. I have removed the template from the page.

Cheers Trains2021 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of further use in the future regarding such topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenrick_v_Lawrence The essence of the matter is that copyright does not protect the idea itself inherently, but rather the expression of that idea. A speaking clock is factual information ('idea') and would only be protective if it had something beyond standard expression, in which an automated voice doesn't. Best Trains2021 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iruka. I've changed the image purpose (courtesy link: [1]) and added sources about the train's colors in the image's caption in the article (courtesy link: [2]). Do you agree with these changes? Jude Halley talk/contribs 16:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I contested your speedy delete of File:Drone shot of St Ignatius Orthodox Maha Edavaka.png. The uploader claims that it's their own work, and I don't see any reason to not believe that. If you disagree feel free to take it to FfD if you disagree.–DMartin (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the same with File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG. This is a case that should've been taken directly to FfD(or left alone, considering you have no evidence reason to beleive the file is copyvio). Your driveby tagging is becoming disruptive.–DMartin (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! It would be very much preferred if you could leave another message on my talk first before going directly for deletion, so that I can see where exactly you disagree with my re-evaluation. In this way, we can resolve it quickly together. As you have probably noticed, I have used PD:INELIGIBLE for a specific reason and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to further escalate things without contacting me first. It appears that you admit yourself you can't quite give a copyright analysis of this file; which is fine - these things are very convoluted sometimes! I look forward to your response either on FfD or my talk page. Have a good rest of your day. Trains2021 (✉ / 🖊) 01:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(...) Please do not contact me again about this issue. — Ирука13 11:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oversight on my part GSMflux91 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you decided to violate my talk page guidelines, by WP:BOLDLY warning me despite WP:DTTR? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 16:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see it. — Ирука13 17:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated File:Band in China.png for csd due to not having a copyright tag. You should've just added the copyright tag instead of nominating it and expecting someone else to clean up after you.–DMartin (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

21:22, 16 January 2026 Rosguill (talk | contribs) blocked Iruka13 (talk | contribs} from the namespaces File and File talk with an expiration time of indefinite (Needs to engage with concerns at ANI thread concerning their engagement in File space.)
22:58, 22 January 2026 Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) added a block for Iruka13 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Conduct incompatible with a collaborative project; ANI)

Rather than filing an unblock request here, I would ask that you please engage with the concerns at the ANI discussion that is still ongoing. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This block is a punishment for my refusal to participate in the discussion you mentioned, and its purpose is to force me to participate in it, did I understand correctly? — Ирука13 10:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] As David said, concerns were raised by other editors and you need to engage in discussion to try and resolve them. Communication is required on Wikipedia. You carried on with the same behaviour and didn't communicate, leaving admins with no alternative. Blocks are not punishment, they're only used to protect Wikipedia from disruption. If you choose to engage at ANI and can resolve the concerns raised, then admins might be happy to remove the block. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yep, this is correct. I will also note that editors at ANI have expressed concern that you are continuing to discuss File-related questions at FfD since the block, without engaging at ANI; this pattern of engagement is likely to result in further sanctions unless you address the concerns at ANI first. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yesterday I spent several hours writing a response to ANI. I wrote about half of it. Today I discovered a comment like this — Nominator is currently banned from the file namespace for wikilawyering, nominating in bad faith, and other disruptive activities. — under every one of my nominations and every one of my posts on FFD; about a dozen of them. If I'm really blocked for what this user wrote, please change the rationale for my blocking. I won't waste time writing the rest. And Wikipedia members won't waste time reading it. If this isn't true, please take appropriate action(s). — Ирука13 14:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Respectfully, I think that any response at ANI that focuses on another editor’s actions after your block is going to be dismissed as WP:WIKILAWYERing. While their description of the block is not entirely correct, they are accurately describing the concerns raised at the ANI thread, which you have yet to even begin to address. I would focus on the actual concerns raised in the ANI thread in your response. If you do go ahead and primarily dispute the issue based on further reactions to your nominations, you are likely to end up facing further sanctions, as other editors are going to take that as a sign that you’re not listening to them and aren’t interested in addressing the issues. Given that you’ve already been indefinitely blocked from multiple projects, I would not expect leniency from editors here. WP:NOTTHEM applies. signed, Rosguill talk 14:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] In 2024, I was blocked for a discussion on this page (File talk:Zuni wolf fetish with medicine bundle and heartline, carved by Stuart Lasiyoo.jpg) as for "disruptive editing". Why didn't you block me for disruptive editing when you saw this discussion immediately? — Ирука13 09:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, what response are you expecting from Rosguill? "You're right, I should have blocked you earlier, therefore you shouldn't be blocked at all?" Or perhaps "You're right,should have blocked you earlier, let me backdate your current block even though that won't change anything"? (I realise that blocks can't really be backdated, another reason why this doesn't work as an argument.) You're drawing attention to previous disruption and I think that's a really bad idea right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] At the time I issued my partial block, it appeared that you were ignoring the ANI discussion, and had not yet given your side of the story. I was hoping that a partial block would nudge you to engage, explain yourself, and resolve to work collegially. Instead, you posted an absurdly long screed attacking the thread's participants that editors found so repulsive that some are still considering WP:CBANning you. I was hoping you would reflect and deescalate, but this did not occur and the next admin to see the thread saw fit to issue an indefinite block, on the basis that you have shown no capacity for engaging with others collegially. signed, Rosguill talk 15:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I have expanded your block to site wide @Iruka13. The path to appeal it remains the same as in the template above. If you do decide to pursue it, the manner in which you responded at ANI is the exact opposite of an ideal path forward. Star Mississippi 20:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Funny. When someone else says Iruka'a actions is correct, it's okay. When Iruka says they's actions is correct, it's not okay. The fact that people with native knowledge of English who have been creating and editing articles for years only know one meaning of the word "rape" is funny twice. — Ирука13 I don't think you would have been fully blocked if you had only engaged with the concerns raised by other editors. You didn't acknowledge any of the specific diffs brought to you at ANI and instead insisted that the concerns weren't valid and went on to attack other editors - that never, ever goes down well at ANI or block appeals, to the point that there's a specific section on the guide to appealing blocks: WP:NOTTHEM. You were even warned not to do this beforehand, for this very reason. You need to take time to cool down and follow the WP:Standard offer, which is your best chance right now. I'd usually recommend building up a portfolio of good editing at another project to bolster your future appeal, unfortunately you're blocked from several for similar behaviour so you would need to work on a project that you're still able to edit. This is a collaborative project and we absolutely have to be able to work together. Whilst there are technically other meanings for the word you used, using it during a dispute with your behaviour is already under scrutiny and other editors have said that they felt unsafe or harassed by you, was an incredibly poor decision. I don't find it funny at all. If you want to salvage your editing career, please consider taking time away from here, think about the actions that led to your situation, then appeal in six months or so. Being blocked at multiple wiki-projects means that you're at risk of a possible global lock/block, so you really need to tread carefully. This isn't just one misunderstanding with one or two people, it's over a dozen across three different Wiki-projects over several years. Please think about the one common factor across all of this - you and your behaviour. It doesn't matter one whit whether your edits are pristine; if you can't collaborate healthily with others and take feedback on board in good faith, then you aren't a good fit for Wikipedia. Please try to focus on this, so you can return in the future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]