Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

Only users with Autopatrol rights may now overwrite files uploaded by other users. You may request autopatrol rights here. If you are currently ineligible for autopatrol rights, you may request an exception for a particular file on this page. This page is only for requests on the technical permission; proposals for file improvements should be made on the file talk page.

Make sure that your planned overwriting complies with the file overwriting guidelines.

The template that allows overwriting a file ({{Allow Overwriting}}) may be placed by any user with patrol rights.

Allow overwriting of the file Bitolski natpis

The current version of this image (which was tolerated for more than a decade and has done a significant problems in the historical context and researchers work), appears to have been heavily edited (Photoshop), which could inadvertently or deliberately influence perceptions and narratives related to this historical artifact. This manipulation has the potential to mislead researchers and readers, particularly in academic workbooks and publications where the image is referenced.

The letters that represent the year of the inscription (which are the main problem for the researchers and the dating of the inscription) are actually not visible on the original plate itself. While the person that uploaded this image photoshop them so it can clearly mislead the viewers by adding the letters ЅФКВ (second row from the bottom), which represent a certain year in old Cyrillic. This should also be an alert for the Admins to check this matter with the person that upload it.

This replacement is submitted in good faith, with the sole intention of preserving the integrity of historical documentation. The updated image reflects a more accurate depiction of the inscription, helping to safeguard the transparency and reliability of Wikimedia Commons as a platform. Constructive dialogue regarding the changes is welcome, as this effort serves to support accurate historical research without promoting any particular viewpoint.

I have a version of the plate with no edits whatsoever, so If you can grant me an access to replace/update it, or I can send it via email if needed. Thanks, Forbidden History (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbidden History: File:Bitolski nadpis.jpg might be an old photo, the sourcing appears unclear. File:National Historical Museum of Bulgaria PD 2012 024.JPG appears to confirm that ЅФКВ is possibly original to the inscription. Abzeronow (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First please understand the problem related to the dating of the plate. The plate is from the middle ages. The plate has big portion of faded or text that is not recognizable at all. The main problem of the researchers with this plate is the dating of the plate itself. ЅФКВ cannot be found anywhere on the plate and ЅФКВ is actually a name of a year in Cyrillic.

This is the original plate - and what you just shared on your link is Bulgarian copy of the Bulgarian researchers that are trying to convince the world that the plate had 13 rows of text and that ЅФКВ supposedly exists on the plate.

That is why I am asking this photo manipulation to be replaced and also Admins to interfere here as the editor that uploaded this version of the image seems to photoshop it on purpose, to support the Bulgarian POV and their fabricated plate and with that to mislead the neutral readers of Wikipedia even the Researchers themselves.

The plate is in the Bitola Museum not in Bulgaria, so for them to confirming what is true what isn't (again pushing a Bulgarian POV). Their "confirmed date" does not exist on the plate, that is why this editor photoshop it and made it "clearly" visible on his fabricated photo. If more info is needed let me know, I will try to explain further. Thanks, Forbidden History (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a subject that I have much knowledge of so I might need to get more background on this. The photograph of the original inscription is from 2020. The photograph that you allege was photoshopped was uploaded in 2007 but is unsourced and of an unknown date that could be early to mid 20th Century to 2007. @Jingiby: and @Алиса Селезньова: who are the uploaders who might be able to assist me by providing information on the date of the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The comments above are from a user who has been unconditionally blocked on the English Wikipedia for a number of violations. See here. However, you can check in the article itself about the Bitola inscription that what he claims is a minority view and the prevailing academic consensus is the opposite of his opinion. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow yes I also pointed out that the image has been tolerated over a decade and has already done a significant damage to the credibility of the researchers, because they did not expect that Wikipedia will share a photo manipulation. And yes as you said, the editor won't give you source of the image because such image does not exist in the reality-it exist an image without the redrawn text done @Jingiby. And as you can see he is trying to get away by pointing out my status on the English Wikipedia, and he tells nothing about his violation of the Wikipedia Commons rules and his photoshop work done on purpose. The question is clear @Jingiby, have you done photo manipulation or not? Yes or No - as simple as that.

@Abzeronow I have shared the link to the original plate itself, see for yourself whether the text that Jingiby photoshop, exists or not.

What my status has to do with this photo manipulation in a first place? I respect the status and do not work there, and btw, my block was temporary and I haven't went back to work on eng wiki, but I focused on Macedonian Wikipedia, where I have contributed a lot and as you can see he is manipulating here once again by showing you an account of another user, not mine. Thanks, Forbidden History (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbidden History: Our policy on factual disputes over files in use includes an encouragement to create new files. I think you should create a new file with the text on the Bitola inscription that is currently legible. You can then try to convince the other Wikipedias that your version is the better and more accurate one. @Jingiby: I have read the enwiki article on the Bitola inscription. Definitely a contentious topic among Macedonian nationalists and Bulgarian nationalists and academics that study Medieval history. I might see a need to add to the description that this is possibly a reconstruction of the text, but knowing when this photograph was taken between 1956 (rediscovery of the inscription) and 2007 (upload to Wikimedia) and whether it was a accurate copy of the inscription as legible in the 1970s or an academic reconstruction of what the text most likely said (and the article notes that the dating itself is debatablely 13th century rather than 12th century). I have Polish ancestry and so Slavic history is interesting to me but I have no emotional attachment on this matter. Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, @Abzeronow. I uploaded the photo. But I don't see a point debating with 20-plus different editor on different Wikipedia's, If the Admins from Wikimedia Commons cannot realize the violations and forgery that has been done with the image.

Therefore, I am sharing here, you the link of the original image, with the original text that is kept on the plate itself plus the image of the plate itself, in order for anyone to understand which text is visible and exists on the plate, and which text is drawn in Photoshop by Jingiby. Therefore I kindly ask you to use my new uploaded image and replace the manipulated photo so it can reflect across all Wikipedia's. The existing image has done great damage to the academic world for the past 10 years. Thanks for the understanding, Forbidden History (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of Achterhoek maps

The municipality of Montferland is not part of this region so it should be updated. TheThomanski (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en:Achterhoek, es:Achterhoek and nl:Achterhoek all include Montferland in that region. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is incorrect TheThomanski (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the Netherlands and I'd need sources to support that Montferland is not a part of the Achterhoek region. @Ellywa: @1Veertje: to check on whether Montferland being included is factually wrong. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ciell is from the Achterhoek Vera ^(talk) 18:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montferland is Liemers according to the Dutch Wikipedia, and I support that, but historically regions are often disputed, and in the case of Liemers they actually also have collaborations in initiatives by the Achterhoek. Locally though, we say that the Achterhoek ends at en:Doetinchem. Everything more to the west is Liemers. Ciell (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch municipalities have merged a lot over the passed decades. These old names come from the kerspels (like en:parishes) from the mid-ages. If you can recreate a map like this dynamic one, which has an overlay for the regions over the municipalities, that would be the most correct situation, I think. Ciell (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ciell and Ellywa. It looks like we'd want to include Montferland in both Achterhoek and Liemers, and perhaps I should edit enwiki to note that Montferland is locally considered part of Liemers but included on tourism sites as part of Achterhoek. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be best, yes. This setting shows it even better. Al lot of municipalities are in more that one region - it is more a social-cultural feeling (as Ellywa explains below), combined with dialects and traditions (and religion. And antipathy.). Ciell (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even in het Nederlands. Volgens mij is het omstreden. Montferland wil er niet bij horen Maar als het gaat om het propageren van het toerisme in de achterhoek dan horen ze er wel weer heel graag bij. Het is net zoiets als het Groene Hart waar ik zelf woon. Dat is gewoon geen formeel lichaam en het varieert van omvang naar gelang de omstandigheden. Zie ook deze website waar Montferland bij staat. https://achterhoek.nl/achterhoekse-gemeenten. Ellywa (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Het gebied tussen de Rijn en de IJssel is gewoon de Liemers. Ik kom zelf ook uit dit gebied en heerst hier wel een sterke identiteit onder de bewoners. Weliswaar weet vrijwel niemand buiten dit gebied wat 'de Liemers' is, en wordt het daarom vaak samengebundeld, maar het is wel degelijk net zo'n valide streek als de Achterhoek zelf. TheThomanski (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Ukraine census 2001 Russian.svg

The originally uploaded map contains a mistake about Kirovohrad Oblast: according to the 2001 Ukrainian census, Russian was the native language for 10,0 % of the local population, and not 3,5 %. Source: http://db.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Database/Census/databasetree_en.asp (National composition of the population, language attributes, citizenship → Nationality and language attributes according (2001(05.12)) → Distribution of the population by native language (0,1,2,3,4) → 19A050501_02_035. Distribution of the population by native language, Kirovohradska oblast (1,2,3,4) (2001(05.12))). This issue was already discussed on the talk page, and the error was fixed by an editor. A few months later, however, that edit was reverted by another editor, who mistook it for “updating just a single area with newer data”, which was obviously not the case. I want to re-upload the fixed version with correct percentage for Kirovohrad Oblast. Ґайдечахв74Лпадаоо (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Logo des Forschungszentrums Jülich seit 2018.svg

Request to overwrite with version without background. Thanks --LukeTriton (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White looks better on dark mode than transparent, are you sure you wish to proceed? Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the background is not part of the logo. Thanks --LukeTriton (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Great emblem of the 1st Guards Tank Army.svg

Tank formations are supposed to have a black shield, St. George is supposed to be silver. Example. SpaceRefugee (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: should I allow a correction to this even though changing from red shield to black is not minor or should I move this file so the Wikipedias can chose if they want a red or black shield? Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Judo dark blue belt.svg

Every single belt icon in the category Category:SVG Judo belts has the same size ans stroke width. I would like to adapt this file to match these attributes to match the original upload before the size optimisation. --NainDeathlegs (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReneeWrites: SVGs can scale smaller, I'm not sure if harmonizing the category info is really needed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow and NainDeathlegs: It's not needed, but considering it's just this one file in the whole set that has other dimensions + they plan on optimizing the file, not just changing the size, I'm not against it. I added the template so the file can be overwritten. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done The size was secondary. It was more about the stroke width where the difference showed. Thanks, all done. --NainDeathlegs (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Karate brown belt.svg

The icon contains a white number 8 that seems to have gone unnoticed and only now with the introduction of the dark mode really shows up. The original uploader has been blocked so asking whether or not this was on purpose is also not an option. I would just like to remove that number 8 from the file as I can not for the life of me understand why it should be there. --NainDeathlegs (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panevezys County flag.svg

fixed the broken thumbnail files SVG flag maker (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Lambach.jpg

The current picture is mirrored. I'd like to reupload it un-mirrored to better match the actual village. Thanks. Sfriert (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, how do you know it's mirrored? Also information about the file like date would be helpful here as it's obviously an old photo. Abzeronow (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've updated the picture for the Wikipedia pages for the village so you can double check File:Lambach 2025.jpg and see the church is on the right side of the hill. The original uploader didn't specify a date but it has to be between 1904 (date of the church being built) and 1950 (when the new school was built). Unfortunately with such low resolution, difficult to date it more precisely. Sfriert (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2020 House of Representatives Election Results in California by County.svg

Modoc County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ward Hunt - Brady-Handy.jpg

Same source -- https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpbh.03893/ JayCubby (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2016 House of Representatives Election Results in California by County.svg

Modoc County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiley Rutledge portrait.jpg

When @Stv26 cropped, the resolution was reduced for some reason, I plan to fix that. JayCubby (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FredVinsonReadingBook.jpg -- re convert from TIFF. (https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/hec.26505/) JayCubby (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite both files. Abzeronow (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sultan Husayn by Bruyn.jpg

From the same source, the NYPL (tries to) hide their TIFFs. JayCubby (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2016INUSHouse.svg

IN-07 is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2022 Kansas Attorney General election results map by county.svg

Reno and Rice counties are shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2022 Kansas Secretary of State Election.svg

Barton, Leavenworth, and Sumner counties are shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2022 Kansas State Treasurer election.svg

Ellsworth, Osborne, and Ottawa counties are shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Plano Metropolitano Segovia.svg

I'd like to update the SVG with the recent map changes since 2024. The line that runs to Fuentemilanos and Madrona has regained the name and characteristics of "M10" [1], and the M2 line has been extended from Valseca to Encinillas [2]. I have already created with the modified file.

--PrádenaDeLaSierra (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2018 Vermont state treasurer election results map by county.svg

Windham County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2022 Kansas Insurance Commissioner Election.svg

Rooks County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2014 United States House of Representatives Elections in Idaho by county.svg

Elmore and Teton counties are shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2022 United States House of Representatives Elections in Nevada by county.svg

Storey County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2020 United States House of Representatives Elections in Nevada by county.svg

Lyon County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Zonmar-es.svg

Spanish version of this diagram is lacking the Extended Economic Zone and the Internal Waters are misrepresented, I'd like to be able to change it, Thank you. Coquimbo58 (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armenian day of remembrance 2016 i.jpg

Corrected exposure.

For unrelated reasons, File:TheKennedyFamily1.jpg -- same source, higher-res. JayCubby (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:President John F. Kennedy Greets Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula of the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville).jpg and File:President John F. Kennedy Greets Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula of the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville) (cropped).jpg -- JFK Library is generous in their image dissemination. JayCubby (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and File:JFK delivers State of the Union Address, 14 January 1963.jpg, from https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwhp-1963-01-14-a#?image_identifier=JFKWHP-ST-C7-2-63 JayCubby (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last one is moot, looks like there's file:LBJ_McCormack_Hayden.jpg JayCubby (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last one is still different in terms of angle and lighting so I can allow an overwrite if it's just that but higher resolution.

Done on the JFK files. Abzeronow (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the first file @Nizzan Cohen: since they would probably know best on this (and they may still have the raw file). Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Marleyimyia xylocopae.jpg

I'd like to upload a higher-resolution version, licensed under CC BY (version unspecified), archived on MorphoBank. Rationale: this individual fly and the images of it serve as the holotype for the Marleyimyia xylocopae species (species:Marleyimyia xylocopae, en:Marleyimyia xylocopae), and I feel that it is important that the version here across Wikimedia (Wikispecies, Wikidata, Commons, and Wikipedia) is as high-quality as possible to allow users to examine the image for potential diagnostic features. --WrenFalcon (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Please try to match the crop as closely as possible. Abzeronow (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).svg & File:Flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).svg

A user created SVG images based on my PNG images, which are just vectorized versions of them, and uploaded them under the same names. I want to upload the original SVGs to overwrite the versions he uploaded and be able to overwrite them in the future if needed, without submitting a new request each time. The versions he uploaded have many mistakes because they are not properly vectorized.

PNG images:

• File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).png

• File:Flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).png

Filius Bosnensis (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite both files. Abzeronow (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Messines1.jpg

From same site, though the URL has changed -- https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/wwiphoto/items/1.0034947?o=1 JayCubby (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph_Haydn.jpg

Hello. The current version has an unnatural yellowish tint, which I want to remove. There are versions without this tint, but they are smaller and it will be difficult to replace 600+ current version images in various articles. Thank you. Serpree (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of files

I would like to overwrite these files to optimize SVG:
File:Blason ville fr Saint-Clair-de-Halouze 61.svg
File:Blason famille fr Harouys.svg
File:Blason ville fr Tournemire 15.svg
File:Blason ville fr Piquecos 82.svg Bertrandda (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite these files. Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Davao Oriental.svg

defaked - removed image SVG flag maker (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what that means? Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Leo-frank-at-trial.jpg

A better version (larger view, higher quality etc.) of this exact same file exists:

Did Leo Frank kill Mary Phagan? 106 years later, we might finally find out for sure. (only image)
Also the original version doesn't have an actual source, so we can add a source for it too.
Kemkhachev (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Piano-full-en.svg

I have fixed the wrong label (D0 should be B0) in File:Piano-full-en.svg. Ancient user's rotation memory (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Coat of arms of the University of Chile (b&w).svg

Let me overwrite the file with the official version shown in the graphics standards manual. https://uchile.cl/dam/jcr:2683068b-8218-4a73-9a85-514beecc99ab/manualescudouchile.pdf Cristóbal Andrés (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: This might require moving more than overwriting since the CoA had to be split for the same reason. Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow Yes, that's correct. It's not exactly the same design, rather a modernized one. @Cristóbal Andrés Por favor, súbelo con otro nombre. Bedivere (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Senadores Chile.svg

Updating the composition of a National Congress. Andresiinho (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:Odakyu-linemap.svg

Due to the Odakyu Line's March 2025 timetable revision, the stops have changed, so I would like to post a revised version. S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2024 United States Senate special election in California results map by county.svg

Nevada County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2022 Congressional Election in Nevada's 2nd District.svg

Humboldt County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of File:2016 United States House of Representatives Elections in Nevada by county.svg

Lyon County is shaded wrong. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow overwriting of files

I would like to overwrite these files to optimize SVG
File:Blason ville fr Miraumont 80.svg
File:Blason ville fr Montauban-de-Picardie 80.svg
File:Blason de la ville de Essey (Côte-d'Or).svg Bertrandda (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done You can now overwrite these files. Abzeronow (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sniper from 2nd Battalion Royal 22e Régiment.webp

DVIDShub provides higher-res file versions, same source https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/photos/1807/4531559/2000w_q100.jpg JayCubby (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Photograph is under Crown Copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]