Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinook salmon found by Roger Castillo on San Tomas Aquino Creek mid-Oct. 1996.jpg

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.

File:Chinook salmon found by Roger Castillo on San Tomas Aquino Creek mid-Oct. 1996.jpg

Contested speedy (licensing). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• This has twice been tagged for speedy deletion [1] [2]. There was no basis for the first claim of "Missing permission", it was an uncontroversial own work from some years ago. Fortunately the uploader is still active.

The second tagging should not have been done. If it's contested, it should go to a DR, that's how we work. Accordingly, I've opened this.

I see no reason to support either of these deletions, and OTRS / VRT is not required. No reason has been given to support any of this.

 Keep as above. (And if anyone uninvolved wants to close this, please do) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I marked it as a no permission @Andy Dingley. He didn't understand what is no permission and so I explained him and undo his action. Why the hell did you just convert a no permission into DR? 1 time doing undo should not be a problem, especially when user is okay with it and didn't do any action further. Don't vent your anger of my opinion on COM:ANU here. Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 11:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

And I didn't add the no permission for the second time @Andy Dingley. It should be very bluntly called vandalism on the file, as removing the template without knowing what does it do, Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 12:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You tagged a non-problematic file as "no permission". Why? You gave no reason.

You instructed the uploader (you didn't explain) that they needed to use VRT. You gave no reason. There is no reason. They don't need to do that.

You re-added a speedy deletion tag against a contested speedy deletion. You should not have done this, if it was challenged you should have raised a DR instead (hence this one).

"I didn't add the no permission for the second time", yes, you added a {{No permission since}} (and also changed the uploader's licence) here [3]

"It should be very bluntly called vandalism", no, it should not. Please don't accuse GF uploaders of files of "vandalism" (or of lacking permissions) without giving evidence to support that.

I have no idea why you're at ANU again, but I don't see why that's my problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley let me clear myself- 1) I didn't change the licence! I simply clicked undo. Maybe the uploader when removing the No permission since did that. Please check that

2) The reason is this as this user has previously uploaded no permission files (see uploader's talk page)+ A fishman just wouldn't waste his time by someone else taking his picture with the fish. Of course he would take some money. Given his experience, I wouldn't expect him to spend.

Of course, these are just my theories, but if he has taken the image, then he should just simply take the VRT permission just for us to be sure.

3) This file was not yet speedy- as per F5 of COM:CSD after 7 days this would qualify for a speedy. Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 13:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"I didn't change the licence!" Yes, you did. Please check that

" The reason is this as this user has previously uploaded no permission files " Ten years ago, they uploaded a file and didn't know they needed to add a licence tag and it was summarily deleted as a result. Not implying that it was any form of copyvio, just that they hadn't done the paperwork on it. To make it clear to you: that is not any policy-based reason for you to come back a decade later and start picking off their random uploads for no reason.

" A fishman just wouldn't waste his time by someone else taking his picture with the fish. Of course he would take some money. Given his experience, I wouldn't expect him to spend." I have no idea what any of that means. But it's nothing resembling a deletion reason.

"This file was not yet speedy" I'm using the term in a rather lax manner. My point is that it's a form of summary deletion without a DR, without a mechanism for discussion or refutation of your deletion rationale (A rationale that was anyway so obviously false, that I could perhaps even have simply reverted it and not bothered with this pointless DR). We do use such summary deletions as a time-saving measure, if the deletion rationale is so self-evident that there is no likely challenge to the deletion. But if there is, we return to our standard process, of deletion by discussion and consensus (i.e. a DR). No-one gets to stick repeated summary, non-discussion deletions onto content over and over (unless there's a pretty exceptional reason).

Are you still advocating this deletion as valid? Or can we close this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said this file should be deleted or kept. I am just wanting that the uploader submit permission and its done. It would take less than 10 minutes for the uploader. And please stop nitpicking. The time we are wasting here just arguing @User:Andy Dingley, I request to uploader to submit the permission of you are sure you are the sole copyright owner.

•  Keep - Andrew yet again sticking his nose in where it's not wanted thinking he knows best when he clearly doesn't. C2020 acted accordingly by no-permissioning this so why the holy hell are we here ?. –Davey2010^Talk 19:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ticket:2021121710001002 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 23:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Kept: COM:VRT has been received. The ball is in their court now. --Missvain (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)