Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/02/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![33 File:Парк "Правди".jpg](#File:Парк_"Правди".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_قي_الحنانة.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted material Journey mini (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
“{{db-g7 }}” Prosenjit bhuniya (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. E4024 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted (non-sysop closed): Delete by Túrelio. --(｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
speedy deletion Db-g7 Prosenjit bhuniya (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete @Prosenjit bhuniya: please keep in mind that this is not how you nominate something for speedy deletion. Elliot321 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted (non-sysop closed): Delete by Túrelio. --(｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per this edit.
- File:2021-01-25-AS-RR Belege zum Zille-Programm, UA 1975.pdf
- File:2021-01-25-AS Belege des Schaffens zur Lotte-Lehmann-Woche.pdf
- File:2021-01-25-AS Belege des Schaffens in DD 1945-1950.pdf
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded as duplicate of File:Bend, OR, August 2018 20.jpg Another Believer (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 15:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by OswaldLR as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 per comment "(It's a screenshot from a video)" — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 15:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is the video. All files loaded by Asuka2001 were/are screenshots. ––OswaldLR (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @OswaldLR: thanks for providing the source, please, next time, indicate the source of copyvio so the deletion request will be complete. Regards --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Fnur0527 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how this is nonsense. JIP (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded the wrong file and its violates copyright Edog12478 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Ahsan Shakib (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
PNG file, I already reuploaded the same image but in JPG format NSR97 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, replaced by File:King Farouk I.jpg. --Achim (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope - of no use to anyone, cheers, –Davey2010Talk 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn
Comment I could see this as potentially useful on say, an article about anti-vegan advocacy. Elliot321 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Elliot321, Ah very fair point - Having worked on bus cats for the past 6 hours my brain didn't reach that far lol but I certainly agree there could indeed be a use here so am withdrawing this, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC),
- No worries. Elliot321 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Elliot321, Ah very fair point - Having worked on bus cats for the past 6 hours my brain didn't reach that far lol but I certainly agree there could indeed be a use here so am withdrawing this, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC),
Withdrawn by nominator. Elliot321 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/File:Средневековые руины башен селения Айришка, Чеченская Республика
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Rubin16 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Posted to source as All Rights Reserved. Only free files are allowed on Commons. Source link is dead, could not verify either claim.
- File:Средневековые руины башен селения Айришка, Чеченская Республика (3).jpg
- File:Средневековые руины башен селения Айришка, Чеченская Республика (1).png
- File:Средневековые руины башен селения Айришка, Чеченская Республика (1).jpg
- File:Средневековые руины башен селения Айришка, Чеченская Республика (2).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- The uploader noticed my message, the album was open for friends only, now I see these photos and everything seems to be good. rubin16 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please,
Speedy keep. I reviewed these files. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: as facebook album is open now, we were able to verify the license. So, closing. --rubin16 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Upper half of normal photo Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- So what? It's being used as a pagebanner on Wikivoyage. What's the deletion rationale? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept (non-sysop closed): No valid reason for deletion. --(｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
False Information, Against Photographic Evidence. NSR97 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep, that is not a pretext for deletion per Commons:Deletion_policy. Even so, do you have any hardline source and evidence that will back up the requested deletion? PyroFloe (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept (non-sysop closed): No valid reason for deletion. --(｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Merge/Redirect to File:Flag of Syria.svg. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- The flags of the former United Arab Republic and current Syrian Arab Republic are both identical, there's no need to have two separate files of the same flag. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. It is fine to have these both names of a flag, if somebody searches for one or the other. --Ellywa (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Claim of own work in November 2019 is patently false. Image has been used online since 2016 (this is a reversed and cropped version). Number 57 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio. Suspiciously high quality? Check. New user? Check. "Own work" and no metadata? Check. Image is used on sites including https://www.gazetaesportiva.com/campeonatos/libertadores-da-america/palmeiras-vence-o-santos-com-gol-nos-acrescimos-e-e-campeao-da-libertadores/ https://www.gazetaesportiva.com/times/palmeiras/felipe-melo-cita-status-de-grande-idolo-apos-titulo-e-diz-vou-morrer-palmeirense/ https://extra.globo.com/esporte/palmeiras-marca-aos-53-minutos-vence-santos-e-bicampeao-da-libertadores-24862835.html 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:89D8:6EA9:111C:51AF 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/abel-ferreira-head-coach-of-palmeiras-looks-on-before-a-news-photo/1289090505?adppopup=true suspiciously high quality, new user, no metadata 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:89D8:6EA9:111C:51AF 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Not own work, copyvio again https://tribunaonline.com.br/palmeiras-cancela-trio-eletrico-que-faria-para-comemorar-o-titulo-da-libertadores 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:89D8:6EA9:111C:51AF 18:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete likely copyvio. Elliot321 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE selfies.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, also appears to be a somewhat young child, so maybe should be oversighted. Elliot321 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion F10. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 12:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST- unused personal photos, terrible quality, no realistic educational use
- File:Air Conditioning.jpg
- File:An Old Man Stick.jpg
- File:Nestle Pure Life Water.jpg
- File:A Normal Pencil.jpg
- File:Air Conditioners.jpg
- File:Girl With Infection.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 23:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Wrong upload. Containing mistakes. Please delete this file on my request as I am uploader Hrivnak (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Rubin16 at 09:17, 8 Februar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; can usually be uploaded to your local Wikipedia as fair use if an article exists (F1) --Krdbot 21:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
obvious copyright infringement --Ureinwohner (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
{{Vd}} as probable unsourced COM:DW and possible copyright infringement. It would be helpful to know whose copyright was infringed and the sources of the various visual elements. Speedy delete as a copyvio of https://www.eskisehirspor.org.tr/a-takim (search for "11"). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This picture is on more sites. Etvdv (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete nomination by uploader. Elliot321 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not a public picture 2A02:1811:B217:C300:191D:88A8:DD3B:A652 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete for all the above and also for F10. (When someone OoS gets undressed, does not become in scope suddenly.) --E4024 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
this picture is for free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etvdv (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Closing admin, please keep an eye on trolling also. In case you see around... --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nice picture , let it online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etvdv (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
abuse picture sexual intimidation Etvdv (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024 Your ping is so interesting :) (｀・ω・´) (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Watermark implies this is not an own work. E4024 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete speedy deletion Db-g7 Prosenjit bhuniya (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused user graphic, uploader has no other live global contributions. The text translates to "They've robbed my banner". Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 01:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by علیرضامیثاقیراد (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small size, missing EXIF, user upload history
- File:کنارگذر شمالی مشهد.jpg
- File:Old-mashhadAبالاخیابان مشهد.jpg
- File:بام فاروج میدان شهید فرهادی کوهستان پارک فاروج.jpg
4nn1l2 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Slghirlanda (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused private joke gif, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not a publisher for private jokes. Image has no use beyond a simple joke. JIP (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mody-yemen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not Own work, images from the Net (e.g. facebook) small resolution and missing/wrong author in Metadata.
- File:قرية سهمان.jpg
- File:قرية الظهار.jpg
- File:قرية السهمان مديرية حفاش.jpg
- File:المرواح (المحويت).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work of the uploader, most likely stolen from the Web: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=simg:CAQSgQIJl40XicxdA2Aa9QELEKjU2AQaAghCDAsQsIynCBo6CjgIBBIUiBCnCpA46xKECp0n4znBE9QKih4aGoWzTgX27Fg9Drbu5JVtS_1Zh_1sUEyEew3i_1lIAUwBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBCTalaEMCxCd7cEJGooBChUKA21hbtqliPYDCgoIL20vMDR5eDQKGAoFZXZlbnTapYj2AwsKCS9tLzA4MXBragolChJmdWxsIGRyZXNzIHVuaWZvcm3apYj2AwsKCS9tLzA4c3l6dAoWCgR0cmVl2qWI9gMKCggvbS8wN2o3cgoYCgVjcm93ZNqliPYDCwoJL20vMDNxdHdkDA&q=bihar+election+bjp+winning&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2o9D93dfuAhWjpYsKHSQzC7YQ2A4oAXoECBAQMQ&biw=1920&bih=1071 jdx Re: 12:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Photo of a finger, out of scope Andrei (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
![12:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/02/07#c-Andrew_J.Kurbiko-2021-02-07T12:27:00.000Z-File:Парк_"Правди".jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Image was ruined by photographer sticking their finger in front of the camera. No educational value. JIP (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
![02:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/02/07#c-Jianhui67-2021-02-14T02:33:00.000Z-File:Парк_"Правди".jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope material. Glorious 93 (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope material. Glorious 93 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Flickrwashing? See https://agrifanshop.nl/product/stickers/no-farmers-no-food-stickers/ Lymantria (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hija saide (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Son Black Moz ft Bakhir.jpg
- File:Dylan B Moz.jpg
- File:Son black moz.jpg
- File:Son black apaixonado.jpg
- File:Son black sentimental.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Paul Homann (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:VGB-Nachrichten Autor Paul Homann.pdf
- File:SIE HABEN DIE ZEIT IN IHRER HAND.pdf
- File:Bremerhavener Straßenbahn, Fahrzeugliste 1924.pdf
- File:2019-04-24 - Die Fußgängerzone in den 80er und 90er Jahren.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not a private photo album. JIP (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
non-free, taken from https://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/cricket-derriaghy-skipper-craig-lewis-cup-clash-against-lisburn-1027699 Lugnuts (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in vanity draft. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal images, out of COM:SCOPE.
Hasley 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Subject deemed unnotable at fi-wiki, no educational use.
Kissa21782 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 19:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 02:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BuddenbergP (talk · contribs)
[edit]User-created artwork - out of scope.
- File:Tsm-wervelwind.png
- File:Tsm-moskou-kremlin.png
- File:Tsm-kathedraal-sint-petersburg.png
- File:Tsm-kaart-vlag-rusland.png
- File:Sfa-nationale-feestdag-noorwegen.png
- File:Rpl-tower-bridge-london.png
- File:Rpl-den-haag-binnenhof.png
- File:Rpl-kaart-vlag-tsjechie.png
- File:Nsp-kaart-vlag-duitsland.png
- File:Nsp-ado-den-haag.png
- File:Nba-washington-amerika.png
- File:Nba-portret-potlood.png
- File:Llo-himalaya.png
- File:Llo-groot-brittannie.png
- File:Llo-dode-zee.png
- File:Jni-stierenvechten.png
- File:Jni-kiwi.png
- File:Edk-nacho-chips.png
- File:Edk-japan-dwarsfluit.png
- File:Edk-hongkong.png
- File:Cep-vlag-singapore.png
- File:Avm-new-york-skyline.png
- File:Cep-vlag-griekenland.png
- File:Cep-vlag-amerika.png
-mattbuck (Talk) 10:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Screenshots, not Own work. No source(s) indicated.
- File:Leader of good.jpg
- File:A real man.jpg
- File:Humbleness.jpg
- File:Welcome buddies.jpg
- File:Good buddies.jpg
- File:What a man.jpg
- File:A man of commitment.jpg
- File:A man to remember.jpg
- File:A dreamer.jpg
- File:Looking nice.jpg
- File:Sober man.jpg
- File:Looking great.jpg
- File:High vision.jpg
- File:A good human.jpg
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 12:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot from a video of unknown provenience. jdx Re: 11:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Jejsiguoa says these satellite views as own work. Is that true? Does this user have own satellite?
- File:Imphal city satellite view.jpg
- File:Delhi satellite view.jpg
- File:Surat satellite view.jpg
- File:Bhopal satellite view.jpg
- File:Ludhiana satellite view.jpg
- File:Amritsar satellite view.jpg
- File:Bangalore satellite view.jpg
- File:Hyderabad satellite view.jpg
- File:Guwahati satellite view.jpg
- File:Asansol satellite view.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Krishnanagar Collegiate School 2nd Runners Up at 8th All Bengal Inter Government Schools Sports Meet 2016-1017.jpg
- File:The 42, Highest Building in Eastern India.jpg
- File:Darjeeling snowfall 2019.jpg
- File:Kanchenjunga from Jalpaiguri 2.jpg
- File:Jalpaiguri city on a rainy day.jpg
- File:Super Specially Hospital Jalpaiguri.jpg
- File:Jalpaiguri Skyline.jpg
- File:Jalpaiguri Rajbari Gate 2.jpg
- File:Jalpaiguri city birds eye view.jpg
- File:Rainy Dooars.jpg
These are all the uploads by this user that have not already been nominated for deletion. Suspect copyvios. All of these files:
- Are claimed to be “own work”.
- Are low resolution.
- Have no metadata except for “Orientation: 0”.
The uploader has a history of copyvios. Brianjd (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and consider a block to the habitual copyvio uploader. E4024 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. For some files, I submitted speedy deletion requests as copyvio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- And, I agree with E4024. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Info
- These files have been deleted as copyvios. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Super Specially Hospital Jalpaiguri.jpg
- File:Jalpaiguri Rajbari Gate 2.jpg
- File:Jalpaiguri city birds eye view.jpg
---These three files are not my works. You may request speedy deletions. But File:Kanchenjunga from Jalpaiguri 2.jpg and File:Krishnanagar Collegiate School 2nd Runners Up at 8th All Bengal Inter Government Schools Sports Meet 2016-1017.jpg--- these are 100% own work. You may check. These two files shouldn't be deleted. --Jejsiguoa (User talk:Jejsiguoa) 7:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello??? --Jejsiguoa (User talk:Jejsiguoa) 1:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jejsiguoa: I see that you uploaded a new version of File:Krishnanagar Collegiate School 2nd Runners Up at 8th All Bengal Inter Government Schools Sports Meet 2016-1017.jpg, which appears to be a slight crop of the original version, but it still has no metadata. Please upload the raw files, including metadata, if possible. If the raw files are significantly different from the ones already uploaded, then upload them under new names. Brianjd (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Metadata: F2.2, 1/367s, 1.47mm, ISO 40, No flash, date and time: 31 January 2017, 15:47. the original file is not available anymore, by chance I deleted it. It is the cropped version. --Jejsiguoa (User talk:Jejsiguoa) 7:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete File:Super Specially Hospital Jalpaiguri.jpg, File:Jalpaiguri Rajbari Gate 2.jpg, File:Jalpaiguri city birds eye view.jpg and keep the remaining 2 which appear to be own work per the uploader's comments above. -M.nelson (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Kept the two who were confirmed by uploader as their own work. --Ellywa (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prinzvonarabien (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - Of no use to everyone, cheers, –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Unusable due to the idiotic selfie took outside of it. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - cheers, –Davey2010Talk 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - Category:Pelican Inn and Categoey:Tasters Notebooks doesn't exist so wouldn't of use anywhere. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work, missing exif, other files uploaded by the user are grabbed from the web Jianhui67 T★C 23:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete seems to be lifted from a YouTube video--Headlock0225 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope - not realistically useful for an educational purpose Fl.schmitt (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded as duplicate of File:Seattle, February 2019 27.jpg Another Believer (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 07:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
another photo from Allah Akbar [1] by Shahrokh Hatami. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruhollah Khomeini in Neauphle-le-Château (17).jpg. Hanooz 18:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Fitindia at 05:25, 15 Februar 2021 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Emam.com --Krdbot 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small and inconsistent resolutions. Hashmat56 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete per nom, possible copyvio. Elliot321 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Navasha123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]com:out of scope nonsense.
- File:Lolol.png
- File:LOLOL.png
- File:NEW 1.png
- File:Screenshot (161).png
- File:Screenshot (159).png
- File:Prescriptionselfmade.png
- File:Test2.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
RZuo (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Photo of Michael Tobin looks too professional to belong to the uploader. The lighting somehow... I don't know how to describe it articulately. But it looks well done. The dark background and brightness around Tobin mesh very well. The portrayal makes him look striking and confident. These make you wonder the origins of the photo. George Ho (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep it's not impossible for people to take, and contribute, professional-quality photos of people. Unless there is actual evidence of a copyvio, keep. Elliot321 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Would COM:PCP apply? George Ho (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I just don't see the evidence here. I would think it to be likely that this is a photo uploaded by Tobin or a representative of him, for use in his page - something perfectly plausible, which I have requested and received from numerous people. This is something we encourage, not ban. Elliot321 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. PCP. Unlikely to be own work of a user who only uploaded this. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Floriana restaurant and display of Kamala Harris post 2020 win as president vice president of the United States 3.jpg
[edit]
accidentally uploaded this Kurtkaiser (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete @Kurtkaiser: fyi you can use "speedy deletion" which will get these deleted faster. Elliot321 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
promotional photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bneu2013 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in unapproved drafts. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyvio - FB per MD. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any documentation supporting a Creative Commons license for this photo. Larry Hockett (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
More like a personal photo - Obviously unusable, Unfortunately I have no idea what the vehicle is so have no idea if we have others here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. See COM:TOO Brazil O revolucionário aliado (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
KOSTAS VILLA / EUROKINISSI in EXIF. It's Greek professional photo agency — Dudek1337 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File:First photo posted to POTUS Biden Administration IG (cropped).jpg Gudi129 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep and cancel this DR since there is no reason to delete this image; that is used on ptwiki. There is no rule that prevents a certain image from having more than one version. Érico (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep no reason to delete, in use. Elliot321 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is not an own work. E4024 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
_%D9%82%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A9.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D9%82%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A9.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not an own work. E4024 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mafia III
[edit]Derivative work of a game guide published in 2016, protected by copyright.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-sasha- (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in this US; this sculpture is from 2006. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama DemonDays64 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
COM:DW of the copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well. Can i upload something like this [2]?. The game into the Sega Mega Drive. Thanks, Magical Blas (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC).
- Yes. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is correct? --Magical Blas (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC).
- Yes. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well. Can i upload something like this [2]?. The game into the Sega Mega Drive. Thanks, Magical Blas (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC).
![[2]](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SNES_800.jpg#mw-jump-to-license){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I no longer have the rights to this image and want it gone just delete it i put it here as a joke Pompeiibybastille (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Porušení autorských práv Petra.karasova91 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, no use to anyone, cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
File:HAPPY BIRTHDAY Little man, if we had of known we would of baked you a cake. - Flickr - secret coach park.jpg
[edit]
I believe this fails DW as the main subject here is obviously the picture and not the coach, Unfortunately there's not enough coach to make this "keep-able", Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete not apparently educationally useful and potential copyvio issues. Elliot321 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
older than the establishment of Tasnimnews. Hanooz 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Ymblanter at 19:20, 16 Februar 2021 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qasem solimani in Iran–Iraq War.jpg: older than the establishment of Tasnimnews. --Krdbot 03:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Grabbed from Facebook, unlikely to be own work of the uploader. jdx Re: 08:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No evidence for a free Creative Commons copyright on the source website which is given on Commons 2A02:810D:4ABF:CE84:B0DF:2D:8BEF:E2B1 12:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
公式イラスト画像の使用。莉犬のノートページでの著作権問題調査依頼で「著作権侵害」と判定されたため。 PFK H (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Eien20: Really you're that VTuber? If yes, an OTRS email to confirm your CC BY 3.0 license should be given to us, or at least you must indicate so both on your YouTube channel and your videos uploaded. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: No, I am not VTuber.see Help and COM:LR. --eien20 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- the movie is Derivative work. the copyright holder[3] of original material don't provided under CC-By v3. --eien20 (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- （削除(Delete)） 該当ノートページでの議論通り、削除に賛成します。--LightYellowBlack (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright image derivative work (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete An image captured from a YouTube video. Copyright holders prohibit the commercial use of videos and images. The CC-BY-SA3.0 license by the user who uploaded it is false. The user LightYellowBlack has also uploaded other captured images from YouTube.--KAMUI (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No source, obviously not own work RSVartanian (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dyolf77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo, non free, no permission AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dyolf77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo, non free, no permission AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
please check if logo is ok with our guidelines Albinfo (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete See [4] (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m unable to add the copyright info retrospectively so I would like this picture to be deleted and I will upload the file again and fill in these details using the info boxes. Wordsmith374 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: author request. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no Freedom Of Panorama in South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. In this image, main object is Lotte World Tower, so this photo is not allowed. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No evidence of COM:VRT correspondence of licensing permission from Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, the architect of this architecture artwork. If warranted, I suggest admins to lock this file name so that no further uploads shall be made, like what admins did at File:Burj Khalifa.jpg (lock/blacklist the file name). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason 1: category already exists: cat:Sony ILCE-7S
Reason 2: category is empty (because of reason 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angerdan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and use {{Category redirect}}. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: converted to cat redirect. --JuTa 07:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Red Bull cans
[edit]No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
- File:A can of Red Bull Cola.jpeg
- File:A can of Red Bull Cola.JPG
- File:Red Bull Silver Edition.JPG
- File:Red bull tin.jpeg
- File:Red bull tin.png
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Red Bull cans
[edit]Per COM:PACKAGING.
- File:Camowen River - debris - geograph.org.uk - 874372.jpg
- File:Enery Drinks.jpg
- File:Pyramid of Red Bull cans.jpg
- File:Red Bull Special Editions.jpg
- File:Red Bull The Lime Edition and The Purple Edition (32464123842).jpg
- File:Red Bull The Lime Edition.jpg
- File:Rob Bulls.JPG
- File:Star Beer of Ghana.jpg
- File:Toros Rojos - panoramio.jpg
- File:World RX - 2018 - RD4 Great Britain (28497376328).jpg
- File:レッドブル・オーガニックス・ジンジャーエール.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Wcam (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- In respect of File:Camowen River - debris - geograph.org.uk - 874372.jpg, I think the only part that's subject to copyright is the logo (the two red bulls with a yellow circle behind). The rest of the packaging is simple enough to fall below COM:TOO. In the context of the picture, I think the logo is de minimis. Similarly in File:Pyramid of Red Bull cans.jpg and File:Rob Bulls.JPG, the logos are barely visible even at full resolution. --bjh21 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM+COM:TOO apply. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:Pyramid of Red Bull cans.jpg and File:Rob Bulls.JPG, logos are small enough to be considered as COM:DM, Delete everything else. Eti15TrSf (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: four per nomination, kept the rest per COM:DM. ƏXPLICIT 12:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT - no forseeable educational use JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep nominally useful/illustrative in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle. Elliot321 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Elliot321: I cannot see its usefulness as it is just only an advertising banner. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's part of the park - which apparently, includes a pretty prominent advertising banner. Elliot321 (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are dozens of other pictures which depict the park more prominently at Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (though the monument itself is supposed to be off-limits on Commons because of no FOP in the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's part of the park - which apparently, includes a pretty prominent advertising banner. Elliot321 (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Elliot321: I cannot see its usefulness as it is just only an advertising banner. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- 6 January 2017, 15:01:28 Ateneo University where I studied for 4 years from 1971-October 1974 and Miriam College especially its Myriam College High School MCHS was tightly guarded due to many outsiders entering the premises and even communicating with students; On 6 September 2015, 14:50:53, while I was at the QC Memorial Circle, I took photo of this since Wikipedia has this article Miriam College with its baby Myriam College High School MCHS however, some teachers allegedly preying on students "A petition was recently made to take away the teaching licenses of the teachers who’ve committed sexually predatory behavior. As of writing this, over 2,000 people have signed the petition." Aug 3, 2020 News;
- ergo, Vide: Category: Billboards in the Philippines Category: Billboards - Adverstisements in Metro Manila I decided to create this notable Category; it is the Silver Anniversary Ad and Notice of the School and might be used by many of its Alumni as Recuerdo or Memory of Silver Age of Miriam vis-à-vis the Predators haunting it, called Consuelo de Bobo; a) I created Category:Myriam College High School and added b) the Category: Billboards - Advertisements in Metro Manila which was empty but has now a photo, Category: Anniversaries in the Philippines Category 25th anniversaries Category Class reunions; if EVER I will be able to enter Miriam College High School after all the Issues thereat are closed, then I would like to take Photos to add to this Photos under Deletion; Respectfully submitted to the discretion of the Commons Community Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Main arguments are (1) subject image is not related to filename depicted, (2) COM:FOP(?) as designs of subject depicted are copyrighted by their rightful creators, and (3) image lacks notability as of the moment. Markoolio97 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 08:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Floriana restaurant and display of Kamala Harris post 2020 win as president vice president of the United States.jpg
[edit]
accidentally uploaded this Kurtkaiser (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for sculptures in Norway; inclusion of gull does not make the sculpture de minimis. MPF (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JWilz12345 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted advertising posters. I converted this to a DR as the uploader seems to insist "de minimis". But IMO, the copyrighted posters are not de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Also from the same uploader: File:07879jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 12.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Info Judgefloro responded yesterday (UTC+8) on his talk page, to quote: "The image was taken off or far from the subject and the building ground floor is the object, hence De Minimis to the discretion of the Commons community." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Judgefloro's off-topic lecture about speedy deletion versus ordinary deletion
|
|---|
|
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
같은 파일(원본 파일)이 업로드 이전에 존재.[Same file(Origin file) exist before upload(2021-01-15)] ※2021-01-01 http://www.aflnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=205942 -- 메이 (토론) 15:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. – Kwj2772 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Satellite orthoimagery is likely copyright, source not provided Floydian (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- AUTHOR REQUEST - A new version of the file was created (with a different file type), making this image outdated and redundant. Terag51 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Satellite orthoimagery is likely copyright, source not provided Floydian (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
AUTHOR UPDATE: The source of the Satellite orthoimagery is now provided Terag51 17:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terag51 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely can't use the imagery because its copyrighted. Re-upload it with a plain background as you mentioned in your recent edit summary, then only the old revision will need to be deleted (images and their component parts have to be free to use for any purpose on commons). - Floydian (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work claim: small size, missing EXIF, big watermark, user upload history 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 09:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
In scope however there's no clues as to where the location is - We don't have categories by streets or police either, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- The ambulance car is registered in Bristol, but for the rest, I agree, not much chance to recognize the area.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep Well, at least we can say it is in the United Kingdom, possibly somewhere near Bristol, and I have added Category:Emergency services in the United Kingdom to the image, which is also of quite good quality. There might be a privacy / data protection issue however? (number plates?) Gestumblindi (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter (and Gestumblindi), The ambulance is registered with South Western Ambulance which covers 10 areas so it unfortunately may not ever be in Bristol, Anyway thanks for adding that category admittedly I didn't think about the ambulance at the time of nomination so I'm happy with that,
- Anyway I withdraw the nomination but cannot close DRs without messing it up so will leave that to those more competant, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
File has been moved from itwiki, where we find an information: "This file cannot be moved to Wikimedia Commons!" Lack of source and author. Moreover I'm not sure if this is simple photograph and is protected for 20 years (art. 2). ptjackyll (leave a message) 22:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Photo is issued from official site of this artist (http://www.joel-montigny.com/photos-en-toute-intimite-de-joel-montigny.html) which doesn't say anything about license and probably not by himself Culex (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Logo eines mutmasslich irrelevanten Vereins, out of scope GerritR (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Badly blurred, birds unidentifiable silhouettes MPF (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe the birds aren't identifiable. But this image isn't worse than others in Category:V formations (birds).
--ProfessorX (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - sorry, but I'd disagree, strongly, on the last point; virtually all the others in that category are in much sharper focus, just one I noticed which was about as poor. - MPF (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 2 - that one I noticed which was as poor, I also nominated for deletion, and it has now been deleted - MPF (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
too big, i have a smaller file. too many Metadatas Marc lond (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Old photo Chvu73 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|1=privacy}} 185.91.165.26 12:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
No autorisation given by Miss Van tonder to publish this picture. Miss van Tonder ist contesting publications about her on lb:Wiki and we think that this picture is to be siuated among theese publications. 87.65.83.203 13:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A photo belongs to the photographer, not the subject of the photo, so the subject's alleged objection is irrelevant. Dodger67 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Support This photo was not shot in a public place and the photographer doesn't mention an agreement between the subject and him/her/them. ----Soued031 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)- Support The uploader was informed, 3 weeks ago, that his picture may be deleted. I think it's his job to do the necessary if he wants the picture kept. There are enough free pictures of the person taken during public events. --Les Meloures (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Looks more like some scanned from printed (promotional?) material photo. Glorious 93 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The photo is from official web site of the University of West Attica, with no copyright issues as far as i know.--Kosths (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: https://www.uniwa.gr/en/ clearly states (c) at the bottom of the page. --Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This photo is dated as of August 3,1940, though the people on it are dressed in coats. No source is provided, but it is describes as own work by the user who uploaded it, that is obviously not true. Jingiby (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)ided
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I am the person on the picture and I would like to have it deleted. The other pictures in this category are alright, it's just this one particular picture I don't like. 2.205.38.6 14:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, given uploader's history. No camera metadata. Smaller (2,102,784 pixels, 820 KB). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a poor quality image that has never been used and is not likely to be used. Swmmng (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Question Who is this Martina Schumacher? Is she notable? Is the person in the image the artist en:Martina Schumacher? If yes, then I think we could use the picture even though it is rather blurry; it would not be too poor for use in a Wikipedia article (in thumbnail size it looks quite fine). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Based on uploaders history it is her so it is in Scope. --Gbawden (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I cannot open source link, but license "PD-old" for 2015 photo is wrong. OTRS-permission from author Lukerya Shikhova is needed. Taivo (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Lukerya has hidden the image and Web Archive is useless, No evidence that the uploader is Lukerya and as such (as Taivo states) Lukerya would need to go to OTRS. Anyway delete per nom. –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of Khakassia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong license and logo still under copyrights. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. File:US Monastirienne-Alt.png is fair use - as should this one be. --Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
duplicate and scaled down version of File:Sediment plume at sea.jpg StellarHalo (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. Elliot321 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE so processing as a duplicate. --Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
OTRS permission needed: image has been previously published on http://nischmanagement.se/kerkko-sariola with no indication of a free license. MKFI (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have email permission from Nischmanagement image to publish on Wikipedia Commons. I didn't know that image has been published on their website. I'll send request to fill OTRS.--Ptmies (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Юрий Д.К. as duplicate (dupe) and the most recent rationale was: Low Mass X-ray Binary.tif
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion as per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> TIFF). -- Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep image is in use on several Wikimedia project (and maybe outside of it too). We won't save any disk space by deleting it, will just make live more difficult for our re-users. Multichill (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep apparently a useful crop. Elliot321 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems license laundering. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
First of all thanks for reviewing. This image is in the public domain on Flickr uploaded by the owner himself, you can check here. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this. Thank you. (Mohirfan03) (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2021 (IST)
- Comment the concern would be that the flickr isn't actually the source. I don't see evidence one way or the other so I'd lean towards keep. Elliot321 (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Elliot321 and Mohirfan03: This flickr account has 0 follower, registered at 2021. And I haven't found his flickr account on his facebook page, so this flickr account is probably not his account. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- His facebook account: [5] (I can’t view the photo of the account, so I can’t tell if the original source of this photo is facebook) . (｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I had contacted the owner of this image (Kyle Quin Schrock) and asked to upload the image on Flickr in the public domain then he himself uploaded the image on Flickr. I don't know how i can prove that he himself uploaded the image. Is it mandatory to have followers on Flickr to upload an image on Wiki? I don't understand why this is being deleted when its in public domain and uploaded by the owner himself. If there is any way to prove it please let me know. Thank you. Mohirfan03 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2021 (IST)
Deleted: Clear case of flickrwashing no matter how good the intentions. The photographer owns the copyright and thus the photographer needs to release it via OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a derived work, who made the cover art? --ghouston (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aquila (1980)
[edit]1982 publication of hungarian authorship, This is not PD in it's origin country or in the US.
- File:Aquila (1980) (19125608094).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19125681514).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19125882264).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19125888134).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19125972004).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19125974504).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19127374243).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19127483053).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19127544933).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19560303990).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19560346088).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19560408438).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19560422578).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19561639389).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19561713279).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19561856919).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19722010216).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19722026156).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19722158656).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19722212946).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19722344066).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741009102).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741058932).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741076422).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741137292).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741170502).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741173722).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19748287015).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19748310935).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19748372405).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19748423195).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19748443915).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19748522725).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19752864371).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19753202081).jpg
- File:Aquila (IA aquila8789198082magy).pdf
_(19125608094).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125681514).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125882264).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125888134).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125972004).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125974504).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127374243).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127483053).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127544933).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560303990).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560346088).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560408438).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560422578).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561639389).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561713279).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561856919).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722010216).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722026156).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722158656).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722212946).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722344066).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741009102).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741058932).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741076422).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741137292).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741170502).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741173722).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748287015).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748310935).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748372405).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748423195).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748443915).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748522725).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752864371).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19753202081).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aquila (1971)
[edit]Images are from a 1971 journal of Hungarian origins, These are not necessarily PD in their origin country or in the US.
- File:Aquila (1971) (19125716524).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19125725304).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19125818084).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19125822354).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19125834324).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19125943224).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19127332883).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19127344373).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19127537283).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19127557673).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19560180528).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19560274840).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19560373968).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19560404228).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19560415688).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19561611049).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19561801489).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19561819849).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19561845499).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19561887019).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722058556).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722093506).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722177816).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722244906).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722250476).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722289356).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722322106).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19740980592).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19740997912).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741033782).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741037782).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741053322).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741062392).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741074082).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741183572).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741212442).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741234472).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741267192).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741303942).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19748267165).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19748478435).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19748550345).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19752896751).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19752912061).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19752922981).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19753138471).jpg
_(19125716524).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125725304).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125818084).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125822354).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125834324).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125943224).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127332883).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127344373).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127537283).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127557673).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560180528).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560274840).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560373968).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560404228).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560415688).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561611049).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561801489).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561819849).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561845499).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561887019).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722058556).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722093506).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722177816).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722244906).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722250476).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722289356).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722322106).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19740980592).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19740997912).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741033782).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741037782).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741053322).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741062392).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741074082).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741183572).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741212442).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741234472).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741267192).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741303942).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748267165).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748478435).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748550345).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752896751).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752912061).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752922981).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19753138471).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aquila (1956)
[edit]These images are from a 1956 publication of Hungarian origin, They are not necessarily PD in their origin country or in the US.
- File:Aquila (1956) (19127273213).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19127319943).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19560038458).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19560122210).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19560156370).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19560244888).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19561557049).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19561564039).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19722006826).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19741024872).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19741042512).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19748069465).jpg
- File:Aquila (1956) (19752743671).jpg
- File:Certhia brachydactyla & Certhia familiaris map (1956) (19748149635).jpg
_(19127273213).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127319943).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560038458).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560122210).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560156370).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560244888).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561557049).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561564039).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19722006826).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741024872).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741042512).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748069465).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752743671).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19748149635).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aquila (journal)
[edit]Images are from a Journal of Hungarian origin, and are not necessarily PD in their origin country.
- File:Aquila (1952) (19559935708).jpg
- File:Aquila (1952) (19721683586).jpg
- File:Aquila (1952) (19721791386).jpg
- File:Aquila (1952) (19752626301).jpg
- File:Aquila (1958) (19126825873).jpg
- File:Aquila (1958) (19559776218).jpg
- File:Aquila (1958) (19752481821).jpg
- File:Aquila (1959) (19125299994).jpg
- File:Aquila (1959) (19126880123).jpg
- File:Aquila (1962-1963) (19125717124).jpg
- File:Aquila (1968) (19127400193).jpg
- File:Aquila (1968) (19560099838).jpg
- File:Aquila (1968) (19741010952).jpg
- File:Aquila (1968) (19752959811).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19127332883).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19127344373).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19560180528).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19561819849).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722058556).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19722244906).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19740980592).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19741074082).jpg
- File:Aquila (1971) (19752922981).jpg
- File:Aquila (1975) (19125387314).jpg
- File:Aquila (1975) (19559819588).jpg
- File:Aquila (1975) (19559835130).jpg
- File:Aquila (1975) (19559925338).jpg
- File:Aquila (1975) (19747954745).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19125200234).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19125288564).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19125307284).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19126877373).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19126890303).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19126955703).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19559757798).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19559784640).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19559815110).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19559818978).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19559819430).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19561122829).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19561163109).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19561213669).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19721532836).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19721575676).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19721601446).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19721645186).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19740565942).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19740585732).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19740599532).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19747770075).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19747875015).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19752435151).jpg
- File:Aquila (1976) (19752544021).jpg
- File:Aquila (1977) (19125496904).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19722010216).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19741076422).jpg
- File:Aquila (1980) (19752864371).jpg
- File:Aquila (1992) (19561193869).jpg
_(19559935708).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19721683586).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19721791386).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752626301).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19126825873).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559776218).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752481821).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125299994).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19126880123).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125717124).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19127400193).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19560099838).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19741010952).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752959811).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125387314).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559819588).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559835130).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559925338).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19747954745).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125200234).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125288564).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125307284).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19126877373).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19126890303).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19126955703).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559757798).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559784640).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559815110).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559818978).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19559819430).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561122829).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561163109).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561213669).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19721532836).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19721575676).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19721601446).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19721645186).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19740565942).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19740585732).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19740599532).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19747770075).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19747875015).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752435151).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19752544021).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19125496904).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(19561193869).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not Gökböri. It's most likely a drawing of random Ottoman Sultan. + probably not the own work of the author. Also see google search results. Beshogur (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is no proof that the opinions asserted by the editor above are factual. He or she has not set out any supporting evidence. Urselius (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. This is clearly cropped from somewhere else, missing essential source info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong license and logo still under copyrights. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 18:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. See COM:TOO Brazil O revolucionário aliado (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Derivative wor on memorial plaque by Osmi Nyströn, unveided in 2007. No FOP for sculptures in Finland, not in PD. Htm (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:FOP Finland. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ficheiro:Flag of Eldorado SP.png Ficheiro:Flag of Eldorado SP.png without sources O revolucionário aliado (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @O revolucionário aliado: can you try to clarify your reasoning? Do you think this is a copyvio, a hoax, or something else? Elliot321 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Eldorado SP.png and Unclear copyright status. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant image, not in use. per COM:REDUNDANT. --Ellywa (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
To me this logo is not simple, it seems to exceed the copyright threshold. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep certainly below TOO in the USA. Elliot321 (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Elliot321 Why? I think the picture is not made of simple geometric shapes, its color transition also reflects a certain degree of creativity. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like it's below TOO in the USA. That said, maybe someone could argue the color transition is original, but I don't think so. Blue to purple blending is actually a pretty generic color design for iPhone app logos and backgrounds. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. A bit subjective, but I consider this logo is not made of "simple geometric shapes". It are complex shapes. Not so relevant, but the image is not in use, so possibly out of scope also. --Ellywa (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
File:St. John's Matriculation Higher Secondary School Alwarthirunagar Class XII A 1994 Batch.jpg
[edit]
This is a photograph of an original photograph. Clear copyright violation of the original camera person. Also there is a good chance to get original film and print from this college itself. Suggest to delete this photo and obtain a copyright allowded one from the coleege. Ranjithsiji (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Could be tranferrred to en:WP if it can fall under the fair use criterium. In that case, please ping. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Japan for non-buildings. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is the timetable and diagrammatic map an artistic work that is protected by copyright? Alex Sims (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I (obviously) say yes. The diagram required thought about how to arrange it, how to colour it, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- COM:UA? @Mattbuck: Otherwise categories that specific to boards within (or at least of) public transport stations/stops e.g. Category:Quadrilingual Chinese-English-Japanese-Korean signs are highly affected. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Some historics of the more-or-less likely cases:
- (all) kept:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:JR ED79 Kaikyo at Aomori Station.jpg (twice)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Street crowd reflecting in the polyhedral mirrors of the station Tokyu Plaza Omotesando, Harajuku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omiya-Station-2005-9-11 1.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JR ED79 Kaikyo at Aomori Station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Station symbol-marks of the Fukuoka city subway
- (all) deleted:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ageo station board 1.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aizu Wakamatsu Station-5.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anime Publicity in Akihabara Station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Daiyuzan station (4524869498).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fukiage station board 2.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map in front of Oyashirazu Station.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minami-machida Grandberry Park Station 2020 - 03.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ichiban Plaza in First Avenue Tokyo Station for "SHINKALION" shop 02.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kofu Station2.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kagamigaike, Irihirose, Roadside Station, Niigata, Japan.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kokura Station 2018-01-07 (39717088181).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument, Kajikawa, Roadside Station, Niigata, Japan.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japan Kami Kumamoto Station Natsume Soseki.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagano 1998 statue at Shinonoi Station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ninja Tanuki statue at Kibukawa station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nishidai Station Tetsujin28.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oichi station 20090308 14.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sculpture of Nunakawahime in front of Itoigawa Station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sento-Kun at Osaka Station.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Symbol of Ichinoe station.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:FOP Japan, which is only valid for buildings. This is not a building. It is a copyrighted time table, metro map, etc. The examples listed of other cases which are kept do not show simliar information boards. --Ellywa (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION for PD-Russia to apply PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- According to PD-RUSSIA:-
"This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication".
- According to the link of the photo (http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?photo_id=10985), it was taken in the 1930s, meaning it can be published in Wikimedia due it being in public domain now. Its the stated that the photo is taken in 1930s, in the photo caption. Even after it was stated in the photo caption, its really confusing on why you are adding the deletion request to the photo.Toadboy123 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean it was PUBLISHED early enough. There is no reason to think it was published pre 1943 just because it's from 1930's - not all photos get published immediatly, and the only source of publication here is a website that certainly didn't exist before the cutoff date. We are not permitted to assume publication in year of creation without finding one.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unknown first publication date and unknown photographer. Can be safely undeleted 120 after the image was taken, so 120 years after 1940 = 2060. --Ellywa (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION for PD-Russia to apply PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
According to PD-RUSSIA:- "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication".
According to the link of the photo (http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?photo_id=10985), it was taken in early 1940, meaning it can be published in Wikimedia due it being in public domain now. Toadboy123 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, it only says it was taken in 1940. That doesn't mean it was PUBLISHED early enough. We are not permitted to assume publication in year of creation without finding one.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unknown first publication date and unknown photographer. Can be safely undeleted 120 after the image was taken, so 120 years after 1940 = 2060. --Ellywa (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Personality rights concerns.
I had contacted the photographer, Daniel Seiffert, in 2008 and asked him to change the photo's license on flickr to CC-BY-SA, so that I could use it to illustrate Wikipedia's article on Davida, to which he agreed. He contacted me today and asked that the photo be deleted. His reason was that he found the photo in various questionable contexts online which were not covered by the original agreement with the model, violating the model's personality rights. I believe we should honor this request and delete the photo. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The image is still available on Flickr, however, the licence on Flickr is changed. if third parties misuse this photo regarding personality rights, those parties are responsible. Those parties should receive a request. This is valid for any photo of a person available on Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (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)