Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
lack of interesting 173.180.209.6 02:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Jarekt (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 03:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Sollte nur im früheren Wiki "Wikivoyage/old" auf meiner Benutzerseite (dort: Benutzer:HaJo)verwendet werden. Mey2008 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Resolução e recorte não são de "trabalho próprio". O autor acaso esteve presente nas gravações, para isso? A fonte é obviamente falsa. Yanguas (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio de [1]. Érico Wouters msg 17:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Fair use (poster), but it's not. It was published by the Dutch labor party under a CC-BY licence on their official Flickr account. Vera (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per above. INeverCry 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The LSE cannot license this, see talk and Http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/vcdf/detail?coll_id=3218&inst_id=1 95.195.158.142 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Admins This is Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), refer to whois and User_talk:Fæ/Pieter_Kuiper. Please block this as another socking IP address. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Assessed by the archivist at the LSE who specializes in the GLF collections and Commons accepts this type of licence as sufficient. --Fæ (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor has made what appear to be valid arguments about this image. The LSE library specifically disclaims any warranty that the image is not under copyright protection. The previous deletion request appears to have been closed prematurely based on allegations that it was started by a banned user, not because the deletion rationale was invalid. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it was closed for that reason alone. We don't need a warranty, we just need to be reasonably sure that the LSE judgement is correct; and we have no reason to doubt it. And the IP's comments about LSE not allowing non-commercial use are a misunderstanding of what the LSE says. Rd232 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete the only realistic possibility amongst the Flickr-commons template options is "The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions." But their possibility-of-unknown-provenance clause at [2] is much weaker than that. This is similar to what a lot of institutions do with "orphan works", but Commons is stricter than this. --99of9 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- If only the four options listed by {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} are acceptable, then the template badly needs renaming, because it's very misleading. On the other hand, "No known copyright restrictions" declared by a reputable institution is fairly commonly accepted on Commons AFAIK, so maybe that should be added as a fifth option. Alternatively, a specific LSE-Library tag might be better for clarity. Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Those four options listed in our template seem to be copied directly from the Flickr page linked underneath. The preceding sentence in our template is quite different from the lead-in to the list on Flickr, however, which indicates that it isn't an exhaustive list of possible reasons. The page goes on to say that institutions are invited to upload photos where they have "reasonably concluded that a photograph is free of copyright restrictions", as a way of sharing the benefit of their research, but without providing any warranty. They remind potential re-users to conduct an independent analysis of applicable law before proceeding. It would be easier to do this if the institution would indicate the basis for their conclusion, though. --Avenue (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, thanks, I had another look at the template. See Template_talk:Flickr-no_known_copyright_restrictions#Template_is_wrong. Rd232 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Those four options listed in our template seem to be copied directly from the Flickr page linked underneath. The preceding sentence in our template is quite different from the lead-in to the list on Flickr, however, which indicates that it isn't an exhaustive list of possible reasons. The page goes on to say that institutions are invited to upload photos where they have "reasonably concluded that a photograph is free of copyright restrictions", as a way of sharing the benefit of their research, but without providing any warranty. They remind potential re-users to conduct an independent analysis of applicable law before proceeding. It would be easier to do this if the institution would indicate the basis for their conclusion, though. --Avenue (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- If only the four options listed by {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} are acceptable, then the template badly needs renaming, because it's very misleading. On the other hand, "No known copyright restrictions" declared by a reputable institution is fairly commonly accepted on Commons AFAIK, so maybe that should be added as a fifth option. Alternatively, a specific LSE-Library tag might be better for clarity. Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with analysis by Fæ (talk · contribs) from last deletion discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Although unrelated to this image, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-8 (by San Diego A&S museum).jpg is a useful guide for Flickr streams which use "No known copyright restrictions". And because this is analogous to the SDASM example, I would delete this image. russavia (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It's possible that the LSE would have "legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions" if John Chesterman took the photo (and perhaps the three other photos of the march preceding it in the photostream) and gave LSE such rights. But without any confirmation of this from the LSE, there seems to be enough doubt to delete it. --Avenue (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As per my comments on INeverCry's talk page, the page on the LSE site linked from the upload details only authorises only non-commercial usage. This is incompatible with the file being suitable for uploading to Commons. It also says other others using the pictures should make their own analysis of the copyright status of the material. There is no evidence of such an analysis being made.--85.210.30.32 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted The permission statement from LSE is very clear:
- "The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use."[emphasis added]
That reads to me like an NC license, notwithstanding "No Known Copyright Restrictions" in the same document.
Given that they are vague about the actual status of the image and the ambiguity of their terms, I don't see how we can keep this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete.Impossible to use this image Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not realistically useful for educational purposes because of the large watermark covering up the content. The watermark also calls into question whether this is really the uploader's own work, as there is no obvious connection between the uploader and the site whose watermark covers the photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eremias kavirensis.jpg Julo (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have been taken by photographing LED display (evidence (i) slight moire, (ii) bleached highlights at well below 100% of max JPEG brightness, (iii) line at bottom suggests edge of screen.) Possible copyvio (slavish reproduction of copyrighted footage). What do you think? Ubcule (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please close this deletion request, the image has been confirmed as a non-free copyvio (albeit uploaded mistakenly in good faith) and marked for speedy deletion. See this comment. Ubcule (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unintentional copyvio McZusatz (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, grabbed from http://7cposts.blogspot.com/2008/05/cmara-municipal-paos-do-concelho.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I have very strong doubts that this file is the work of the uploader. It looks to me to be a professional PR shot. Justification via OTRS is required before this image is deemed to be acceptable, surely? Timtrent (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
File name error Ronnie Ergo (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 17:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly fan art which breaches en:South Park-related copyright. Rd232 (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo wishes you a Happy Holiday.jpg. Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
delete both per COM:FAN - and in case it would be considered being fair use material also per COM:FU. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo on tattoo.jpg and File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo on graffiti in Italy.jpg should probably be included here as well. File:2011 November 13 Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo.jpg could be included here, but it may be sensible to start a separate deletion request so that people aren't deprived of the chance to argue about COM:COSTUME before the file is deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of copyrighted character, per COM:FAN. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I was surprised that Cirt, who is an admin and OTRS volunteer would upload these in the first place, but I am troubled that neither Cirt nor Mattbuck seemed to be sure about what is a very clear-cut case when I raised the subject on Cirt's talk page. Are admins given any sort of basic training about copyright, or are they simply expected to be familiar with the guidelines here? In either case, it clearly isn't effective. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done, I've deleted those mentioned above, and retained the one that was clearly Cosplay, will only keep future uploads to those that are Cosplay. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio per the American Physiological Society's rules. Paulthomas2 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio per the American Physiological Society's rules. Paulthomas2 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- If this file is historically significant, Keep, else I am with Fry. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC).
- Delete Unused fictional flag = self-created artwork = out of scope. BrightRaven (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
One day earlier User:Maryoman upladed 6 copyvio stadium photos taken from web, under false self made claim. The date provided by him in this one doen't match the EXIF, therefore he may not be an original photographer. Oleola (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Wimpel sv98.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unused snapshot of non-notable person, presumably of the uploader themselves. This has only ever appeared in English Wiki pages that are always quickly deleted (indeed they are deleted so fast that the "file usage on other wikis" still shows two pages, both since deleted). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Begg_(Metal_Expert) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FreddyBlogs22 for more information. 67.230.148.138 02:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 02:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 02:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 02:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 02:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 02:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 02:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 02:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 02:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 02:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 02:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - text in a jpg INeverCry 02:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo - single upload of user with same company name INeverCry 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 03:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 03:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 03:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 03:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 03:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 03:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Some user's own inflammatory commentary over the top of a court document without further context. Per Commons:Scope#File not legitimately in use, "the emphasis here is on realistic utility", and the self-advertising stuff on top of the document ruins any realistic ability to be used on any Wikimedia project. (See also COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host and COM:ADVERT.) Closeapple (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The original uploader is "KClayton" who also uploaded several images on WT that turned out to be copyvios. The author of this image is noted as "Fally Hive" (not KClayton), so it cannot be assumed that the uploader is the author and that the author has freely licensed the image. Wrh2 (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The uploader added numerous copyright violations at the English Wikipedia, so I'm not convinced this is usable. Zagalejo (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The uploader added numerous copyright violations to the English Wikipedia; I'm not convinced this is usable. Zagalejo (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Image is a screenshot from a video game. The video game is available under a free license and Commons has many images of the game available at high resolutions. Additionally, if more images are needed, they can be captured freely as the game is free. I think this image should be deleted because it is highly inferior to the other images available. Odie5533 (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation : this is a trademark of numericable.fr, protected by copyright. Tryptophane06 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Philippines, seeCommons:FOP#Philippines Morning ☼ (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Philippines, see Commons:FOP#Philippines Morning ☼ (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Philippines, see Commons:FOP#Philippines Morning ☼ (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Philippines, see Commons:FOP#Philippines Morning ☼ (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
miss title Super Sisters (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
self-promotional pic Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Self promotional pic Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded from the English Wikipedia, but no with no indication of the original source of the image or its original author. This is a picture of the front of a famous Tang dynasty musical instrument held at the Shōsōin treasure house at Nara, Japan, and photos of it have been published in various books. The image does not appear to be a user-taken photograph of the instrument, but looks like a scan of a professional photograph from an unknown book. BabelStone (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Also nominating derivative file File:Tang Pipa.png. BabelStone (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded from the English Wikipedia, but no with no indication of the original source of the image or its original author. This is a picture of the back of a famous Tang dynasty musical instrument held at the Shōsōin treasure house at Nara, Japan, and photos of it have been published in various books. The image does not appear to be a user-taken photograph of the instrument, but looks like a scan of a professional photograph from an unknown book. BabelStone (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France: Building in main focus, classified as "Monument Historique", built/designed 1965 ; 1979 (link taken from empty cat) by French en:Paul Chemetov (1928—), Brazilian en:Oscar Niemeyer (1907—2012) and other architects. Gunnex (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded from English Wikipedia, but no indication of original source or author. Also nominating derivative file File:Pipa2 white.jpg. BabelStone (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably a copyright violation from http://www.grandfontaine.ch/galerie/oeuvre.php?id_img=1, which predates the upload. My only hesitation is that the source image is smaller. However the same uploader took another image from that site (now deleted), so I think balance of probabilities is copyvio. Of course it's not impossible the author of the site uploaded this image to Commons. The uploader's only edit on French WP was this, shortly after an IP added "grandfontaine.ch" as the website. But I don't think it's enough to add an "own work" claim. Rd232 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Flickr user's profile says (unfree restriction): WARNING: Any institutions or Flickr members using this site or any of its associated sites for studies or projects - You do NOT have my permission to use any of my profile or pictures in any form or forum both current and future. If you have or do, it will be considered a serious violation of my privacy and will be subject to legal ramifications. 124.149.178.155 13:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if kept, the description given is entirely inappropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Licensed as "released into the public domain by its author, Artandimage", but also marked as "Gregory Colbert. Released with permission by the artist for noncommercial use". The uploader Artandimage does not appear to be Gregory Colbert, and so does not own the copyright of this image. BabelStone (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Licensed as "released into the public domain by its author, Artandimage", but also marked as "Gregory Colbert. Released with permission by the artist for noncommercial use". The uploader Artandimage does not appear to be Gregory Colbert, and so does not own the copyright of this image. BabelStone (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Author and subject are both given as "Robert Kelly", but he cannot have taken this picture of himself. It does not seem likely that the uploader Artandimage is the photographer either as the image is marked "Provided by the subject without restrictions". BabelStone (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Author given as "Sabrina Pestana", but given the uploader Artandimage's other uploads it seems unlikely that they are Sabrina Pestana or own the photo's copyright. BabelStone (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, no FOP for statues in the USA h-stt !? 13:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This work does not seem to be covered by {{PD-old}} as the translater died in 1982 according to this source. Lymantria (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a photo of a sculpture (more modern photo here: http://www.malopolska24.pl/index.php/2012/04/mistrz-znad-dunajca/). The author of year when the picture was taken is not given so I'm not sure that we can assume that the picture's author died more than 70 years ago. Plushy (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope valepert (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Highly doubtful the uploader owns the copyright of this image because it is a cropped version of the image linked from this webpage. Based on this, his other images may be suspect too. Ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
i created it and dont want it anymore Broadway BID (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Jespinos (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi-res image of a cover of a Brazilian magazine from 2010. Eventually out of Commons:De minimis-scope, as photos of e.g. pt:Souza Pepeu (died in 2010, the magazine was founded by him) of right cover side might be reusable/croppable. Gunnex (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Image is from 1983, and the poor quality (probably scanned from a newspaper) and questionable source (http://web.archive.org/web/20050308192247/http://www.truecatholic.org/nop/jp2lutheran.htm) means that PD status is not trustworthy. Rd232 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
low-res output from photoshop, dubious status as "own work" 67.230.148.138 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
low-res output from photoshop, no reason to think this is the user's own work. Other images uploaded by this user are clear copyright violations. 67.230.148.138 18:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio; uploaded as "own work" but metadata clearly reads "copyright holder: Scott Nelson 2002" 67.230.148.138 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio; uploaded as "own work" but metadata reads "copyright holder: Scott Nelson 2002" 67.230.148.138 19:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
uploaded as "own work" but metadata attributes it to Getty images 67.230.148.138 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
According the source, the image is copyrighted. I don't see any evidence for the CC-licence. Avron (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
License = "(...) desde que não tenha finalidades lucrativas ou ofensivas." --> no profitable or offensive use permitted = not licensed for commercial use = out of COM:L. Gunnex (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a professional image. User Skabiosis, who have uploaded copyright protected files before, maybe had added the text in the image. Avron (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Small size, poor quality. Looks like the basic image has been copied from somewhere. Avron (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be an original drawing by the architect, who died in 1960. It's not clear why this should be PD. Rd232 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly not own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This image has no source or description. Just a typed in license. This hints at a derivative work. This DR could be speedied. Leoboudv (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo - 2D artwork Ronhjones (Talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sharp - composition would suggest a TV screenshot Ronhjones (Talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Date is certainly incorrect, Allende died in 1973. Looks like a modified version of a photograph. Where is the original? Unlikely own work claim. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. The pyramid occupies a significant portion of the image. Jespinos (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 02:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 03:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 03:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This is Artandimage. The artist did NOT grant permission to put this image into the public domain. He granted permission for me to post it for Wikipedia purposes only. It must be removed! Help! Artandimage (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is Opendude42. Artandimage has attempted to remove the Help:Contents page. This has disabled users from using the Help pages. The image shoould be removed, but the page should not! Opendude42 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Kept: per Opendude42 McZusatz (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Bahnstrecke Weilheim-Schongau Karl432 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, of course I want the listed category file to be deleted (due to a mistype in its name), not the help file itself which I inspected only to see how I do this. I simply assumed that when I click "nominate for deletion" I had first to specify the file which I wand to be deleted. -- Karl432 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure): test nomination. darkweasel94 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No PLans To use This Page Richard Alexander Cadieux (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. ★ Poké95 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
i dont want to put this picture in common DgitalTechs (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. --Achim (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Democracy_Forum Diplik (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, no valid reason for deletion. --jdx Re: 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Personal photos Marcello Hughes (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Admins, please warn the DR opener seriously. --E4024 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, speedy closed. --jdx Re: 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
File: Slumber Party - Rebels in Pinkville - 2018.jpg Arik Mirondo (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, speedy closed. --jdx Re: 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Iglesia_del_Sagrado_Coraz%C3%B3n_Jiquilpan_Michoac%C3%A1n.jpg Jackie RGarcia (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept, the photo of the church is not a reason to delete Help:Contents. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Pexels-photo-3772623.jpg Franz.zilvah (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep (non-admin closure): Nonsense nom. Why this page is nominated for some many times... Stang★ 02:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Something went wrong when I uploaded the file, så please delete it, so that I can try again, thank You. BKP (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know what's happened, but now it seems OK, so please let it stay. BKP (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per nominator McZusatz (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Miss Julia N. (left site on the Photo) and Miss Melanie K. (shown on two photos in the background) requested me to delete this Photo because it violates their personal rights. I didn't asked them when I was uploading the Photo. The photo has no specific value for me. I have another nice Photo of my own in Wikimedia commons, that I use for my per-sonal site, so I don't want to cut this photo to keep it. J.M.K. (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Gestumblindi (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
We have an SVG of the Hong Kong flag. Fry1989 eh? 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a link to the svg? --McZusatz (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: low quality jpeg duplicate McZusatz (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfertige Datei, die auch nicht mehr weiter bearbeitet wird. Pedelecs (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Creator requested deletion of unused and unfinished file McZusatz (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
falst identisch mit File:Hauptbahnhof Kassel 804-rLh.jpg Pedelecs (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- If files are identical, please use {{Duplicate}} instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Low quality}}; unused; better version available McZusatz (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down version of File:Michael Gravgaard.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Done. --McZusatz (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that author died over 70 years ago. I've seen postcards from the 1890s which are not PD yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Died in 1942. Do you have nothing better to do? Ravenseft (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Died in 1942 means it is PD in 2013, not 2012. As for having nothing better to do, I'm a Commons admin, finding copyright violations is my job. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Grow up. 2013 is in just over 2 weeks time. In any event, it's the date of publication which counts. Pre-1923 images are free from copyright. Ravenseft (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please be MELLOW, there is no need to be snippy about this. Yes, it's 2 weeks time, and as such I'm not convinced about deletion on those grounds. I will leave it up to a closing admin to ignore it until 2013. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Grow up. 2013 is in just over 2 weeks time. In any event, it's the date of publication which counts. Pre-1923 images are free from copyright. Ravenseft (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Died in 1942 means it is PD in 2013, not 2012. As for having nothing better to do, I'm a Commons admin, finding copyright violations is my job. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Author most likely died 1942. PD in 2013. McZusatz (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in France. Please upload the image to Wikipedia which allow the use of such images (e.g. the German speaking Wikipedia) before deletion. ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- What is the interference? This is 'not a panorama in the proper meaning of the word… By the was… in this case you'd have to delete the most of the panoramas here in Commons! --CherryX (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- LOL, indeed. I'm with you CherryX. It's ridiculous how out of a sudden all these people come out of their caves to celebrate a deletion spree across the Wikis without "FOP".
I say: KEEP! Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Si tacuisses ... Erst lesen bzw. sich informieren, dann nachdenken, dann hier kommentieren.- Basics: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France und absolute basics: Commons:Panoramafreiheit. --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
![6 File:"Gays Against Fascism" - First Gay Pride March (7486040932).jpg](#File:"Gays_Against_Fascism"_-_First_Gay_Pride_March_(7486040932).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/14#c-95.195.158.142-2012-12-14T21:00:00.000Z-File:"Gays_Against_Fascism"_-_First_Gay_Pride_March_(7486040932).jpg){kind=link}
![21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/14#c-INeverCry-2012-12-14T21:31:00.000Z-File:"Gays_Against_Fascism"_-_First_Gay_Pride_March_(7486040932).jpg){kind=link}
![22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/14#c-Delicious_carbuncle-2012-12-15T22:22:00.000Z-File:"Gays_Against_Fascism"_-_First_Gay_Pride_March_(7486040932).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/12/14#c-Jameslwoodward-2012-12-22T23:57:00.000Z-File:"Gays_Against_Fascism"_-_First_Gay_Pride_March_(7486040932).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Erstmal vom hohen Wikiross herabsteigen, dann auf Augenhöhe weiter reden. Danke. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some more images of the same uploader that unfortunately can not stay on Commons but can be uploaded e.g. to the German speaking Wikipedia:
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Northern side (1).jpg
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Northern side (2).jpg
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Southern side.jpg
- File:European Parliament (Strasbourg)- Western side.jpg
-_Northern_side_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Northern_side_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Southern_side.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_Western_side.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--ALE! ¿…? 13:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
So here are some more: Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg. --CherryX (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any difference in the objects if they are visible on a panorama (stitched to get more pixel) or a single-shot. --CherryX (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.182.144 09:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Closed early -- this is the same image that was deleted after the last DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was not me who transferred it from the Germen Wikipedia despite the no commons-information. --CherryX (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP France, there is no FoP in France. The building was constructed in 1995, therefore it is not in the public domain. The image focuses solely on the non-free architectural work, so it can not be kept. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work which violates the rights of whomever owns the copyright on South Park. Meets none of the exclusion cases listed in COM:COSTUME. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo says Howdy Ho and Happy Holidays.jpg. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Wrong assessment by nominator. It's some guy selling pecans just wearing a Santa hat during the festive season — the photographer just thought it looked similar to Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo. Hope that clarification helps, -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since this is now the sole member of Category:Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, perhaps a name change to Category:Guys selling pecans just wearing a Santa hat during the festive season is in order? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, because I'm in the process of additional research for more cosplay related photos to add to the category. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since this is now the sole member of Category:Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, perhaps a name change to Category:Guys selling pecans just wearing a Santa hat during the festive season is in order? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see what would get a copyright here. It is only vaguely similar to the character, and very simple anyway. Yann (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Although the photo is {{PD-1923}}, it seems likely that the photo was previously published in Russia, meaning that it needs to be PD in Russia as well. I can't find a good source for Yarovoff's details, but deathyear may be 1958. Rd232 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment OCLC shows 17 November 1922 in New York as the earliest printed edition with this photograph, though the Library of Congress gives the first edition with the alternative title in 1920 (Boston). The photograph would have been taken in Moscow in or after 1918, as that is when the production of Salome was running. As far as we can tell, the photograph was intended, or commissioned, for the 1920 publication in Boston. It seems pure speculation to consider a publication of this particular photograph happened in Russia before then, when it seems likely that the 1920 publication was the first time in print. Reading the text, Nikolai Yarovoff is specifically credited in the book as an "artist and critic" in Moscow who supplied Sayler with information for publication in his book and, as the photographer, may well have kept this photograph as a previously unpublished document, indeed as it is unclear when the run of Salome ended, or how long it took to compile the book for publication in 1920, the photograph may have been taken during the time that Yarovoff was actively supplying material to Sayler in America. BTW, other photographs of Alisa Koonen that pre-date this one, are much better quality, to my eyes it seems unlikely that a photograph this poor would have been used for posters or other related Moscow production publications. --Fæ (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yee-es, but as an "artist and critic", I thought it likely (not certain, but balance of probabilities) that Yarovoff was publishing reviews at the time, quite possibly with his own photograph of the production. The collaboration between Sayler and Yarovoff you mention creates more uncertainty (less likely that Sayler just took a published photo), but I'd still say that on balance of probabilities the photo was published in Russia. Rd232 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether a fine balance of probabilities should count as significant doubt or not. The things we have verifiable evidence for are all on the side of the equation pointing to first publication in Boston rather than anything tangible in Moscow. I would rate records of copyright registration over speculation any day. Perhaps a Russian reader would like to look into Russian publications around 1918—1920 for Yarovoff? --Fæ (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether a fine balance of probabilities should count as significant doubt or not. - eh, well it does. You may see it differently here, but on straight semantics, it does! I guess I don't need to remind ourselves of COM:PRP... Rd232 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I was drawing a distinction between minor doubts and significant ones :-) By the way, the only source I have for the death date of April 1958 for Yarovoff is on the Spanish Wikipedia (no references), though there's no particular reason to doubt it. He seems to pop up more as a photographer than anything else, as far as I can see in English searches. I think this is one of those situations where the DR itself is asking to prove a negative, there's no easy answer to those. --Fæ (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether a fine balance of probabilities should count as significant doubt or not. - eh, well it does. You may see it differently here, but on straight semantics, it does! I guess I don't need to remind ourselves of COM:PRP... Rd232 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure whether a fine balance of probabilities should count as significant doubt or not. The things we have verifiable evidence for are all on the side of the equation pointing to first publication in Boston rather than anything tangible in Moscow. I would rate records of copyright registration over speculation any day. Perhaps a Russian reader would like to look into Russian publications around 1918—1920 for Yarovoff? --Fæ (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yee-es, but as an "artist and critic", I thought it likely (not certain, but balance of probabilities) that Yarovoff was publishing reviews at the time, quite possibly with his own photograph of the production. The collaboration between Sayler and Yarovoff you mention creates more uncertainty (less likely that Sayler just took a published photo), but I'd still say that on balance of probabilities the photo was published in Russia. Rd232 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The photographer is mostly known as Nicolás Yarovoff, and yes, he is noted as a professional photographer rather than anything else, like critic (for example, he is mentioned as a teacher of A. Saderman in Montevideo [3], where he produced a number of quality photos). In Russian his name would be Николай Яровов or Николай Яровой. Google returns nothing for those, and thus I predict it will be impossible for regular internet users like us to find any evidence for or against a publication in Russia. Materialscientist (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, first publication is United States as likely per analysis, above, and the photo is {{PD-1923}} so should be retained as public domain. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Fæ. Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
ulpoaded from here http://www.francoisevandenbosch.nl/ , copyrights doubtfull Sonty (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Uploader is family of the person that is visible in the picture, the picture is from their family. Uploader will hopefully add copyright-license and do the OTRS. I asked User:Husky to help in this. Sonty (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No scope, Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The file is in use right now. --McZusatz (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Only in use in a declined hoax AFC and a non-pending AFC. INeverCry 19:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Youtube does not allow download of videos, Copyright: permission of CacheTheMemory (uploader at Youtube) unclear 92.227.122.90 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the original video [4] was uploaded on YouTube under a Creative Commons Attribution license. Obakeneko (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no clue on the website of Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3R9jY1A1WY) that the video is licensed under a Creative Commons license. Further on, it is a non-public video which means that only visitors who know the URL have access to it. If a video on Youtube is under a Creative Commons license, it will be written on the Youtube website containing the video (see http://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons for explanation). The problem can be solved if the uploader releases the video on Youtube under a Creative Commons license.78.55.4.84 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the link does say "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". Obakeneko (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
O.K., but the statement "Creative Commons" was hidden and one has to make an extra click to see this. Youtube should place this very important information on a more visible place. I apologize for any inconvenience made to Obakeneko.78.55.4.84 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Standard YouTube License as stated in video description on YouTube, not compatible with Commons Morning ☼ (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment According to the previous deletion discussion for this file (in October 2011, file was kept by Jameslwoodward), it seems that it was originally available under a CC-BY license at Youtube. Now Youtube indeed says "Standard YouTube License", but the previous discussion seems to be proof of the different original licensing (otherwise, Jim wouldn't have kept the file). So, I think we say here "once freely licensed, forever freely licensed", don't we? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I asked the author to re-upload under CC-BY the part of the video I used, and he kindly agreed. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUZQ_WzJFh4 Obakeneko (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Although I ought to have looked at the license when I last closed this as keep, I can't testify to it. However, the license is now CC-BY and I have added {{Flickrreview}} to the file. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The template seems to be misleading... "This image, originally posted to Flickr ...." - maybe we need a "youtubereview" template? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- You can use {{LicenseReview|youtube| --user-- | --date-- }} . --McZusatz (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept. per Obakeneko --McZusatz (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Reunion en Güira de Melena.jpg
- File:Fabrica de Conservas Ville.jpg
- File:Escudo de Güira de Melena.jpg
- File:Calle a la Iglesia.jpg
- File:Entrada a Güira de Melena.jpg
- File:Güira de Melena Calle Real.jpg
INeverCry 02:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Silcelemarce (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Gimnasia para la tercera edad.png
- File:Flexibilidad jpg.jpg
- File:Resistencia jpg.png
- File:Fuerza. jpg.png
- File:Equilibrio. jpg.png
INeverCry 02:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvios PierreSelim (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Filmfest Düsseldorf (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
- File:Filmfest Duesseldorf.gif
- File:Filmfest Düsseldorf Logo.jpg
- File:Filmfest Düsseldorf (Karton).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 02:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logos - only uploads of user
INeverCry 03:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Стефан Берлюскин (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal artworks
INeverCry 03:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:POZ 1951.jpg
Out of scope. We aren't Facebook.
- File:SMITA SUN 6.jpg
- File:SMITA SUN 5.jpg
- File:SMITA SUN 4.jpg
- File:SMITA SUN 3.jpg
- File:SMITA SUN 2.jpg
- File:SMITA SUN 1.jpg
- File:SMITA SUN.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maxwell Klenwisschowz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 12.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 11.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 10.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 8.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 9.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 5.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 7.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 6.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 3.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 2.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz - 4.jpg
- File:Maxwell Klenwisschowz.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DanaeMartinez15 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diadji diop (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photographs
Vera (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No real source, false author, false license; I am not convinced that this is pre-1917. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Pieter Kuiper seems to be having a bad track record on these, no facts presented apart from Pieter Kuiper's suspicions during his blatant image stalking campaign, apparently intended to stop me from making any positive contribution to Wikimedia Commons. I have invited Pieter Kuiper to discuss improvements with me, but he seems incapable of collaborating while he has the free forum of Wikimedia Commons to make derogatory allegations and deride me with sarcasm. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Was kept by admin Fastily without reason. But the CC license is obviously false; there is no real source, paukrus did not respect copyrights. 95.195.158.142 21:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), refer to whois. Can an admin please block this as another socking IP address. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As before, the paukrus Flickrstream was a perfectly good source of pre-1917 postcard scans. This is one of them and Pieter Kuiper, arisen as an anonymous sockpuppet IP, has yet to show any evidence to suspect otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept, per all respondents to last deletion discusison, per admin decision from last deletion discussion, per comments from respondents to this deletion discussion, and please note the blatant violations of site policy to commit block evasion by the nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This template is not backed by policy. Discussion on the talk page already indicated that there is some consensus to get rid of the template. --Slomox (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- We even have admins that do not provide links to their talk archives. I once asked abf to put in a link, but also that message is now gone somewhere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I answered and it was correctly archived. Regards. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of no such consensus, and I think the message of the template is (in principle) a good one. If the template needs to be edited then let's do that - I don't think deleting it is a solution to any problem we're actually having. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:Dont remove warnings - discussion 2
[edit]This template is being used to enforce non-existent policies. Per COM:TALK, "Others delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred)." Clearly this leaves it at the editorial discretion of the user. Moreover, this guideline, and especially the use of this template, is completely inconsistent with the practices of our sister project, Wikipedia. - MrX 22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy [keep], template is typically only used for copyvio uploaders resistant to talk page notices and is used as a higher level warning. --Denniss (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case, why not make that clear in both the title and body of the template? As it is, it's being used punitively and broadly to enforce a non-existent policy. I would also note, that there are probably better ways to deal with copy-violating users than warning them to keep a generic template on their user pages. - MrX 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- This search shows uses of the template on user talk pages - it may be instructive to browse to see how the template is used, and whether it can be improved or even abolished. Right now I'm going to bed though... Rd232 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons isn't all about rules - it is about intelligent practices. --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and instead update Commons:Talk page guidelines to make it consistent with itself. Its section on archiving, Commons:Talk page guidelines#Archiving - when there is too much text clearly mandates archiving rather than deleting in bold letters with no exceptions mentioned. I've yet to see any valid argument as to why user talk pages should not be subject to the same archiving practices as all other talk pages. By contrast, there are plenty of argument as to why talk page blanking is problematic:
- Administrators and others use user talk pages (or their archives) as one part of the process of evaluating the credibility of source and authorship information when reviewing uploads. (Authorship claims from users with lots of warnings for copyright violations naturally need a more critical evaluation than those from a user with a spotless history.)
- Our deletion policy encourages administrators to check whether the uploader was notified of the deletion discussion, but it is unrealistic to expect them to dig through history diffs.
- The what links here? feature only works with current versions of pages (including archives but not historical diffs), so finding all old discussions relating to a file or other page becomes difficult if users blank discussions instead of archiving them.
- Hiding the talk page history may also mean that one receives messages or questions about the same issue several times, which can annoying for both the sender and the recipient. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think the template can be improved, like this (for English version), maybe more. If we want users to be able to remove warnings through archiving, we should make it more understandable. Rd232 (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but improve further, and beef up the documentation too. I've checked through several uses of the template and some seemed perfectly sensible, so there is a need for the template. However some did not seem so sensible (because the removed posts were dated or not even warnings), so it's sometimes misused too. In these cases it would probably have been better replaced with a notice simply saying that archiving is preferred/required, and explaining how to do that. Perhaps we should develop a template for this. I'd also support changing Commons:Talk page guidelines to require archival of user talk pages instead of blanking (with exceptions for vandalism and personal attacks). Alternatively we could develop a list of warnings that should not be removed from user talk pages, as enwiki has at w:WP:BLANKING. Such a list could be useful anyway as part of the documentation for this template. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I could get on board with improving the template and the help documentation so that the template is used to benefit the project (for legitimate copyright vios), and not to harangue users. I can't accept the premise that removing templates is the same as hiding history. As we all know, history is like an Akashic record; it's always a click away.
- Consider, also, the case of user page vandalism, including the nonsense that I endured yesterday: Are we expecting vandalism and harassment to remain as well? The user talk page practices at Wikipedia work really well as far as I can tell, and they should serve as a template for how things are done here. As far as admins checking talk pages to see if a user was warned of a deletion discussion, I would submit that it's just as easy to do a (CTRL+F browser) search of history, assuming that deletion notifications result in an edit summary. - MrX 20:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - unless change along the lines of this edit stands and is made to policy so there's no conflict between what policy says is OK and what the template says is OK. Deceptive templates are not acceptable. Period. Deceiving our own editors intentionally is certainly not the best way to proceed.--Elvey (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep very usefull template in Commons with new users --Motopark (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete.
DeprecateThis template did not get approval as a Commons policy. And it is unnecessary and counterproductive. It is easy to go to the history of a talk page and look for warnings mentioned in the edit summaries. A lot easier than wading through page after page of archives. If this template is kept active it will only drive away editors. Good editors making honest mistakes. This template will confuse and piss off editors on the Commons because it is against Wikipedia policy. I have seen too much harassment of editors already on Wikipedia and the Commons. See en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. See en:WP:TALK. Users can remove anything from their talk pages on English Wikipedia, and they can do it without archiving it. Previous discussion on the template talk page already agreed that this template was not valid. The creator of the template, Lar, wrote: "No one, not even the creator of it, (moi for those not paying attention! :) ) seems to like it any more." Elvey solved the problem of how to deal with this invalid template by deprecating it. See this December 16, 2012 diff. Elvey added this tag: {{Deprecated}}. One can easily look at 500 edits in the history of a user's talk page. Here are the last 500 edits on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC) - Comment The more I look at the template, the less I like it. But some people clearly feel there does seem to be some need for a multi-lingual "please don't remove warnings (unless you've addressed the problem in question), archive them instead, like this" message. So maybe we should try to construct a new template that focusses on doing that, in a much nicer tone, and not mixing in "don't vandalise messages" issues, which can easily come across as pretty unpleasant to the recipient I think. It could be {{Please don't remove warnings}}. Or maybe {{Please respond to warnings and dont just remove them}}, which would focus more on doing something in response to the warnings, rather than leaving them in place or archiving. Rd232 (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- As Mike said on the previous DR - improve it by all means however a template cannot be held responsible for folks use of it. --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- What part of my comment was about "folks use of it"? Rd232 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- None - however it is a part of what this DR is about - my comment was general and so could be outdented, however it was also agreeing with you so I placed it indented --Herby talk thyme 13:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- What part of my comment was about "folks use of it"? Rd232 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- As Mike said on the previous DR - improve it by all means however a template cannot be held responsible for folks use of it. --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that this template should be reworded. I would strongly suggest to remove the double threat of blocking from the warning, i.e. may result in you being blocked from editing and If you continue to remove or vandalize such warnings on your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. This does not fit into our approach to be welcoming to Wikimedians from other projects. In some of other WMF projects it is quite common to remove messages after having read it without archiving them. I would like to suggest following alternate wording:
- Please do not remove legitimate warnings regarding your uploads from your talk page without archiving them. At Commons, we prefer per our talk page guidelines to archive messages instead of deleting them. To archive your talk page messages simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for more details). Thank you for your understanding.
- Once the template has been reworded, I suggest to keep it. Multilingual templates are helpful in our environment where we cannot be sure that English is understood. A kind explanation would be helpful if a remove of a warning message gets reverted. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sensible suggestion - I would agree with that. --Herby talk thyme 14:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's the sort of radical rewrite I had in mind. We need to make sure translations are updated though. And maybe we could move the template to {{Please dont remove warnings}} (with redirect) to emphasise the new tone. Rd232 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Anything that insists people keep anything on their talk page is a new policy. This message (and thus this template) is still claiming a new policy: "At Commons, we prefer per our talk page guidelines to archive messages instead of deleting them." No we don't. You do. I don't prefer it. I find a large percentage of warnings I have received on the Commons and Wikipedia to be purely harassment. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- My suggested rewording refers to the guideline which tells:
- Others delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred). To easily and quickly set up automatic archiving there are standard setups available (see above).
- Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in dispute resolution.
- I think that it is legitimate to have an internationalized template that points to a guideline and which can be used to help a user to familiarize with our practice at Commons. In my reworded proposal is nothing that insist on anything nor a new policy, it refers just to an established guideline which we have already for years. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- At Commons:Talk page guidelines, from 2005 until November 2, 2011 there was no requirement, or even a recommendation, to archive warnings. As LX noted at Commons talk:Talk page guidelines on January 4, 2011: "Under the current guidelines, it's fine to respond 'ok, noted' to a deletion notice and then blank it." That is what I have done at various times on both Wikipedia and the Commons if I feel no further discussion is necessary on my talk page. Without getting consensus, on November 2, 2011 (see diff) Rd232 added this to the guideline: "but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred". Even that addition is not a requirement, and in any case we are talking about a guideline and not a policy. I find this template more and more offensive. It basically requires editors to grovel sufficiently before removing messages. Then they are required to keep offensive personal messages in an archive. The offensiveness of this whole thing is why many Wikipedias do not require anything to be kept on user talk pages, or their archives. A user's space should be respected, and people should not be allowed to intrude into it permanently. The act of removing a message shows that it has been noticed. That is enough. You can not force people to reply, or to do anything. Some editors are doubly offensive and put the removed message back on a user's talk page, while putting this threatening template along with it. "Please do not remove legitimate warnings" is still threatening. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that I think you're using the boldfaced quote of mine out of context. I was pointing out a problem with a possible interpretation of the current guidelines in response to a claim that the guidelines at the time did not allow for a particular problematic behaviour. My comment should not be taken to mean that I think it's fine to blank deletion notices. It should, however, be fine to blank truly offensive comments, but I hardly find our standard deletion templates something to be offended by. If you are offended, perhaps it helps to remember that offensive messages usually reflect more on the sender than on the recipient. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was no disagreement in that discussion section (Commons talk:Talk page guidelines#delete comments after they have responded) that deletion was not allowed. As the original poster, Sreejith K, noted in that discussion section on 22 December 2010: "Although English wiki does not disallow deleting the contents either (Wikipedia:User_talk_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings), there at least it is said that archiving is preferred. I think we should give preference to archiving here as well." And a preference is not a requirement. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that I think you're using the boldfaced quote of mine out of context. I was pointing out a problem with a possible interpretation of the current guidelines in response to a claim that the guidelines at the time did not allow for a particular problematic behaviour. My comment should not be taken to mean that I think it's fine to blank deletion notices. It should, however, be fine to blank truly offensive comments, but I hardly find our standard deletion templates something to be offended by. If you are offended, perhaps it helps to remember that offensive messages usually reflect more on the sender than on the recipient. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- At Commons:Talk page guidelines, from 2005 until November 2, 2011 there was no requirement, or even a recommendation, to archive warnings. As LX noted at Commons talk:Talk page guidelines on January 4, 2011: "Under the current guidelines, it's fine to respond 'ok, noted' to a deletion notice and then blank it." That is what I have done at various times on both Wikipedia and the Commons if I feel no further discussion is necessary on my talk page. Without getting consensus, on November 2, 2011 (see diff) Rd232 added this to the guideline: "but this practice is no longer recommended - archiving is preferred". Even that addition is not a requirement, and in any case we are talking about a guideline and not a policy. I find this template more and more offensive. It basically requires editors to grovel sufficiently before removing messages. Then they are required to keep offensive personal messages in an archive. The offensiveness of this whole thing is why many Wikipedias do not require anything to be kept on user talk pages, or their archives. A user's space should be respected, and people should not be allowed to intrude into it permanently. The act of removing a message shows that it has been noticed. That is enough. You can not force people to reply, or to do anything. Some editors are doubly offensive and put the removed message back on a user's talk page, while putting this threatening template along with it. "Please do not remove legitimate warnings" is still threatening. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- My suggested rewording refers to the guideline which tells:
- Anything that insists people keep anything on their talk page is a new policy. This message (and thus this template) is still claiming a new policy: "At Commons, we prefer per our talk page guidelines to archive messages instead of deleting them." No we don't. You do. I don't prefer it. I find a large percentage of warnings I have received on the Commons and Wikipedia to be purely harassment. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, standard practice is to archive. Archiving is fine. When in doubt, that way in the future, others can refer to archives. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It may be standard for you, but not for others. Many Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia do not require users to keep anything on their talk page, or in user talk page archives. Many people on the Commons do not archive their talk pages. So this would be a new policy. Keeping this template does not create a new policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have to object to the suggestion that talk page archiving is some recently introduced invention. As I pointed out above, the archiving section of our guidelines does not (and never did) exempt any talk namespaces from the archiving recommendation. That said, it is a problem that the guidelines are not internally consistent, and obviously we disagree on how that inconsistency should be resolved. To me, it's quite clear that "standard practice" in Cirt's comment refers to standard practice on Commons. What other projects do is up to them. The vast majority of established Commons users do archive their user talk pages. There is a very small minority of established users who don't, and who instead blank their talk pages regularly, which, for reasons I've stated above, makes it very difficult to find old discussions (among other disadvantages). I disagree with your claim that it is easier to find messages in talk page histories by looking for edit summaries than to find them in archives. For starters, edit summaries are often incomplete, and Mediawiki's search function does not work on page histories. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- True, however, there's a world of difference between a recommendation and a requirement. The current talk page guideline recommends archiving, but does not mandate it. Nor does it prohibit deletion, it merely states that deletion "is no longer recommended". When a user exercises their option to delete comments from their user talk page, they have ignored a recommendation, but that hardly merits the threat of a block that this template makes! cmadler (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is easier to find copyright violation notices, deletion notices, and other warning notices in the history page for user talk. If the problem is that some people do not leave adequate edit summaries, then we need to put that requirement in the documentation for the notice templates. See the history of the last 500 edits on my talk page. Use your browser search (edit menu, find) to find, for example, the occurrences of "deletion". --Timeshifter (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have to object to the suggestion that talk page archiving is some recently introduced invention. As I pointed out above, the archiving section of our guidelines does not (and never did) exempt any talk namespaces from the archiving recommendation. That said, it is a problem that the guidelines are not internally consistent, and obviously we disagree on how that inconsistency should be resolved. To me, it's quite clear that "standard practice" in Cirt's comment refers to standard practice on Commons. What other projects do is up to them. The vast majority of established Commons users do archive their user talk pages. There is a very small minority of established users who don't, and who instead blank their talk pages regularly, which, for reasons I've stated above, makes it very difficult to find old discussions (among other disadvantages). I disagree with your claim that it is easier to find messages in talk page histories by looking for edit summaries than to find them in archives. For starters, edit summaries are often incomplete, and Mediawiki's search function does not work on page histories. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It may be standard for you, but not for others. Many Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia do not require users to keep anything on their talk page, or in user talk page archives. Many people on the Commons do not archive their talk pages. So this would be a new policy. Keeping this template does not create a new policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Timeshifter. This is certainly not part of any "standard" policy -- here or on any other WMF project -- of which I'm aware. Everything is archived in the page history, so there's not a significant need to require an archive page. If users think such a policy is needed, fine, let's have that discussion, but until that policy is established, this template is simply wrong. cmadler (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Useful. Yann (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Template reworded
[edit]- I have reworded the english version, please leave some comments on this. Removes the block threat and does not insist on keeping the warnings once the issues have been adressed. --Denniss (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The proposed rewording is still overly broad and an invitation for abuse. Since this template is supposed to be used for copyright violators who removed copyvio warnings without taking corrective action, I would propose instead:
- "Please do not remove legitimate copyright warnings from your talk page without adressing the issues for which you received these warnings. Please read and understand Commons:Licensing, or ask for help. Note that removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history."
- I would also add that editors who place these tags on user talk pages should keep the talk pages on their watch list for a short period of time (48 hours ?) and be willing to answer questions from new users. - MrX 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Template is still harassment. There is absolutely no need for this template. It is against the policies of other Wikipedia Projects, and there IS NO POLICY FOR THIS ON THE COMMONS. If someone continues to do actions against Commons policy, then block them. But do not harass them. Stay the f**k out of their personal space. Did you not get a reaction when I SHOUTED and used the coded F bomb? Then you now know how people feel when you harass them repeatedly in their user space. The standard procedure on English Wikipedia is to give escalating warnings as illegal actions are done by a user. The user can delete each warning. It does not matter. The fact that they deleted it indicates that they saw the warning. That is the point of the warning; to get their attention. Not to harass them. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please keep away from this discussion if you don't want to participate in constructive work. --Denniss (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I second that. Timeshifter, the template in question does not shout and does not use vulgar language. There is no reason for users who are encouraged to archive talk pages rather than blanking them to feel harassed or exposed to the kind of uncivil behavior that you just displayed. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's understandable that Timeshifter may be frustrated by the heavy handed way this has been handled from the begining. Let's make this a debate, not a series of edicts. - MrX 16:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Denniss and LX. You both missed my point. I did not direct uncivil behavior at either of you. Reread my comment. The template comes off as shouting and vulgar language because it is repetitively and annoyingly applied by admins and others. And it is applied for all alleged violations of Commons policies and guidelines, not just copyvios. So admins, and any wannabe admin, can keep adding warning messages, and then pile on further with this template when the annoyed user notes and deletes the warning messages just like he/she does on almost any other Wikipedia project. Further insult is added to injury when the user discovers that there is no basis in Commons policy or guidelines for this new requirement that they keep annoying warning messages on their user pages. Many people stop editing on the Commons and on Wikipedia because of stuff like this. See: en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors and en:User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. I have brought up this topic of admin misconduct, and perceived harassment by both admins and others, in several Village Pump discussions and many people agree with me. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- So if this template is deleted, I am going to block users after they removed and ignored warning messages they received by me about copyright issues immediately because admins who deal with further issues will certainly not check each revision history? (If you process copyvios, you don't like to check the talk page history each time).
- I suggest to: Change our guideline to highly endorse archiving over blanking and approve it as a policy and re-word the template as suggested by AFBorchert. -- Rillke(q?) 15:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The principle on Wikipedia is that if a user removes a template warning, they are tacitly acknowledging that they have read it. So, I think it's reasonable that someone who repeats the same serious transgression after being warned once is worthy of being blocked until they convince the community that it will not happen again. I am not convinced that we need to pile warning on people, when one should be sufficient. If we do keep this template, it should be narrowly focused on copyvios in wording and application. - MrX 16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rillke. Yes, block them, if they continue to upload copyvios. Admins can check the block log if they don't want to check the talk page history. There is no need for keeping the warning messages, or keeping an archive of shaming and harassment. Blocking gets results. So blocking is enough. It works on Wikipedia, and blocking works fine on the Commons, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Warnings and warning reminders
[edit]Is there a category with warning templates for user talk pages? Also, is there a category just for user warning templates for copyright violations?
Maybe, instead of "Dont remove warnings" we can rename this to "Warning reminder" and remove any requirements that it remain posted. Word it so that it concerns copyright violations, or improperly-tagged, or improperly attributed file uploads, etc.. The documentation should encourage the posters of this template to link to one of the files in the edit summary, and to mention the problem with the file(s): "copyvio" and/or "attribution" and/or "OTRS", "verification", etc..
If after reminding the user, the problems are not resolved, then the files can be deleted as usual. If the user keeps removing the templates without resolving the problems, then delete the files. Making them keep the warning templates and reminders on their talk page serves no purpose for them. Everybody makes mistakes. I have made mistakes in uploading. I probably would have left the Commons long ago if I had been forced to keep warnings on my talk page, or forced to keep an archive. I am working for free, and this would have angered me mightily. I want to be appreciated, not stigmatized, for my efforts, both good and bad. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept. Definitely no clear consensus to delete at this time -FASTILY (TALK) 02:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no standing Commons rule (only a not confirmed guideline) that obliges people to not remove warnings. The Dutch language version of this template even refers to English Wikipedia rules!! This template is very controversial, as has been emphasized before. This template has been used as a means to frighten another and simulates as if this is a standing rule: which is absolutely not te case. When this is not a rule of which people are obliged to listen to, it should not be available as a tool for innocent. Ymnes (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous two sections. I converted from a speedy deletion request, as no speedy deletion criterion was met. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete See also my motivation for the speedy deletion above. When it doesn't tell about a Commons rule, it should not be available for people that interpret guidelines as if they were rules. This template is misleading and a means to frighten another. Ymnes (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete we shouldn't have a warning template on this - it's not a policy. Elliot321 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete See my previous comments. The previous closing reason to keep it by Fastily was unjustified by policy. This template is a bad substitute for better record keeping by admins. Maybe create a specific diff link page for copyvios, for example. With user name, date of warning, and a diff of the talk page notice. Empty the page to an archive subpage as the diff links fill up. That way all the archive subpages can be searched by user name. The search results list would quickly show how many previous warnings the user has received. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I personally feel that recording copyvio warnings is a waste of time and resources. The page history is there, and each user has an upload log which includes deleted files, and that is a good indication whether someone has uploaded copyvios here before. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There is no such policy or guideline of not allowing the removal of warnings. We believed that the receiver has read it as they removed the warnings. BTW this warning seems to create more conflicts among users, particularly for the new comers. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Far too many admins have a nasty habit of turning user talk pages into halls of shame, in part by making up rules that don't exist. Let's stop enabling them to do this on Commons. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly, neither the template claims the existence of such a rule nor does every template require a policy. Commons is not an exercise in legalese and wiki-lawyering. Let me quote from the template:
- This is a reminder for you that removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page without addressing the identified issues is discouraged according to our community guidelines. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place
{{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}}or{{subst:autoarchive resolved section/usertalksetup}}at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details).
- This is a reminder for you that removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page without addressing the identified issues is discouraged according to our community guidelines. Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community. You are encouraged instead to archive past discussions. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place
- Hence, this template simply encourages to archive talk pages, preferably through archiving bots, instead of removing such notices. This is indeed the prefered practice at Commons. Talk pages are not just for the users in question but also for others who want to see if there is a recurring issue. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Removing messages is NOT rude or hostile. On the contrary, it means that you have read them and they are no longer needed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I do not agree. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- AFBorchert, you wrote: "Talk pages are not just for the users in question but also for others who want to see if there is a recurring issue." Use the talk page revision history. Talk pages should be under the control of the user, not you. From the template: "Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community." This is a statement against AGF (Assuming good faith). Those who make these assumptions should leave Wikimedia. I have created several Wikipedia userboxes exposing admin misconduct. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Admin misconduct drives away editors. Good ones. I may create a userbox that states that talk pages are under the control of the user, and that those who think otherwise are often considered rude or hostile by many in the community. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is a community project where user talk pages are not private mailboxes. They serve both sides, the respective users and anyone wanting to contact a user. This is not about perceived admin misconduct as admins should likewise archive their talk pages properly instead of burying complaints in the talk page history. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- AFBorchert, you wrote: "Talk pages are not just for the users in question but also for others who want to see if there is a recurring issue." Use the talk page revision history. Talk pages should be under the control of the user, not you. From the template: "Removing messages does not remove them from the talk page's history, and doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community." This is a statement against AGF (Assuming good faith). Those who make these assumptions should leave Wikimedia. I have created several Wikipedia userboxes exposing admin misconduct. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Admin misconduct drives away editors. Good ones. I may create a userbox that states that talk pages are under the control of the user, and that those who think otherwise are often considered rude or hostile by many in the community. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I do not agree. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Removing messages is NOT rude or hostile. On the contrary, it means that you have read them and they are no longer needed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wrote this template, what seems like a lifetime ago now... Commons was much more informal then. The template has been through 2 deletion discussions already, and I see that it remains controversial. Although I think there's merit in encouraging people to archive rather than delete, and AFBorchert is exactly correct, if it really offends so many people, perhaps best to delete it. I've not been actively engaged in Commons much lately so my understanding of community norms is weak... Maybe we want the warned to be free and clear to remove them and trip up subsequent visitors that don't realise they were already warned... I just don't know, but... if so, so be it. Further, although no one SHOULD object if a discussion results in a delete, I wanted to turn up and say that I won't mind even a little. I hope it's kept, but I am deliberately not commenting with a Vk or Vd... ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This template is completely inconsistent with other WMF projects. Forcing others to keep warning messages as a wall of shame is wrong and can be done abusively. This template can easily be used to harass others (example) and the wording, specifically doing so is often seen as rude or hostile by the community is completely incorrect. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 16:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: Hope you can provide a reason for keeping this template. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Okay, then I'll provide a reason why this template should kept, according to me. I don't really see a clear reason the template to be deleted. Sometimes users are removing right warnings, without providing a clear reason to do so. When noticing it, you can restore it and sending this warning. But anyway, the most warnings that have been send are justify, and the best way of removing warning is archiving them. And it's not a good idea to delete this template, because it causes a lot of damage when administrator deletes such a template. So how do you want to take this warning template away when it's being deleted? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Users are allowed to remove warnings and don't have to provide a reason. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Okay, then I'll provide a reason why this template should kept, according to me. I don't really see a clear reason the template to be deleted. Sometimes users are removing right warnings, without providing a clear reason to do so. When noticing it, you can restore it and sending this warning. But anyway, the most warnings that have been send are justify, and the best way of removing warning is archiving them. And it's not a good idea to delete this template, because it causes a lot of damage when administrator deletes such a template. So how do you want to take this warning template away when it's being deleted? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: Hope you can provide a reason for keeping this template. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
|
|---|
|
- Delete I was harassed by an administrator a few years ago with this template, at a time I was not familiar with Commons. Very luckyly some more experienced users helped me, and saved me from a completely unfair block. See how it happened :
- This file was nominated for deletion for a weird reason, perhaps just to pollute my talk page
- I removed the notice, then was reverted and immediately got this template Don't remove warnings stuck on my talk page
- After writing a message in French on the admin's TP, I received a hostile message, then a "last warning" saying I would be blocked soon!
- It took me great effort to report the story at COM:ANU and find a solution with Template talk:Dont remove warnings#Get rid of this template? But this story indicates how destructive this template can be. Because anybody can use it to harass newbies with an avalanche of cascading warnings leading to unfair blocks.
- A friendly message inviting the users to archive the content of their TP if they want would be appropriate, but certainly not this imperative text, which sounds too much like an obligation -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as there's no rule that says warnings cannot be removed - The only thing that should never be removed are unblock requests unless the person's been unblocked which is enforced on EN and a guideline exists there on this. Also this template is purely acting as a "badge of shame" and serves no real purpose beyond that. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep useful template. it serves as a reminder for users who have received multiple warnings but removed them without addressing the problems. good intermediate warning before {{End of copyvio}}.--RZuo (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- How is that useful? If problems persist, deal with those. Instead claiming a policy that doesn't exist will only serve to antagonize. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Useful template. Yann (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Technically Keep, but mark {{Deprecated}} for the time being, used by several thousands talk pages, but the necessary of good using it should be established on a policy page. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. If a person gets a warning, there is no reason that it should remain visible forever. Perhaps the template - if needed in some cases - can be reworded by "you can remove a warning after 30 days." (or any other number of days) The suggestion of @Liuxinyu970226: has been tried before by this edit but was reverted do to lack of consensus. Ellywa (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - this has been hashed over now three times I agree that the template could be useful. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Ymnes that this template exists just to frighten new users into believing that they've broken the rules. This template being disguised as a legitimate warning (it even has a little warning sign) for a policy that doesn't even exist is far more hostile than blanking your own talk page allegedly is considered to be. This Wikipedia policy page states that "although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" and that "the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Why should antagonistic "warnings" be resorted to over assuming good faith? It would be miles better to say something along the lines of "Hey user, I'm other user. I just want to inform you that, while it's not against any policy, it isn't always the best idea to remove warnings from your talk page because [...]".
Furthermore, the links included in the template aren't even useful to new users because they don't discuss anything about removing warnings from your own talk page, so now this looks even more like an easy way to get a quick scare out of someone without assisting them or further elaborating.Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per the three previous sections, particularly LX's post of 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Although I’m inclined to agree with your vote, responses like that do nothing to help new users integrate into our community (the nominator isn’t new, but it’s clear that they are feeling some undeserved hostility here). I saw an English Wikipedia user talk page of a user with a rejected draft and an indefinite block – even there, every template seemed to be carefully written to soften the blow, offer assistance and hold open the possibility that the user would become a substantial contributor. Commons has much to learn from the English Wikipedia. Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. My comment above was posted before you added the reference to LX's post of 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC). For my response to that post, see below. Brianjd (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13 I agree with everything you said, but given how the DRs above went, there is almost no chance of this DR succeeding.
- If we can’t delete this template, can we at least fix it? Like I said at the template’s talk page, the current wording is terrible. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete per the previous discussions. We need no templates that suggest policies which don't exist. It should have been deleted the last time. That close was against consensus and without merit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder: Speedy deletions have to comply with one or more of the criteria at COM:CSD. Which criterion or criteria do you allege here? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. I think speedy delete !votes can be interpreted a bit more loosely than that, just like speedy keep !votes. I note that this DR has attracted two such votes, yet it has not been closed. Brianjd (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: COM:CSD is a policy here. By making that post, it appears that @Guido den Broeder thinks the subject template should be speedily deleted by the closing Admin because it meets one or more of the criteria for that policy. I want to know which criterion or criteria and why. If the user cannot produce a good answer, then the post was disruptive. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Admins are expected to apply good judgement, which sometimes involves closing a DR early (either as keep or as delete). No specific policy-based reason is required.
- It follows that other users may request the closing admin to act a certain way, also without giving a specific policy-based reason. Brianjd (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Nonetheless reasons have been provided: G3 and G7. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder I’m not really sure why this DR is suddenly open (yet again), but now I can reply: G7 is absurd, given that the first comment suggesting deletion was more than 8 months after the template was created and the first deletion request was more than 2 years after the template was created. Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- "For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed instead." Which is what we've done and what Lar would have done themselves if someone else hadn't done it first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder Obviously, if something is not eligible for speedy deletion, a regular deletion request should be created. So what? How is G7 relevant here? Brianjd (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- By itself it wouldn't be, but it supports my argument for a speedy delete per G3. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder Obviously, if something is not eligible for speedy deletion, a regular deletion request should be created. So what? How is G7 relevant here? Brianjd (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- "For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed instead." Which is what we've done and what Lar would have done themselves if someone else hadn't done it first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder I’m not really sure why this DR is suddenly open (yet again), but now I can reply: G7 is absurd, given that the first comment suggesting deletion was more than 8 months after the template was created and the first deletion request was more than 2 years after the template was created. Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Nonetheless reasons have been provided: G3 and G7. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: COM:CSD is a policy here. By making that post, it appears that @Guido den Broeder thinks the subject template should be speedily deleted by the closing Admin because it meets one or more of the criteria for that policy. I want to know which criterion or criteria and why. If the user cannot produce a good answer, then the post was disruptive. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. I think speedy delete !votes can be interpreted a bit more loosely than that, just like speedy keep !votes. I note that this DR has attracted two such votes, yet it has not been closed. Brianjd (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder: Speedy deletions have to comply with one or more of the criteria at COM:CSD. Which criterion or criteria do you allege here? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the previous DR. A) There's no rule here that says users cannot remove warnings. B) The template is purely acting as a "badge of shame" and serves no real purpose beyond that. –Davey2010Talk 21:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep no merit repeating discussion because of some users. RZuo (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Actually that is how we do things here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus can and does change although sure repeatedly renominating the same thing over and over again is disruptive,
- Although not EN there has been one rule set up where one EN page can only be nominated every 5-10 years (and anything before that is speedy closed) - Maybe that should apply here once this DR is done?
- Again I still maintain it should be deleted and this should be the final DR on this but thee would need to be boundary line somewhere. –Davey2010Talk 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I would say every 1 year, but there should always be room for an exception when circumstances require it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Luckily, we have just passed one year since the last DR. Brianjd (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I would say every 1 year, but there should always be room for an exception when circumstances require it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Actually that is how we do things here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Rewriting it to match the prevailing guidance would require a name change into e.g. 'Feel free to remove warnings'. Better to create that from scratch. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- +1 - I would support deletion and a whole new friendly template from scratch I would 110% support that. That's a fantastic compromise. –Davey2010Talk 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fair point, striking earlier vote. --Belbury (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Rewriting it to match the prevailing guidance would require a name change into e.g. 'Feel free to remove warnings'. Better to create that from scratch. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Elliot321, Timeshifter, Eti15TrSf, A1Cafel, AFBorchert, Lar, Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker, Basile Morin, Liuxinyu970226, Ellywa as the remaining contributors to the previous DR (not already involved in this DR). Pinging @Jameslwoodward as the closing admin of the last DR. Pinging @Yann, whose only contribution to this DR was to close it (now reverted). Brianjd (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest to also ping other editors of it @Siebrand, Rocket000, Guest 0, Kanonkas, Alno, Furcharly, Canoe1967, XK8ER, Tom Sorensen, Psujauddin, Jdx, Gunnex, El Grafo, 4nn1l2 and WaddlesJP13 to let em know the situations. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Elli (whose ping failed before due to a username change). Brianjd (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Slomox, Denniss, Herbythyme, Rillke, Fastily as the remaining contributors to the first two DRs (not already involved in this DR, but still active on Commons). Brianjd (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless the template has changed into a friendly wording to encourage archive but not warned others. COM:ARCHIVE indicated "Archive rather than delete", it is not a violation of the policy if user choose to delete those notes. Apart from this, this template seems to escalate conflicts, particularly among those new comers. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Herby talk thyme 16:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Herbythyme Just a vote without any agreetion or against of majority census? For me that only makes someone a dull boy/girl. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Could we get some reasons for keeping this template aside from "per the previous discussions" or context-less votes? Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13: The best reasons for keeping were expressed by LX 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC) — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. That post is one of many arguments for archiving rather than deleting – but there are several ways we might achieve this, such as adding automatic notices on all user talk pages (on the page itself or on the edit screen), setting up archiving by default or including instructions on certain notices that they should not be removed. Another way is a template like {{Dont remove warnings}}, which is what this DR is about.
- Can we get some specific reasons for keeping this template, as requested by @WaddlesJP13? Brianjd (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yay, marking deprecated also complete LX's opinion, just like m:Don't delete redirects. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13: The best reasons for keeping were expressed by LX 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC) — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It says "Hello. This is a reminder for you that it is important to address the identified issues instead of simply removing legitimate warnings and notices from your talk page." At what point can it be deleted then? Who decides? Some imperious admin who didn't get the issue resolved exactly the way they wanted. Some random editor who keeps placing it because of some grudge based on some other issues. Wikipedia policy makes more sense, because Wikipedia has far more editors and experience with how things work between people. Whatever is gained by this lousy template is outweighed by the problems it creates. Here is an example from the last discussion:
* Delete I was harassed by an administrator a few years ago with this template, at a time I was not familiar with Commons. Very luckyly some more experienced users helped me, and saved me from a completely unfair block. See how it happened :
- This file was nominated for deletion for a weird reason, perhaps just to pollute my talk page
- I removed the notice, then was reverted and immediately got this template Don't remove warnings stuck on my talk page
- After writing a message in French on the admin's TP, I received a hostile message, then a "last warning" saying I would be blocked soon!
- It took me great effort to report the story at COM:ANU and find a solution with Template talk:Dont remove warnings#Get rid of this template? But this story indicates how destructive this template can be. Because anybody can use it to harass newbies with an avalanche of cascading warnings leading to unfair blocks.
- A friendly message inviting the users to archive the content of their TP if they want would be appropriate, but certainly not this imperative text, which sounds too much like an obligation -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- We are losing editors because of this template. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Timeshifter: Evidently, Basile Morin is still here, having edited 1 day, 7 hours and 57 minutes ago. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- You missed the point. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Apparently, Basile Morin was lucky[] to receive help from more experienced users, and went through great effort to find a solution. Clearly, you cannot generalise this experience to other new users, who are more likely to simply give up on Commons. Brianjd (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If Basile Morin's action was AGF and Yann ignored even the AGF to do warnings, then I'm afraid that the Yann is probably violating COM:A requirements, and hence a removal of their adminship should be considered, yeah it should be seriously considered as matters are too much complex. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Timeshifter: Evidently, Basile Morin is still here, having edited 1 day, 7 hours and 57 minutes ago. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
WTF? Stop this nonsense. It's clear that template and policy don't align. There are good arguments to be made for archiving over deleting, but right now it's just a convenient backdoor for pushing non-policy. On the other hand, the above discussions are a strong indicator that the current policy may be outdated and not grounded in reality any more. In any case, this is not a constructive way to resolve the underlying issue. Instead of repeatedly fighting over the template, there should be a serious, constructive discussion about whether the policy might need a revision to reflect the practical needs of the project. If the community agrees to change the policy towards making archiving mandatory, we can have a discussion about how to make the wording of the template less hostile. If the community decides to keep the policy as is, the template needs to go (or edited in a way that is in line with the policy). A deletion request for a template is not the right place to evolve/clarify policy. It's been more than 10 years since this issue has been brought up first. Stop bickering around and finally have the policy RFC that needs to be had. --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, there is another underlying problem: The people who want the template gone are the ones who do not think the policy should be changed, so why should they start an RFC. DR is entirely justified from that POV. On the other hand, as long as the template exists and keeps being kept in the DRs, the other side has no reason to start a policy RFC - they can only lose.
- It seems like the only way to break out of this cycle, is for a brave admin to delete the template for now. Proponents of the template can get it back after they have convinced the community to change the policy. El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @El Grafo What policy? There is, at best, a relevant guideline. The template doesn’t even claim to be backed by policy. Brianjd (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- And that guideline is multi-interpretable because it is missing a section header. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder What section header is it missing? Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is a section header User talk pages, but not a section header Standard talk pages. So the reader will be confused as to what applies to which. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder It seems clear that the talk page guidelines apply to all talk pages, except for the section about user talk pages, which applies to user talk pages. Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Proving my point, because I would expect the opposite, that unless indicated otherwise only the section about user talk pages applies to user talk pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder Now that I think about it again, I can understand if a user jumps straight to that section (without reading the rest of the page), and assumes that is the only section relevant to user talk pages. Brianjd (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Actually, following the above disclosure of Yann's behaviors, I'm not sure they are good arguments to allow me to start 2nd request for removal of their adminship? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder Now that I think about it again, I can understand if a user jumps straight to that section (without reading the rest of the page), and assumes that is the only section relevant to user talk pages. Brianjd (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Proving my point, because I would expect the opposite, that unless indicated otherwise only the section about user talk pages applies to user talk pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder It seems clear that the talk page guidelines apply to all talk pages, except for the section about user talk pages, which applies to user talk pages. Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is a section header User talk pages, but not a section header Standard talk pages. So the reader will be confused as to what applies to which. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Guido den Broeder What section header is it missing? Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was linked as a "policy" above and I didn't bother checking. Call it what you want, doesn't change my opinion that that should be discussed first. El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @El Grafo The link in the nomination is actually to the English Wikipedia equivalent, which is also a guideline (not policy). Brianjd (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Gaaah! Sorry again. Anyway, Commons:Talk page guidelines is not clear on the topic either. El Grafo (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @El Grafo The link in the nomination is actually to the English Wikipedia equivalent, which is also a guideline (not policy). Brianjd (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- And that guideline is multi-interpretable because it is missing a section header. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @El Grafo What policy? There is, at best, a relevant guideline. The template doesn’t even claim to be backed by policy. Brianjd (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @El Grafo Sounds great. Except that there is already an RfC for the offending part of the guideline: Commons talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Revising the talk page archiving guideline. (And before that, the issue was discussed on the guideline talk page as early as 2010.) Brianjd (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Meh, COM:CENT is where ideas go to die and that one's been dead for a year. Things like this don't get proper attention if you don't do them on COM:VP/P. El Grafo (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete We don't have a rule that says users cannot remove warnings. In spite of this, our rules don't allow a personal attack against other another user (which this template does). Ymnes (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymnes I have commented previously on the many flaws of this template, but being a personal attack is not one of them. I don’t see anything in this template that comes close to being a personal attack. Brianjd (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it feels like one. That's what I felt. It's like, shut up or you'll be blocked. Ymnes (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ymnes I have commented previously on the many flaws of this template, but being a personal attack is not one of them. I don’t see anything in this template that comes close to being a personal attack. Brianjd (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Again Why the template has not been deleted at the 3rd nomination? It seems that the consensus leaned in that direction, with a ratio of 8 votes "delete" / 6 votes "keep". I agree with El Grafo: "It seems like the only way to break out of this cycle, is for a brave admin to delete the template for now. Proponents of the template can get it back after they have convinced the community to change the policy." -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - This template conveys a useful message which aligns with our policy Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? which recommends against deleting talk page messages: Others delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is not recommended—archiving is preferred). It does not, and should not, imply that policy requires that warnings remain on a talk page. The translated versions should be reviewed to ensure that they align with our policies and recommendations. -M.nelson (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then, how do you response to the problem regarding Basile Morin above? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer to Keep it, as well as rewording the template and update our policies accordingly: this template is mostly useful when we are facing unfair people that just try to hide their bad actions by deleting the warnings they get. I certainly agree that the current wording could bring more helpful explanations to the newbies about the usefulness of the other warning templates and the need to keep a clean page history and archives. Best regards, -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 14:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even though there are several billion concerns about its violation of COM:AGF? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226 Does the idea behind the template violate COM:AGF? Or is it only the current implementation that violates COM:AGF? Alno did emphasise that the template and policies both need to be changed.
- But that raises a new problem. If the template and
policiesguidelines both need to be changed, what are we actuallyvoting ondiscussing here? Brianjd (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)- I intend to reserve this question for @Jeff G., the 1st vote-keeper above. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Here, despite tangents, we are discussing the template only as per the four original posts. Changing the Commons:Talk page guidelines could be discussed at Commons talk:Talk page guidelines or COM:VPP. Time and time again, I have seen serial copyright violators (who violate COM:L policy and sometimes international copyright laws) removing adverse posts from their user talk pages without having addressed the substance of those posts (the copyright violations). This behavior causes subsequent editors to miss the warnings in removed templates like {{Copyvionote}}, {{File copyright status}}, and {{End of copyvios}}, and reapply such templates, rather than escalating by using {{End of copyvios}} or reporting to COM:ANB, and can allow such violators to fly under the radar for an extended period of time if they are en:WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Such violations shall not stand. Use of this template helps to signal such subsequent editors to research the user's behavior more thoroughly with an eye towards escalation. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Such removal of last warning (4 or 4im levels) posts can just be triaged by a thorny block, still I don't see any reasons support your helps to signal such subsequent editors to research the user's behavior more thoroughly with an eye towards escalation antinomy. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. No further explanations/debates? Removal of {{Copyvionote}} and/or {{File copyright status}} may be legitimate if the posters mis-judged, as for {{End of copyvios}}, if someone even tried to ignore that, as I commented 4 months ago here, you can just block them, no further wasteland-like warnings are needed anymore, as that user is already said by their heart "Hey I just wanna a block, come on baby? Block me yeah!" Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: I cannot just block them, so I want to continue to be able to use this template when it is warranted. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Why you can't? Still Yann's behavior concerns disclosed above gave me concerns on whether they shall be re-nominated for de-adminship. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: I am not an Admin here. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Why you can't? Still Yann's behavior concerns disclosed above gave me concerns on whether they shall be re-nominated for de-adminship. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: I cannot just block them, so I want to continue to be able to use this template when it is warranted. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Here, despite tangents, we are discussing the template only as per the four original posts. Changing the Commons:Talk page guidelines could be discussed at Commons talk:Talk page guidelines or COM:VPP. Time and time again, I have seen serial copyright violators (who violate COM:L policy and sometimes international copyright laws) removing adverse posts from their user talk pages without having addressed the substance of those posts (the copyright violations). This behavior causes subsequent editors to miss the warnings in removed templates like {{Copyvionote}}, {{File copyright status}}, and {{End of copyvios}}, and reapply such templates, rather than escalating by using {{End of copyvios}} or reporting to COM:ANB, and can allow such violators to fly under the radar for an extended period of time if they are en:WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Such violations shall not stand. Use of this template helps to signal such subsequent editors to research the user's behavior more thoroughly with an eye towards escalation. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I intend to reserve this question for @Jeff G., the 1st vote-keeper above. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Alno: What you write is untrue ("when we are facing unfair people that just try to hide their bad actions by deleting the warnings") because this template is used against fair people as well. Not just against unfair people: that is in fact the bias of this template. Ymnes (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even though there are several billion concerns about its violation of COM:AGF? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutral Based on each special cases, as said before, usages of this tag may lead to contests on users' behaviors, or eventually triage e.g. a desysop process based on abusing of powers. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)- Delete Matlin (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom.RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Even on English Wikipedia one can delete ones own talk page, see w:en:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Personal_talk_page_cleanup. Ymnes (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ymnes That is a misstatement of the linked section. Only Admins there can "delete ones own talk page". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I read "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". Ymnes (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ymnes: Comments, not whole pages, and not "declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: that is not what this line states: "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion." Someone on English Wikipedia erased a couple op my replies and in the instructions I take the conclusion that he is allowed to do so. Ymnes (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think there is confusion between removing comments and deleting the talk page. I emptied all my Wikipedia talk page archives long ago. Then I asked an admin to delete the actual talk archive pages. There was no problem since they were useless and empty, and I told the admin I had no intention to ever have talk archive pages again.
- The main talk page can not be deleted. Otherwise how will people contact you, or how will important notices be left for you? And how will there be any history of those notices, etc. once they are removed from that main talk page? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is correct. You are allowed to remove discussions from your talk page - all of them, even - but not to delete the talk page itself. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: that is not what this line states: "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion." Someone on English Wikipedia erased a couple op my replies and in the instructions I take the conclusion that he is allowed to do so. Ymnes (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ymnes: Comments, not whole pages, and not "declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I read "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". Ymnes (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ymnes That is a misstatement of the linked section. Only Admins there can "delete ones own talk page". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Deprecate: This discussion has gone for nearly 1.5 years, and consensus has emerged that the use of this template is a) not backed by any policy, and b) presented as a warning rather than a suggestion, and is hence extremely bitey towards newcomers. I will hence add some tags that prevent new substitutions, however old substitutions will still be respected. This decision does not prevent any new user templates from being created, providing they are presented as suggestions, not warnings to new users. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Not clear enough sourcing or evidence of PD status of recording. Rd232 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- same for File:Anthem of Venezuela.ogg, File:Panama.ogg and File:Es-Paraguay-article.ogg. Rd232 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- However, User:Angelsh has quite a few of these, all synthesizer versions of national anthems. The others have been transferred from es.wp as "PD-user", so I guess it's reasonable to accept these as PD-user as well. But I'm still a bit concerned about the "extracted from amiglobe" business. Rd232 (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- es:Template:Himnos de angelsh (deleted) might provide some info. Rd232 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)