Commons:Deletion requests/File:1302 Eindhoven - HTC 045.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Explicit advertizing - This user has uploaded over 55,000s pictures that all have advertizing for his website as a watermark. Please remove all of those uploaded pictures. Whaledad (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I might mention that a LOT of images get uploaded here that contain a watermark explicitly advertising a web site. The difference being maybe just in the sheer volume of images from a single uploader. To the uploader of these images... watermarks, for all practical purposes, are not allowed on Commons. Though whether by design or by neglect, Commons is rather weak and unclear in telling you this. Your "offense" is as much our fault as yours, in my opinion. Also, many many hours of editor time is going to be wasted removing all those watermarks. There are better ways to attribute yourself other than plastering a watermark all over uploaded images. And arguably, those images are less likely to be used anywhere simply because they do contain such a watermark. – JBarta (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Communication with the uploader has already happened and he has flat-out refused to upload without watermark. His stateed intent is to advertize his website and he says he has already seen an increase in visitorship due to this campaign. It should be noted that none of these images are used in articles on nl.wikipeida, but they do appear in {commonscat} links at the bottom of many (city) pages. This may ultimately force us to remove these sisterwiki templates from those pages. Whaledad (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone wishes to get a watermark removed from an image, they can make a request at the Graphics Lab here or here. For prompt action, just request watermark removal from images that are in use... don't request removal from all or large numbers. Anyone is welcome to go through his contributions and see where he may have added images. Also, it's not inconceivable that the uploader is fibbing about visits to his website increasing, or possibly the weekly visits have gone from 5 to 8 simply because a few editors here are curious about the guy who uploaded all those watermarked images to Commons. – JBarta (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the sake of reference and organization, I added all his uploads to Category:Uploads by Microtoerisme with watermarks which is a subcategory of Category:Images with watermarks. – JBarta (talk)
- Communication with the uploader has already happened and he has flat-out refused to upload without watermark. His stateed intent is to advertize his website and he says he has already seen an increase in visitorship due to this campaign. It should be noted that none of these images are used in articles on nl.wikipeida, but they do appear in {commonscat} links at the bottom of many (city) pages. This may ultimately force us to remove these sisterwiki templates from those pages. Whaledad (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Whaledad: You mention "55,000" pictures. I count 1,452. Where are you getting this number? – JBarta (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess 55k images with spam-watermarks, of which 1452 from this guy.. But in fact, all 55k should be un-watermarked or removed. The Banner (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Jbarta, sorry got my numbers mixed up. near 1500 for this guy. As for the 55,000 total watermarked images: some of them may be "legitimate" watermarks, as in: the original picture, drawing, or whatever had a watermark. What is happening with MicroT, is that he has found a way to spam Wikimedia that isn't covered in clear rules and regulations. The fact that most of his pictures aren't used in any articles is of no interest. The appear abundantly when clicking the Commonscat sisterlink (that's also why he tries to Overcat!). The guy is 100% spammer and should be treated as such. If he gets away with this, many others will follow shortly. Whaledad (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess 55k images with spam-watermarks, of which 1452 from this guy.. But in fact, all 55k should be un-watermarked or removed. The Banner (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:InZicht Oirschot Petruskerk 051.JPG – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've created a central location for deletion requests coming from this user's uploads. It's suggested further comments be made there. – JBarta (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (this file) - I've removed the watermark on this file.--Rockfang (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: an inappropriate watermark is a reason to remove the watermark, not a reason to delete the file. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)- Nomination cancelled as item was cleaned. (Not sure how to really cancel.) Whaledad (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Watermark is not a deletion reason, unless it renders the image completely unusable and there's no way to fix it. We can always try to do something about watermarks; the files should be kept so that someone can alter it someday (if desired). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as indicated by Clindberg and others, watermarks are no reason to file deletion requests and in particular not if they so easily removable as in this case. Thanks to Rockfang who has removed the watermark. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
