Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foto recente..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:Foto recente..jpg

out of scope –Davey2010^Talk 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've undone an admin close as their reason was "no valid reason for deletion. In use on user page"[1] - Well It's a perfectly valid reason (Ironically the admin's deleted tons of my DRs all with "out of scope"), Anyway the image was being used on someones userpage (which due to privacy concerns I've requested speedy deletion of) however the image is still out of project scope, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• (A) I'm not a "their", I'm female, the word is "her close". (B) Until you removed the image it was in use on a user's page; usually we let people have a user page for more than 7 days when they start editing. Had this been a year old and with nothing else on the user page, I might have had a different opinion. (C) We do not know but this action of removing the user's page within a week of it's formation may cost us a contributor or a pile of contributors as the trickle-down effect of "My photo was removed... my page was blanked" hits this young person's circle of friends. (D) I think the way this was handled was wrong. At a minimum, Davey2010 (who is not an administrator) should have contacted me before reversing my close on this image. Yes, I have closed many others "deleted, out of scope" but each file is judged alone. This one was in use until Davey2010 removed it which would be seem to be gaming the system to make it "not in use" and thus "out of scope". (Conclusion) I found no valid deletion criteria for this image while it was in use on the users page which had been created only the week before. To remove both the file in use and the close is problemattic. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Kept: Restoring original closure, user page images are sacred, please re-nominate instead of reverting closures. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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:Foto recente..jpg

Renominating - After nominating the file the first time I'd found out the editors userpage included alot of extremely personal info about the editor all of which shouldn't have been there, So I had CSD'd their userpage ... and it was deleted, So now we have an image being unused (As I said elsewhere admittingly I could've handled things much differently and better) but anyway the image isn't being used on a userpage (although if it is later I'd bemore than happy to withdraw), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Delete: First, you first nominated the file for, strictly talking, invalid reason; but, as you explained that the userpage is just garbage or contains private data, the file loss its scope (if the user page violates the Wikipedia Policies, the file is then outside the scope in Commons). @Ellin Beltz: did you even reviewed the User page where the file was used in order if it follows the Wikipedia Policies (then the Commons ones for the file)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Hi Amitie 10g - So am I correct in thinking a userpage image (like the one nominated) is only out of scope if it's not in use (or on a userpage} ?, The page had info like his date of birth, the schools he went to (all of which were under his real name so if anyone wanted to track him down it wouldn't of been hard, and I think it may of had his address although I'm not sure on that one), Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Reviewing Wikipedia policies is not a required part of a Commons image review. I don't see any evidence that Davey2010 contacted the new user prior to wiping his page off the site. The page looked like a young person/new user page; often they start out differently and then change over time as they realize wiki is not just another social media site. (Here's an example of a Commons user page which started out very small and has become bigger as the user has become more active: "EARLY", and "NOW") Most people radically change their user pages over time, that the one being discussed was put up only a week before shows that it was very new, as was the user. I really see here a single-minded pursuit to remove this image - despite the fact that it was in use until the nominator removed it from use, and even blanked out/removed the entire page it occurred on in en:Wiki. This seems rather "my way or the highway" which may not parse for you Amitie 10g with your language difficulties, but in U.S. it means "do it my way or leave." Which is a complete reverse on Commons policy which seeks consensus for decisions. What I saw when I saw the user page which is now gone, was a typical young person user page of what looks to be a bright young man who might have made a good contributor, but with the reception he received, I personally would be surprised if he ever came back and contributed. I know plenty of people who feel they were badly treated at Commons, I would add this young man to the list without question. Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ellin Beltz I really see here a single-minded pursuit to remove this image - despite the fact that it was in use until the nominator removed it from use, and even blanked out/removed the entire page it occurred on in en:Wiki. This seems rather "my way or the highway" - I stated the entire reason for removing it above had you bothered to read it!, (and the image was being used on PT.WIKI not EN), Secondly that's not the case at all, He may be a bright person etc etc but that doesn't mean you get to have a very personal userpage which under any wiki-language policy should be deleted and if you couldn't see that then I question why on earth you're an admin but moving on, Again had you even bothered to read what I wrote you'd clearly see I stated "although if it is later I'd bemore than happy to withdraw" so no I'm not on some crusade to remove the image - The fact is the userpage was extremely personal and was deleted for that and now we have no use for this image however again I'll add if it's used anywhere I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In order to avoid further problems, please provide more detailed reasoning for deletion next time. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• What about your DRs for invalid reasons speedy closed, Ellin? Did you considered how I felt when you nominated File:Bethlehem Steel logo.svg (PD-Textlogo and PD-US-1923) for deletion? So WTF? --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

 Deleted, Pedro poverello (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in pt.wiki and uploading a selfie, which is used nowhere, except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)