Commons:Deletion requests/Some files uploaded by Mulag

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Some files uploaded by Mulag

[edit]

Withdrawing/Closing as keep, thank you everyone for your input. Penyulap ☏ 08:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, Mulag, has replaced these pages with a speedy delete request, indicating there is a problem. Negotiations don't appear to have a happy ending by my calculations, so I've popped this in here. Penyulap ☏ 11:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep As long as there's no proper deletion reason given by the uploader, these images will be kept. They are fine images, several are in use and the free license is not revocable. There's also no doubt the uploader is the creator of these images. A user just chaning it's mind is not a proper deletion reason. --Denniss (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured if the uploader wants them down and we can't prove they are his work with OTRS, then it's better to delete them rather than argue. If the photographer decides to send a takedown notice to the WMF then it's an obvious outcome of delete. Still, if it does require some fancy lawyer to write that 'wmf has no proof that the uploader is the copyright holder on these images and so they will be removed as requested' and get $$$$ for saying what we can say for free, so be it. Everything else is just lessening the reputation of commons I would figure, reducing the chances of a successful negotiation or the chance of further contributions. Penyulap ☏ 12:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Denniss... I don't really understand Penyulap argument. The uploader cannot send any takedown notice to the WMF because either he's the owner of the copyright and should have understood that the CC licences are irrevocable or he's not the owner of the copyright and therefore should say who the owner of the copyright is, with the proper OTRS notice. Until such an OTRS notice arrives, there's not need to delete anything. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point you raise Ecemaml, who is the owner ? is it the uploader or someone else. Penyulap ☏ 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Uploader tagged the images as own work himself and released them under a free license. You don't need further proof by OTRS. A free license can't be withdrawn. Unless it becomes clear that uploader is not the owner and uploaded illegally, these images should be kept. Jahoe (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks a whole lot like reason Numero Uno right here. Just sayin'
The user seems to have made 132 edits in total, 30 of those being the recent attempts to nominate the images for deletion. Penyulap ☏ 19:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a mere user request is not a proper reason for deletion. Nor are 30 requests, nor are requests without any reason given. I guess this user will just have to learn what the word irrevocable means. Jahoe (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite true. I also notice there was no otrs and they were labelled own work, so I noted that beside each file it applies to in the DR. Penyulap ☏ 20:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need otrs or any other reason to keep the files, there's just no reason to delete them. Note that these images have been here for years and most of them are in use on several wikipedia's. Deleting them would cause problems for the articles involved. Jahoe (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would cause problems that's true I agree, I also agree they've been here for a long time, however, when I looked them over I saw they fit the OTRS is needed profile perfectly, and that's why I wrote it in at the time of the request. We don't have sources, except own work, they are certainly high quality, two of those listed are featured on another project, and having escaped our attention for so long can't really change the equation. Who knows if it was an attack of conscience or some scared kid who remembered what they did years ago and knows (or only just saw on the news) that the entire Internet history is recorded and available to anyone who wants it (who knows the places to look/knows the right people) and suddenly that triggered their recent flurry of editing.
The passage of time would certainly have changed things if they made more edits, but with so few, they fit the profile of otrs needed just as much as they ever did, just as much as any new user fits. Penyulap ☏ 21:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep No reason given for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer three or four or perhaps five different Discussions, one for each of the listed reasons ? Penyulap ☏ 21:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's not multiple discussions, just four people who disagree with deletion without proper reason. And if pictures are otrs worthy just because of their quality, you would have to delete half of commons' contents. (The better half unfortunately.) Jahoe (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about different people and different discussions, what I'm talking about is different reasons for deletion, 'user requested' is certainly what was written into the template by myself at the time I was sticking and cutting and pasting and so on onto the different file pages. I've also written, and it's plain to see, beside each image, which I checked individually, that they don't have OTRS, are {own work}. They are of high quality, or featured image quality in two cases, and without otrs that is also a reason for deletion.
If I've stumbled upon people who insist upon different deletion discussions for each reason a file needs deletion, then by all means I'll be happy to open another deletion discussion as soon as this one closes and do what is it 30? files with templates, and this time I can list OTRS needed on each and every freaking one of them just for you guys, because really I have nothing better to do, and I'm sure no-one else has either. So please, feel free to insist upon considering one and only one thing at a time, or just address the OTRS as a big arse personal favour to me ok?
Also, in regards to half of the pictures on commons needing to be deleted, I think if you asked poor INeverCry who deletes all day long they'd tell you they already have deleted about 3/4 and they just keep on coming.

Here, improve the wording they use on this proposal so it's closer to the consensus here.

  • OTRS confirmation of permission or authorship is usually required in several situations:
  • When a work looks too professional to have been created by an amateur photographer (which most Commons users are). New users who have uploaded high quality images will usually be targeted more under this rationale than established users (who have been trusted in their contributions of self-made images).

This user has made 132 edits in total. Penyulap ☏ 22:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing/Closing as keep, thank you everyone for your input. Penyulap ☏ 08:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Some_files_uploaded_by_Mulag&oldid=94167046"