Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Ricca.png
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.
This file was for an article on Wikipedia that was deleted via AfD there and has no other use. Uploader has been blocked from WP for socking and was suspected of a conflict of interest 2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE 22:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• 
Keep The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. The image was not just for the article that was recently deleted. The image might be used in other possible articles and should remain as that was the main reason for it being uploaded. There is use for the image. Georgivac (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• 
Comment @2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE has not made any contributions to Wikimedia Commons and has chosen Nominated for deletion on all uploads under my account. Georgivac (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE: If you want editors to assume good faith, please extend the same courtesy to them. Please read the Wikimedia Commons Etiquette. There are reasons for articles to be deleted but it is not a reason for an image to be deleted because an article it had been on was. The image can have many uses for other articles. Your explanation for this file is that the article on Wikipedia was deleted via AFD and there is no other use. My information demonstrates that there is. An article deleted doesn't mean that an image on it should be. You stated the uploader has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for socking in association with the article concerned (Tony Ricca). Please note the uploader here isn't blocked indefinitely from Wikimedia Commons. On Wikipedia, it is blocked indefinitely not banned, for suspected sockpuppets. This is Wikimedia Commons and follow the proper guidelines. You stated "There is a draft but it should be speedied very soon." That statement doesn't show any contributions to helping someone that's drafting but demonstrates encouragement for it to not be there. That shows biased toward the individual. You're on Wikimedia Commons and nominated for deletion for the images of that individual. That is not permitted in the guidelines. Georgivac (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have been blocked from Wikipedia for sock puppetry so you are exempt to the rules of AGF. Your information is wrong as the AfD there proves. He isn't notable. If anyone is biased in relation to this individual it's you. This picture and the others have NO other use. Not at all. (Note that I am the same person as the nominator as my IP changes constantly) 2001:8003:5999:6D00:9C80:257:E967:F8D4 06:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @2001:8003:5999:6D00:1C33:A67C:6860:91CE: If you want editors to assume good faith, please extend the same courtesy to them. Please read the Wikimedia Commons Etiquette. There are reasons for articles to be deleted but it is not a reason for an image to be deleted because an article it had been on was. The image can have many uses for other articles. Your explanation for this file is that the article on Wikipedia was deleted via AFD and there is no other use. My information demonstrates that there is. An article deleted doesn't mean that an image on it should be. You stated the uploader has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for socking in association with the article concerned (Tony Ricca). Please note the uploader here isn't blocked indefinitely from Wikimedia Commons. On Wikipedia, it is blocked indefinitely not banned, for suspected sockpuppets. This is Wikimedia Commons and follow the proper guidelines. You stated "There is a draft but it should be speedied very soon." That statement doesn't show any contributions to helping someone that's drafting but demonstrates encouragement for it to not be there. That shows biased toward the individual. You're on Wikimedia Commons and nominated for deletion for the images of that individual. That is not permitted in the guidelines. Georgivac (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- The truth is, I can't even keep track of the numerous discussions going on about this person/subject on the numerous files on numerous projects, all started by the same IP. But I want the THREE Australian IP addresses that are participating in all of them to be investigated for sockpuppetry. And I would like all of the discussions to be either closed due to improper filing or joined into one discussion. There is no reason to hold the same discussion with the same participants on the same subject matter. They are either all usable or not. Quakewoody (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- They are not usable and I deny sock puppetry. This is not an improper filing as it is filed as an act of promotion, of which COI is a part. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D4D:B5BA:2D0A:3835 07:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- 2001 ip was shown for excessive vandalism on another image and it is now semi-protected. All images that the 2001 ip and other ip's that this person uses from the same area in Australia need to be removed from deletion. Many of the ip's from this same area have removed a lot of my contributions on Wikipedia and has done much vandalism on there. This is about Wikimedia Commons and this should not continue. Georgivac (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- What should not continue is your self promotion (via COI) of this nobody! You vandalised Wikipedia and it got deleted - twice! You socked on there! Just admit it huh? 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 09:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- As an AFD on WP, it was declined. Others can still make a page. I didn't know there was another article that was made until you said it would be speeded which shows your agenda for trying to remove it with a few others and WP hasn't caught onto to your agenda yet. If people are trying to put it up, it shows that others know it should be on WP. That shows notability as other people see it. I have never vandalized on WP or anywhere unlike you and on Wikimedia Commons you were caught as Excessive Vandalism. I have a talk page, you need to talk on there as this is Wikimedia Commons as their guidelines are specific. Nothing to discuss further on here unless you go to my talk page. Georgivac (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- What should not continue is your self promotion (via COI) of this nobody! You vandalised Wikipedia and it got deleted - twice! You socked on there! Just admit it huh? 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 09:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- 2001 ip was shown for excessive vandalism on another image and it is now semi-protected. All images that the 2001 ip and other ip's that this person uses from the same area in Australia need to be removed from deletion. Many of the ip's from this same area have removed a lot of my contributions on Wikipedia and has done much vandalism on there. This is about Wikimedia Commons and this should not continue. Georgivac (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- They are not usable and I deny sock puppetry. This is not an improper filing as it is filed as an act of promotion, of which COI is a part. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D4D:B5BA:2D0A:3835 07:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
