Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Overhauling RFD

I think we should overhaul COM:RFD to be more like the Articles for Deletion page on the English Wikipedia. There are way too many deletion requests to even list here without your browser or the site itself buckling under the pressure. I think we should just sort it out by day on separate pages (which is already possible because I think the current transclusion is already day sorted) and list them out. Oppose, support, or neutral? That, is the question. ViperSnake151 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • I don't think splitting up DRs (Rocket's suggestion below) is a good one...too much newbie confusion, and thus too much work in trying to sort them all. This one works well, I think. giggy (:O) 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deciding on if their request is copyright related or not would be confusing to noobs? Have some faith in the Internet age. :) Rocket000 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comment

  • I agree we need to do something. Mike simply commented out a few days, which is more of a temporary solution (and we're still over the limit—today won't show up!) This is can be solved by removing a couple days (but remember the older they are, the smaller they usually are), subst'ing templates (messy markup = not ideal) and archiving as soon as they're closed. The thing is we shouldn't have to resort to these things. And even if we can stay below the post-expand limit, the page takes forever to load. This slows down the whole process. We need to restructure our set up. How we do that, I don't know. We could go by days, but that's not convenient. As I proposed before, what about splitting it up by types of DRs? E.g. a page for copyright-related issues, a page for mass nominations, and a page for everything else. This would be a nice separation regardless of trying to fix our current problem. Rocket000 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Commons talk:Deletion requests/Current requests#Too many includes. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Let's give the bots some time to work and we'll try to salvage this method. I don't think it is scalable however, and we may need to revisit this issue soon. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ended up getting done for technical reasons, per discussion elsewhere.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaner archives

Would anyone oppose me sending a bot through the DR archives to remove all the excess space between the requests? It's kinda messy right now. The main reason this happens is because closers don't include the line <noinclude>{{Commons:Deletion requests/box}}</noinclude> inside {{delh}} and {{delf}}. I think that line should simply be removed anyway when closed. And don't oppose this because it sounds trivial. It bothers me and RocketBot wouldn't mind the work. Rocket000 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, give'er. IMO, everything there (including !vote templates and {{delh}}/{{delf}}!) should be substed (and you can remove {{Commons:Deletion requests/box}} as it's not necessary). The point of substitution is so things in archives don't change. Also, this reduces the impact of edits to things included there. So by substing {{delh}} for example you don't bloat the job queue as much since all the ones in the archives are no longer transcluded. So yeah, go for it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. giggy (:O) 01:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Cool. I'll be sure to subst any templates while I make my way through. Still got a little work to do on perfecting my regexes, but I'll be getting to it soon. Rocket000 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If your bot uses AWB, I think template substing is a feature there. Not sure if this'll cover the box removal, but it might make your life easier if you haven't already thought of it...just sayin'! giggy (:O) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Very true. I almost forgot about that, but you still got to enter each template you want to subst. With a simple search & replace regex you can subst all templates in one step: \{\{([^\}]*)\}\} → {{subst:$1}} Well, that's a start anyway. Don't think we want to subst everything within double brackets. I think I'll be using a combination of both. Thanks for reminding me. Rocket000 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Requests

What generally happens with the old requests? e.g.Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rüm Hart.jpg is here nearly half a year in here and minimum three votes say "delete" but no one cares about this request. I mean, is there any dead line, when there has to be a decision whether stay or delete? Thanx for your answere.--217.255.95.232 12:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there? please give me an answere. Thanxx a lot!--217.255.87.18 07:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We close them when we think it's appropriate. I don't see why that work is said to be a copyvio; nobody's given any original source to show that it is a copyvio, and I don't find the claim of self-authorship to be entirely implausible, so I won't close it either. We don't work on "votes" here, we go on convincing arguments. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Red_Army_recruitment_poster.jpg

Dear Collard, why would you delete a very useful for the article picture, see Bashlyk (diff) (hist) . . mb Bashlyk‎; 17:01 . . (-125) . . CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) (Removing "Red_Army_recruitment_poster.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Collard because: author died in 1946.). Is there a chance/procedure to reinstate this image? Please note that at the time of creation of the picture (ca 1918) there was no copyright in revolutionary Russia, neither was any in 1946 when the author reportedly died, and in any case no copyrigt could be claimed by any individual because everything belonged to the long defunct Stalinist regime. Barefact 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wee, way to leave a comment where I'll never see it. Says Commons:Licensing,
Russia is recognized as one of the twelve (12) legal successors of the USSR (as a federation of republics). Copyrights of works originating from other former Soviet republics may be claimed by the corresponding w:post-Soviet states too.
As such it is irrelevant that the regime is defunct; as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, current (and retroactive) Russian copyright law applies, which says that the work is still under copyright. Take this to Commons:Undeletion requests if you'd like to contest it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Www3cubed page was tagged for speedy deletion

I'm assuming it was because these were my first posts and I messed up copyright attribution. I believe I have done the needed corrections and posted an appeal[1]. Following appeal instructions I replaced a speedy delete with a simple delete and I am posting it here for the same instructed reasons. Was there actually any reason to post this here? Is my User talk page actually under threat of deletion if I don't post this explanation here? Or was posting the appeal to Commons:Undeletion_requests enough? Thanks Wayne ??? 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

Da ich jedoch keiner der angegebenen Sprache(n) nicht mächtig bin, bitte ich um gefällige Übersetzung ins DEUTSCHE und bedanke mich im Voraus als: fwj-press[e]dienst südhessen!

erledigt/done. --Zinnmann (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass nuke

What is the proper procedure for RFD-ing thousands of photographs that are 'copyvios' ? NVO (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wondering the same, there is apparently a procedure but I can't be damned to follow it to nominate these, that are all obvious copyvios, for deletion... Obviously the user just selected pd-self because it was convenient... /Grillo (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Grillo - The first step in your situation would be to explain to the user the copyright issue: he/she may simply not understand. If the uploading continues, an admin will block pretty quickly once made aware of the situation. I think all of the images can be speedy deleted as obvious copyvios.
NVO - could you give some more details, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As a general answer, you are looking for Help:Mass deletion request. But MM is right - communication first is important.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of images rule out listing of each image, notification of each uploader, etc. - a bot maybe. NVO (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Have communicated in Swedish, we'll await an answer, but I'm sceptical, since the images come from different web pages and different authors, all are marked pd-self and none of the pages the images are taken from mention free licenses... /Grillo (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs: I ran a brief audit of my own contribs and seems that at least 500 of 1920 are in vio of COM:FOP. At least the same proportion applies to the whole Category:Moscow. NVO (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A good example of how to do it is at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of PHGCOM. —Giggy 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixing up the archives

Due to the fact that the archives have become incredibly slow due to the massive amounts of templates and because substing them is going to give us more trouble than it's worth, starting from July 2008 I am going to give each day its own subpage and link them from the month page instead of transcluding them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Precedents re medical patient images

Hi. For Commons:Patient images I am looking for prior deletion requests concerning medical patient images. Do you recall some? Can you otherwise help me find some (rather than browsing the entire archive)?! Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Missed deletion request

Commons:Deletion requests/Toulouse seems to have dropped off the list. Please can this deletion request be closed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Chris 73 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor change in the header

I've noticed a lot of requests lately that should be handled under the speedy deletion process, so I decided to be bold and add a sentence to the first paragraph instructing users on the appropriate way to handle blatant copyvios, badnames, and duplicates. Speaking from experience, it seems that the users listing speediable images here are aware of the deletion process but simply unaware there's a better way to do things, so a little education should go a long way.

Feel free to edit/remove/expand/ridicule the addition. --jonny-mt 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pipes & Drums of % UDR - Album Cover.jpg

Please delete Image:Pipes & Drums of % UDR - Album Cover.jpg and Image:5UDR_album_-_back_cover.jpg

I've uploaded these in the wrong place and apologise. The Thunderer (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{dupe}} next time.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Would an administator please check this out? It seems like a deletion request has been written, but no reason has been given on the image page, and the request has not been added to the log. Thanks in advance for checking this out.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should all be sorted now. —Giggy 08:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Closed. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing Deletion request

I've created Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eduardo-noriega.jpg and put it on the list, but the request doesn't appear. What's wrong? --César (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shows up fine for me; right here. Giggy (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines - it's seven days

Commons:Deletion requests#Instructions for administrators is pretty clear: after seven days the deletion requests can be closed. I've seen increasing amounts of requests being closed well before that. People, what's the rush? We have backlogs of several months on DR, but some people think it's more important to close recent DRs early? I don't get it. OK, if it's really a blatant copyvio, or a dupe (some users start a deletion request because they don't know the other speedy templates), or the requester withdraws the DR, the request can be closed, but otherwise... I don't want to put examples here because I don't want to pinpoint people doing this, but please be reasonable. Patrícia msg 11:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes files are placed on DR when they could be speedy deleted under the speedy deletion rules. In those cases there is no need to wait a week. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tweaked the page to make the 7 day rule clearer, and done some initial copyediting. More work is needed- the page is very messy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I agree with speedy closing if it's situations that are equivalent to speedy deletion requests, but that's not what I was referring to. Thanks for the copyediting! Patrícia msg 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. Have just spent an hour or so closing what I thought were last week's DRs, but have just realized I was actually on the "Recent Requests" page, and that I've probably done exactly what PatriciaR was warning about above. It would be nice if this page could be differentiated from the older pages in some way. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps time to change this page to links instead of transclusions.
This will solve issues with transclusions as well (maybe :D)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs, I actually did not see you doing that, but as I said, no pinpointing, I agree that the layout is confusing, and the the crazy amount of DRs we have, it's just impossible to look at, hehe. Mike, I'm not sure I understood your plan, but how about going rogue/bold and implementing it, so we see what comes out of it? :D Patrícia msg 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I like rouge, but I need to make sure it will not break DRBot (I don't think it will, but still...)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Mike - not sure I understand either what you have in mind, but if you think it will help, go for it. Any chance of putting a template round the page with DRs that are less than 7 days old so that the background colour is different? BTW, see also my request to Slaunger here --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

{{done}} - we now have the last 3 days transcluded, and links to the monthly logs. We can still shuffle things around, but we simply can't have that many transclusions.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done - we now have links  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure of DRs by non-admins

This does happen, but quite rarely, and of course non-admins are not able to close as "delete". Should we make DRs closeable by admins only? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it implicit in the guidelines that admins are the ones closing any DR? I think it's already a (unwritten?) "rule". Closures by non-admins are irregular (even if well done). Patrícia msg 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It may be implicit. My suggestion is that we make it explicit. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Then I fully support it :). Patrícia msg 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why we need to do this - non-admin closures are tracked by DRBot, and non-admins can't actually delete anything. Are we having problems with this that I'm not aware of?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But a DR decision has to be decided by someone the community has explicitely deposited trust in to do so, that is, that has shown being capable to evaluate problems exposed on DRs. I can easily imagine this being abused in the future if it's explicitly open for non-admin closure too. Patrícia msg 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no benefit in having the position unclear, as it is now. I would like to clarify the text one way or the other. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Allowing users to keep their they feel strongly about etc can't be good (per Patrícia).
However, if a non-admin closes correctly, then there's no problem. Perhaps the page could say :
"Non-admins may close a deletion request as a keep if they have an understanding of the process, and the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it."
Fred J (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Since DRBot controls non-admin closure anyway, as Mike pointed out, I agree with this new wording. If issues arise, we can discuss making it explicitly for admin only. Patrícia msg 21:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother?

I asked the author of a photo to deposit it here. They said "Great, except I don't know how. Can you do it for me?" Can I do it without having to explain who they are and go through the OTRS ticket business? What if the copyright holder transfers copyright to me? Normally, this is between the author and the one who acquires the copyright; a 3rd party does not need proof. (Why does Commons seem to need proof? Am I missing something? 66.167.135.177 05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you obtain the image directly from the copyright holder rather than from some internet source, then going through OTRS is generally not necessary unless there is some specific reason to suspect the image of being used illegitimately. OTRS is pretty simple though: just get an email from the author to you in which they explicitly grant permission to license the photo under the exact license you want to use (GFDL, CC-by-sa, CC-by, etc.), and forward that email to OTRS after you upload the file. It can be as simple as "Please upload photo x to Wikipedia with a CC-by-sa license, sincerely, The Author".) As for copyright transfer, that also sounds like an okay way to do it. (I'm certainly not a final authority on this.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning backlogs

What's annoying is the dr stays open or month and users just does nothing. it is just uploaders have decide to permanently leave Commons. I think after 7 days nobody votes just contact the uploader, if another 4 days no answer yet if community thinks should be deelte then delete. Deleting doesn't permanently erase stuff from the house, copy will still exist, if users still wants to use it they can ask for undeeltion.--SCFReeways 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush. We prefer to thoroughly discuss matters than to make deletions somewhat automatic. Images may be in use, etc, so it's not just a matter of "delete, it can be restored anyway". We're not going to play with people's uploads like that. Patrícia msg 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to edit the main page (no indication as to why! Perhaps the page is semilocked.), so I'm putting this here on the talk page: Template:Adminbacklog, per the suggestion "To report administrative backlogs, add Template:Adminbacklog to the backlogged page", in the header here. There's a big deletion request backlog. Any admins wanna pitch in? Here. I'm particularly eager for someone with a legal mind and patience to look at this and provide some consistency.--Elvey (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That instruction needs to be clarified; perhaps a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Adminbacklog or adding "top of" to the instruction would help... Request: could ANY admin add Template:Adminbacklog to the top of "Deletion requests" please? (I'd probably file an RFA if I had many edits here instead of mostly on en.) --Elvey (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Help! Ping!

Current date missing in the list

The current date is missing in the list, right now Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/18. Maybe this is caused by different time zones? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/19 is missing from the list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably yes - the server time is UTC. I can probably do a workaround.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It worked for a few days, but now October 23 is not in the list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Right now Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/23 and Commons:Deletion requests/2008/10/24 are missing from the list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please try a purge - you may be seeing the cached page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Shift-reload in Firefox did not help (I had already tried that). There is no purge button. Adding "action=purge" to this page does not help. But if other people see current dates, the problem is not important. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see "today" and "tomorrow" listed, so... I don't know what's going on :(  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed tomorrow today. :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IP votings

According to Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview it's allowed for IPs to vote. "Anyone can comment on the deletion requests posted here, and can express an opinion as to whether a particular file should be kept or deleted."
Why are IPs allowed to vote? If wouldn't have any account and want to have an image deleted, kept, undeleted (or whatever), I could use internet caffes or a friend's PC, different PCs at work, school, university (or any other place where you can find Computers) to get more votings of mine.
I would change it to as it is on COM:FP (Exactly from Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#General_rules):
2) "Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome"
3) "Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome"
4) "Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted"

add 2): Maybe "are welcome" should be changed
--D-Kuru (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A deletion discussion isn't a vote at all. It does not really matter how many "votes" there are for a particular outcome. What matters are good arguments, be they from logged in users or anonymous users. --rimshottalk 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot that they don't vote as they do on com:fp. I didn't remember that {{keep}} and {{vd}} are just shortcuts for that what people think.
thanks for info --D-Kuru (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy for images unlikely to have value

I have looked at the deletion policy and see that redundant or bad quality images can be deleted. But when I look through the deletion logs I do not see images being deleted for reasons like "poorly focused and composed image unlikely to be useful to any wiki project". Maybe space is not a concern here and keeping junk is easier than going through a deletion process. If so, that may be the conclusion, but otherwise, would such a ground for deletion fly? Is it worth bothering with? What about a category that is something like "Images of doubtful value"? I have tried to find discussion of this question and have found little of use but if there are dialogs I have missed, please let me know. ---KenWalker (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at COM:PS#Discussion. Non-useful and unused images can be deleted but where images are in use on a wiki they are kept: see COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project. As to why there are few deletion requests on poor-quality files, I think that is just because there are many other things here that users find more important/interesting. But do please nominate a few! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not worth the effort. The only problem with low-quality duplicates and superseded images is that they make it harder to find good images in categories. Often blur is not obvious in thumbnails. But that could be solved by moving such images to a category for junk.
Another reason for keeping obsolete images is that one may sometimes need to know what the illustrations in the history of a wikipedia file looked like. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Nor does deleting a file save space - deletions can be reversed. But, deleting stuff we don't want does discourage people from uploading similar stuff. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Ok the image is something wrong? Let's see, talk if you want to express themselves. I want to know if there is any error

Archiving of requests

Since the DRBot seems not work any more for the requests from July 2008 on (it removes the requests from the monthly DR pages but does not store them in the respective archives) and because Bryan (the author of the bot) is not active any more since the end of November 2008 I would ike to ask here, what we can do and whether somebody can or is willing to fix the DRBot (or can write a new one). --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bryan has asked for his sysop bit back temporarily, which was granted. Perhaps he can fix it, or help transfer this to some other user, or both? ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Log question

The deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Image:RaghavendraGadagkar.jpg is still open and, although it was listed on Nov 30, 2008, it does not currently show in the log of open November cases, Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11. Could somone please clarify what is happening? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:RaghavendraGadagkar.jpg says its linked to from Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11/30 ,as well as Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. When I actually click on Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11, the last deletion discussion listed there is from November 14, with nothing after that. Also, there is one huge archival box, that captures ALL the entries at that page below File:Puziveri.jpg (but not the red link to File:Puziveri.jpg itself). Perhaps the problem is with one of the deletion discussion being archived incorrectly which caused all the entries after Nov 14 not to be shown at the Nov log page. Nsk92 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you fixed the delh/delf box, but the problem of missing inclusions from {{Commons:Deletion requests/2008/11/15}} onward is still there. The page is automatically added to:
Maybe the page is just too big. Can that be fixed? Either by making it smaller, or changing the inclusion limits? --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably a bot should do some aggressive template substitution.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Old requests

Hi there, I was wondering why Commons:Deletion requests/Image:City ofinventions.jpg is taking so long to come to a close? I'm looking into becoming more active over here and am curious if there is a cutoff time for how long a discussion will remain active, or if they can go on indefinitely. Thanks. Stepshep (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They're meant to take 5 days but sometimes take months (see COM:DEL/OLD). Mike got this one. If you're a non admin and find obvious keep closes you're welcome to close them , if you'd like to help out that way. Giggy (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Very cool. Didn't know we could do that. Thanks for the help. Stepshep (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is rather a lot of backlogs. Maybe I should run for adminship. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do that, Stifle, your support is and would be appreciated. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Borrado de imagenes que contengan imagenes de personas identificables / Deleting images containing pictures of identifiable people

Según la Agencia (Española) de Protección de Datos la captación y divulgación por Internet de imagenes de una persona sin su consentimiento puede ser una infracción grave de la Ley de Protección de Datos que sería sancionada con una multa mínima de 60.000 euros. Es posible que otros paises apliquen ésta o doctrinas similares con lo cual la mera publicación en Wikipedia, o los proyectos hermanos, de fotografías de personas que puedan ser identificadas, y que por tanto pueda afectar a su privacidad, podria suponer un grave daño para estos proyectos. Deberían borrarse todas aquelles imágenes que contengan rostros humanos identificables, de la misma forma que se ha hecho con las imagenes con copyright a fin de evitar futuras reclamaciones a menos que su publicación corresponda a personas muertas con una anterioridad de unos 70 ó 100 años, y siempre que correspondan a un hecho historicamente relevante. Según El Mundo Protección de Datos decidió investigar de oficio por la mera difusión de la imagen de una persona en Internet sin su consentimiento.

Vease: Paloma Díaz Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, 5 de febrero de 2009. Onda Cero

Vease: Onda Cero

According to the agency (Spanish) Data Protection for the collection and dissemination on Internet of images of a person without their consent may be a serious breach of the Data Protection Act which would be punishable by a minimum fine of 60,000 euros. It is possible that other countries apply this or similar doctrines which the mere publication in Wikipedia, or the sister projects, photographs of people who can be identified, and thus may affect their privacy, could pose a serious harm to these projects. Should delete all those images with recognizable human faces in the same manner as was done with copyrighted images in order to avoid future claims unless your publication reflects people death with a few previously 70 or 100 years, and provided that apply to a relevant historical facts. According toEl Mundo Data Protection decided to investigate ex officio by the mere distribution of the image of a person on the Internet without their consent.

See: Article by Paloma Días Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, february 5, 2009.

See: Onda Cero

Vibria (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikimedia follows US (Florida, specifically) law.--Elvey (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Vibria, thank you for sharing your concerns. Wikimedia Commons considers personality rights and we have a policy regarding photographs of identifiable people. In case you find photographs violating this policy, please file them for deletion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

It appears Commons:Deletion requests/File:Visuotine lietuviu enciklopedija.General Lithuanian Encyclopedia.Open.jpg was never linked to on the Month and Day deletion pages. Could someone please do this? Thanks, §hepTalk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A little problem

"This page is for discussions concerning the deletion request process itself. Please do NOT post individual deletion requests or appeals here." But the template in Category:Province of South Tyrol brings me here! --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Foroa. Pruneautalk 11:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the "nominate for deletion"-function from left toolbox

I have used this function some times but now it seems to be partially broken. For example I nominated File:Keitai housyaki.jpg but the script doesn't inform the uploader and doesn't list the request on Commons:Deletion requests--Avron (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you using a browser that blocks pop-ups? I had this problem a couple times and realized it was because of my Firefox/add-on settings. Rocket000 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my question has been answered: Commons:Village_pump#Problem_with_the_.22nominate_for_deletion.22-function_from_left_toolbox --Avron (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Avron (see his message, just above from this one) is not the only person who had this problem (I had the same problem before). For that purpose I have created a help page. So please edit Commons:Deletion_requests#How_to_list_deletion_requests to insert a link to this help page with the following code : 

([[Help:"Nominate for deletion" toolbox link|help]])

Rendering :

You can nominate individual media files directly by going to the image description page and clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left (help).

Teofilo (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks! --Waldir talk 11:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request needing closed

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julian Beever Mountain Dew art photo by David Shankbone.jpg has been open for 3 1/2 months. Hasn't enough time passed to close this?--207.144.237.61 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, closed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't get it.

I want to delete a photo with a bad name, so I get instructions to use a { {badname} } tag. Where do I place this tag? Sincerely, Contributions/69.110.212.87 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the image’s description page.
To link to a template without placing it on the page, you can use the {{Tl}} template like this: {{tl|bad name}} (results in “{{Bad name}}”).
To sign your message, write this: ~~~~.
--AVRS (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template deletion

Where do I post a deletion request for a template? I've looked around but nothing is said anywhere. ChrisDHDR 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do it the same way as you would delete an Image. Go to Commons:Deletion requests and create a new deleteion request.
Example: For {{GFDL}} you would create the deletion request on "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL". You would add "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GFDL" to Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/05 today. You may notify the original creator and leave a message on the village pump. Tell me on my talkpage if you need some more help.
--D-Kuru (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
An important detail: For templates you must put the deletion request tag between <noinclude></noinclude> tags, to avoid the request appearing on all pages transcluding the template. Sv1xv (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Old requests

There is a backlog of deletion requests from January, February, March and April, which must be cleaned. I had a go today and cleared some requests but I would like at least some input from other users. Could you please have a look in the DRs for January and February? Sv1xv (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mongolian Maths Paper.PNG

This is a deletion nomination I created using the left-hand sidebar option. It's been a long time since I edited at Commons, but it seems to me that this deletion request has malformed somehow since the only thing linking to it is file itself, so I don't see how anyone could be expected to find it to comment on it. I'm here to ask please (a) can anyone who understands what a listing is meant to look like, sort this one out manually? (b) how can I avoid future cock-ups? My internet connection tends to cut out at critical moments, could that be responsible for the nomination not forming properly? Any help appreciated :) TheGrappler (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Dealt with now, thanks to those involved. TheGrappler (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[editprotected] - Please add link to [:Category:Deletion requests <monthname>]

{{editprotected}}

At the bottom of Commons:Deletion_requests#Most_recent_deletion_requests, please add : 

A thumbnail display of nominated files is available on [[:category: deletion requests {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]].

rendering :

A thumbnail display of nominated files is available on category: deletion requests April 2024.

Teofilo (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Mormegil (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This can be further improved as follows : 

An alphabetical order thumbnail display of nominated files is available on [[:category: deletion requests {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]].

A chronological order list of recent changes affecting those files is available at [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Deletion requests {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]]

Teofilo (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --Mormegil (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The escalating backlog problem

See discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Deletion requests backlogged. Probably some technical adjustments should be made. Pressing the delete button should not be easier than putting in a {{Bad name}} template. New deletion requests should show up on more watchlists (like before the overhaul referred to at the top of this page, when DRs were logged on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests). Something should be done about unlogged DR's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To make things quicker, I wrote this file rename javascript request. Teofilo (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Some DR's are more than a year old - for example Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag Córdoba Province.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That one isn't transcluded in any log page - which makes it all but impossible to add a comment to (or close). I wonder how many other DRs are not correctly transcluded...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hundreds, see category:Deletion requests. Some bot should be programmed to deal with this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Appeals process

What's the appeal process against a deletion here? I can't find it. I found an image tagged for deletion in March; the discussion said it was free of copyright, so I queried whether the tag could be removed (this was in June). It's just turned up on my watchlist that the image has been deleted. So what do I do about it? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If the image has been deleted, the normal procedure is an undeletion request. See here: Commons:Undeletion requests Sv1xv (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[editprotected] - Please update list of open requests

{{editprotected}}

Please add links to [:Category:Deletion requests/<subpage name>] where the deletion request is still open. For example

Commons:Deletion requests/Palace of Soviets has been open since 12 May 2009, and Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky has been open since 28 April 2009. I am sure there are others.

At the top of Commons:Deletion_requests#Open requests, please add : 

[[:Category:Deletion requests]] - category of requests still open

[[Commons:Deletion requests/Palace of Soviets]] - open since 12 May 2009

[[Commons:Deletion requests/All DSS2 Images from wikisky]] - open since 28 April 2009

-84user (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Search box

I have added some {{Search box}}es to the top of this page as a trial to see if they are useful to readers (like myself) who wish to find old discussions or requests. 84user (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination not showing in dated list

I recently nominated File:Homophobia.jpg for deletion using the page link "Nominate for deletion". The nomination page was created successfully, but about an hour later it still wasn't listed on any chronological page (at least not that I could find). I added it manually at Commons:Deletion requests/2009/10/12. Hope I did the right thing. Equazcion (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the scripts are buggy, but yeah, it's listed properly now. Just remember to notify the uploading user if you're filing the request manually. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just notified the uploader - User talk:אנדר-ויק#File:Homophobia.jpg nominated for deletion. Equazcion (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Search

{{Editprotected}}

Please add the 3 search boxes at the top of the talk page to the main page.--Elvey (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This should do: 

<div style="float: right;">
{{Search box|root=Commons talk:Deletion requests|search-width=30|search-button-label=Search talk archives}}
{{Search box|root=Commons:Deletion requests|search-width=27|search-button-label=Search Deletion requests}}
{{Search box|root=Commons:Undeletion requests|search-width=26|search-button-label=Search Undeletion requests}}
</div>
Hello, I've lowered the protection level, as I see no reason that regular users can't at all edit this. Feel free to perform your edit. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} By the same token, could you unprotect Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests too ? Teofilo (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Teofilo (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some massive backlog here?

Is there some massive backlog here? I ask because images where there has been clear consensus to delete remain up as much as 6 weeks later. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montfort Hall.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Deletion requests May 2009 for DR's that are 6 months old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

don't delete the photos

Stas is my mom's cousin and I find it great to be able to read about him and share is life with my children who are interested in their family and heritage. This is great! I cannot wait to tell Aunt Pam and Mom about finding this information!

Kim

Using Wikipedia as a personal photo album

(This query also posted at Commons:Administrators' Noticeboard)

Hi all. I have just left a message for User:Fale on his Talk Page and at his hidden category talk page. I have spent a lot of time today requesting speedy deletion of several almost-identical versions of pics of plants that were categorised as Category:Unidentified Asteraceae. I suspected there may be more, so I had a look at his hidden category Category:Files by Fale. It looks as though he downloads almost everything that is on his camera, without bothering to check for focus, exposure, best composition (in those cases where they differ at all) or anything! There are hundreds of them, and they must be occupying many gigabytes of Wikipedia's memory. What is the best thing to do? SiGarb (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Open a mass deletion request with the above and a clear link to the category. See Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request for info on how to do this. It sounds like a clear cut case, in first instance, I wouldn't bother linking to *all* the files, but as I said - give good links to the cats etc. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
But see COM:UNDEL#Selected images of User:Quahadi for a similar case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for your advice. On second thoughts, these images shouldn't have been Speedied, but a large number of the Category:Files by Fale don't need to be on Commons (whatever Multichill thinks). SiGarb (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Jugopolis's historical pictures

File:Normandia.jpg, File:Dywizjon.jpg, File:Granica.gif & File:Westerplatte.jpg are marked with "own work" although they are black & white historical pictures. Is it OK to tag them with "no source" instead of a formal deletion request ? Teofilo (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request would be better in this case, of course it's very unlikely to be "own work" but other facts may come out and other licenses may be applied. Anyway with DR more people will be involved in reviewing this images. For File:Westerplatte.jpg I have found image [2] that looks like source with photographer credits in right bottom, but due to quality it is hard to read it --Justass (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a deletion request on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normandia.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion spam?

Can I close this one as keep? Paradoctor (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please close this as whatever? I'd like to move on with that one. Paradoctor (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done –Juliancolton | Talk 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Paradoctor (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please delete this image

File:Methane CO CO2 Acetate acid.png should be deleted for:

  1. it only contains texts.
  2. the chemical formulas in it can be rendered much more pretty with <math> tags.
  3. the only usage in zh:乙酸 has been replaced, so it is not used anywhere now.

---Albuseer (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Please delete this one too: File:1-MeC4ole.svg. --Vchorozopoulos (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To nominate an image for deletion, click "nominate for deletion" in the toolbox to the left on that image's description page. The requests here won't be processed. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete old version of a picture

Hey there! How can I delete an older version of a picture? This would be quite important for me because in the old version I accidentaly forgot to make the license plate unreadable. The picture is located here: [3]

Hope someone can help, didn't find anything on that topic around here. Toben (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done –Krinkletalk 00:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks Krinkle! And how could I do that on my own, in case something similar happens to me again? Or are only admins able to do so? Toben (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Only admins have the ability to delete and undelete versions of files. If a deletion is because of an obvious violation of rules and/or on your request for a self-uploaded mistake, then instead of nominating it or asking here, leave a message on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard next time. I think it's more appropiate there. –Krinkletalk 11:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it the right way?

I done the buttom [speedydelete] in [File:FranziskaÖ-GeorgWaldburg.jpg.]. Is this ok and enough for speedydelete? Please a short answer, my English is not so good. Thanks --Adelfrank (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember to use [[ ]] to create hyperlinks. (and to add (":" before "File") like this : [[:File:FranziskaÖ-GeorgWaldburg.jpg]].File:FranziskaÖ-GeorgWaldburg.jpg.

If you want to delete a picture for any reason, please use {{delete}} and follow the instructions. Or you may write the reason on my talk page and I will tag the picture for you. Teofilo (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please delete the new version of this file: File:Romanian_mountains.svg. I uploaded it in wrong place. Zetrs (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

✓ Reverted. You just had to click on the revert (visszaállít) link on the left of the previous image in the file history. — Xavier, 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to do

that ? Teofilo (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

categorise by relevant law

I think it would be helpful to categorise deletion requests by the country of origin or relevant law. That way it is easier for knowledgeable people to give advice, and for admins to clean up the backlogs in areas where they feel competent. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be helpful. Deletion categorization is never a bad idea. It would be great if such categorization would also be visible for people on other projects (ex. Poland-related images would be of interest to English WikiProject Poland and to Polish Wikipedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered on request's talk page

Someone commented on the talk page of the deletion request I made. The request itself is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Statues in countries without FOP (mostly Russia). This has happened before and then the administrator moved the discussion from talk to project page. Could this be done again. Hluup (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done –Krinkletalk 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Newbie questions on old deletion request handling

All these questions are related only to the monthly lists linked at Commons:Deletion requests#Open_requests and not to the more recent ones:

  1. Do we remove closed requests from the daily lists? This seems to be the case, as most of the days have many fewer items than usual, but I can't find any instructions about it. It would certainly make the lists easier to read and work on if all the closed requests were removed regularly.
  2. Do we then delete the daily lists once they are empty?
  3. And, finally, do we delete the month's subpage when it is completely done? This follows logically from the the code at Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions. If that's the procedure, Commons:Deletion requests/2009/12 seems to be ready.

If I'm treading on someone's turf, here, my apologies -- I have only good intentions.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DRBot moves closed cases to archive and when page is empty it's automatically marked for speedy deletion, like in Commons:Deletion requests/2010/01/30. As for myself I always browse through Category:Deletion requests and handle image by image cases. Old DR pages are very cluttered and uneasy to read --Justass (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination proces

In light of the fact that most DRs tend to attract only a few, short comments, why does each file have its own nomination page? Would it not be simpler to add nominations as sections of a daily log page (this already takes place, but by transcluding tens of individual nomination pages)? It seems to me that the current method involves an extra step.

Current method:

  1. Tag the file for deletion;
  2. Create a nomination page for the file;
  3. Transclude the nomination page into today's daily log page; and
  4. Notifiy the uploader of the file.

Alternative method:

  1. Tag the file for deletion
  2. Create a section in today's daily log page for the nomination; and
  3. Notify the uploader of the file.

Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some advantages to the current process:
  • Nomination pages can be individually watchlisted.
  • The MediaWiki preload feature can be used to make creating new nominations easier. (Try e.g. the input box on COM:MASSDEL.)
  • Noticeably less disk space is used, since the whole daily list page doesn't get resaved on every edit.
  • It's possible to relist stale nominations without copy-pasting (although this seems to be rarely done on Commons).
In any case, nominating individual files is really supposed to be a one-click (well, two clicks and some typing in between) process. The fact that the script that does it is a bit flaky sometimes isn't a reason to change the process, but to fix the script. (I've considered trying to adapt the XFD feature of w:WP:TWINKLE from Wikipedia to replace it, but haven't got around to really looking into it so far.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding prev/next day header links to daily DR subpages

I found myself missing the navigation header links on the w:WP:FFD daily subpages, so I decided to create something similar for Commons. I now have a working header template implemented at {{DRnav}} (translations welcome), and I added it to the preload page at Commons:Deletion requests/newday. (While I was at it, I also modified the preload page so that it can now also be used to create future DR daily subpages in advance.)

However, it seems that our daily DR subpages aren't actually being created using the /newday page at all, since DRBot already creates them in advance. I've contacted the bot's operator Bryan by e-mail and asked if he could modify the bot to add the header. However, since this would, technically, be a change which couldn't just be reverted by any editor, I figured it would be a good idea to ask for comments here first. (Still, the header is just an ordinary template, so it can easily be changed later if anyone wants to.)

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Glitch in automated nominations?

I used the Javascript toolbox link to nominate an image today. The image page was tagged, the user notified, and the debate sub-page was created, all automatically. However the debate was not added to today's DR log.

I used Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3.

What could have caused the omission of the DR log entry? User error, or some problem with the Commons server or code?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea but the nomination does glitch in different ways. Just now I nominated two images and only the image page was tagged and the debate sub-page was created; I had to manually update the DR log and the uploader's page. Firefox 3.6.4. -84user (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Think I've done something wrong.

Just wondered why I haven't seen any discussion relating to two deletion requests of mine, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss IdahoTeen USA 2010 003.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maggie Lawson Photo one for card.jpg THEN I saw that the subpages didn't include dates so I think somehow I've stuffed up the process :P Can someone advise me as to what I should do to rectify this so these get considered for deletion? I just used the "Nominate for deletion" button so not sure what's happened? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems the nomination script failed to add the nominations to the daily list. Unfortunately this is not as uncommon as it should be. For File:Miss IdahoTeen USA 2010 003.jpg you can just click the "Click here to show further instructions" label on the deletion template, and then follow the instructions starting from step 2. For File:Maggie Lawson Photo one for card.jpg you'll first have to add the missing {{Delete}} tag to the image and then follow the instructions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate files

I've seen File:Celts in Europe 1000 BC.png and File:Celtic Europe.png which appear to be duplicates uploaded by different editors, one of whom claims copyright. Is this a problem (they are total nonsense also, which is unfortunate but not a deletion reason). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Vista icons request

Hey, can someone handle this request Commons:Deletion_requests/Vista_icons? Would be very nice because the files are used quiet often. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Amendment to DR closure policy

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Amendment_to_DR_closure_policy.  Docu  at 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Open cases for May

The open cases for May page at Commons:Deletion requests/2010/05 isn't showing anything after 2010-05-16 even though there are still open cases: eg, Commons:Deletion requests/2010/05/17. --JD554 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Appeal process for kept files

The instructions under Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal say that appealing a decision of "keep" is done by opening a new DR. This seems counterproductive; the new DR isn't likely to garner any additional opinions beyond what the first DR did. Appeals to restore a deleted file, on the other hand, go to a new page that gets more attention than the average deletion request. Is there any way to appeal to a wider audience after a "keep" closure? Powers (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Powers (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PLANCK FSM 03 Black.jpg

Please could someone close this deletion request on a copyright violation? It's been up over a month now... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done by DieBuche on August 22, 2010. Yann (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Monthly deletion pages are broken

It seems that the monthly deletion pages, with the ifexist transclusions of each day's deletion pages, are broken. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07, it transcludes July 1 through July 13, then shows this at the bottom:

Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/14 Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/15 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/16 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/17 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/18 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/19 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/20 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/21 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/22 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/23 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/24 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/25 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/26 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/30 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07/31

The same problem exists on the page for August. Train2104 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a maximum of pages that can be transcluded. It's not a bug, it's a feature ;-). --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a revised photo that violated copyright

I just had to revert File:Akwid.jpg because someone uploaded a copyrighted photo (File:Akwid.jpg) in its place. How do I request deletion of that revision? Lpdrew (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

4 contemporary paintings

Uploaded in 2009 : see User_talk:Plasda. All four should be marked with {{subst:npd}} . Teofilo (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Question re files from Naxos Records

A huge number of copyright files from Naxos Records have been uploaded in the last month by User:Naxoshk, many of them today. The user claims they own the copyright and has released them under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Note that all the source pages given display "Copyright © 2010 Naxos Digital Services Ltd. All rights reserved." Given their user name they may be from Naxos, but is this kosher? Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Bidgee already tagged them with {{No permission since}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene

I have an email from Keiana Page in South Carolyna Democratic Party, granting Wiki rights to use the picture of Alvin Greene under ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License in this Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene I already posted the picture and send the email to Commons, so the Alvin's picture was once approved, but then someone keep deleting it. I can forward the copy of Keiana Page email to Wiki users, if you really need the proof. I cannot understand if I do something wrong, or if someone is just do not like Alvin Greene? Even if you do not like Alvin's personality, he is still a curious political fenomen, so he deserves his place in Wikipedia. Please leave me message and your email address at my main Wikipedia page and I will email you the Keiana Page permission to use his photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Innab

Question on mass deletion of over 80 images

I posted this in the mass deletion request discussion page. I post it here also since it seems it may be more fastly answered.

I have quite a clear copyvio of over 80 images. (See this discussion). Is there a bot aid for such big requests? It would be quite tiring to nominate them as explained in this page. In addition it seems that with some periodicity images are taken from the origin of those images and uploaded into commons as NASA, when they are not. Is there something like a black list of web sites that eliminates the possibility of uploading images from a given source? I'll try to watch this page for an answer, but it would be great if somebody posted a notice at my talk page of the English WP. Bests.

--Garrondo (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Template fixes

Hi. I propose:

  1. {{DELheader}} be renamed to {{DeletionHeader}}
  2. {{DeletionFooter}} be used instead of {{DELfooter}}

Thus changing this to:

  1. Add {{Subst:DeletionHeader}} just above the header
  2. Add {{Subst:DeletionFooter|RESULT|COMMENT}} at the bottom of the request.

Feel free to test (Update: my test seems ok) the new footer template. If no one opposes, I will make the change boldly. Kind regards. Rehman 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I propose that these templates be substituted, instead of transcluding, just like the English Wikipedia. This avoids mass change/damage if anything ever happens to these templates. Rehman 12:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • THIS was what you posted on VP about? First off, it's an admin-only issue, second just go ahead and do it, so long as you fix the redirects, people use delh/f anyway, and as for transclusion there's a bot which does that. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I posted to VP to make sure that everyone's ok with it. Just trying not to be an idiot ;) Will perform the changes after this comment. Rehman 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I guess a close eye needs to be kept on the template instead of substituting to counted damage/vandalism. Rehman 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have compressed the template, should be alright to substitute now. If you could compress it further (substitute only the results of the #SWITCH and #IF expressions), please do :) Rehman 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a wrong redirect somewhere, my test went good. I will try to find/fix as fast as possible. This is the exact reason why we should subst: templates... Rehman 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Found it: {{Delf}} should be redirected to {{DeletionFooter/Old}}. I cannot make that fix, as the page is protected. An admin needs to do this. Rehman 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Redirected as requested. Not sure if that's right though. ZooFari 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thats's correct, but it seems like there is something else wrong somewhere... Looking for it... Rehman 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the very odd thing I'm looking at is due to the very odd way of archiving used. Seems like all is good. Does anyone have any other problems with this template? Rehman 02:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, something weird is going on on that page. But a closure I did on another page shows the template is good. ZooFari 03:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Coding of request reason

The automatized dialog "Nominate for deletion" should contain also some check box or drop-down list to mark what from admissible reasons is asserted. Deletion requests should be automatically encoded and sorted according to the reason to several (at least two) segregate subpages. An assessing of copyright violation is utterly different matter than other possible reasons and IMO requests should be rationally grouped to allow commentating users to be specialized.

For a start should be created two groups of requests:

  • for copyright reasons – (unclear copyright status, missing or suspected legal information, unadmissible license etc.
  • for usability reasons – out of scope (including self-promotion, personal works, unrealistic images or attack uploads) without general educational capability, unidentified and undescribed content, low quality, almost-duplicity, incorrect redirect, personal desire of the author or uploader etc.
  • reasons based on personal rights of depicted persons (or of owners of the depicted property) can be sorted separately or merged with one of the above mentioned two groups (there are not many requests with such reasons yet)

Requests with more reasons can be inserted in more groups.

More specialized coding would allow to improve the deletion policy and to more consistent treatment of requests and searching for precedents. --ŠJů (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Request old version for deletion

How do I request that an old version of a file gets deleted? For example, an image was cropped to remove its copyrighted content, but that old version still remains within the images history. I haven't found a page or template that will allow that to get done. Dream out loud (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators noticeboard is the easiest; we usually prefer not to have general requests plopped there, but this is a rare enough case that I think it's permissible. Powers (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Appeal question

When a DR is closed as keep and the admin won't reconsider the request the appeals process is to relist the image for deletion. Is there any issue with the same admin closing the reopened DR? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is about Commons:Deletion requests/File:J.delanoy and Jimmy Wales.png. Yes. of course that is a problem. /KjellK (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This DR has no valid argument, and is quite close to harassment. To reopen a previous closed DR, you need to bring new arguments, not puting again the same baseless arguments. Anyway I see that nobody cared for the last 8 months, so I think that you have to understand... Yann (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

HELP ME

Good afternoon!

Inform me about the current problem File:Timoshenko_Shmatko.jpg The sanction has been given through an official mail of the author of a sculpture as ticket #2010011610026225 --Rafshm (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks, now this problem it is already solved.--Rafshm (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Y m D

I have trouble editing items in the monthly deletion request listpage. Please tell me why do you not apply the same 32kb article size limit to this articles too? If you are kind please break down the <><>Commons:Deletion_requests/2011/02<><> further down to "days" subcategory. Thank you. Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What the..

OK....there is some bug with auto nominating. There are multiple nominations for a single image that I nominated for deletion. I made a mistake and tried to fix it (even bigger mistake) and just multiplied the request by another two. Whoooh.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre behavior of DRBot

Why DRBot first create and then delete the toolserver-link? Why DRBot does not add a __NEWSECTIONLINK__ making it easier to add a new request and omitting edit-conflicts -- RE rillke questions? 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

how to "deletion request"

Hi, I would like to tag the page Commons:Picture of the Year/ (take a look at the slash at the end, it's of couse not the POTY page!). But I went wrong in some details, its not my favorite to tag something to delete, sorry. NobbiP talk 20:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks, NobbiP talk 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Backlog and closing as KEEP

IIRC about five years ago on en:w: it was possible that non-admins could help with a backlog, where this requires no admin rights. Closing very old, e.g., six week or two months, deletion requests as KEEP, if nothing indicates a consensus for a deletion, could make sense for non-admins. Examples: a, b. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Add more guidance at Commons:Deletion requests

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Add_more_guidance_at_Commons:Deletion_requests for a proposal to add more guidance for administrators at Commons:Deletion requests. Rd232 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Finding_unclosed_deletion_requests

Per this request I tried to identify old open DRs. The resulting list: Commons:Deletion requests/2012-02-20 Old oddballs has a lot of strange cases that fell through the cracks over the years. I do not think they should be added to the current daily log, since many were not properly initialized. Can someone look through them? --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests later than 12 January

Why does the listing Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01 stop on 12 January? I ask because there is no reaction to this request from 15 January. -- Хрюша ?? 08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because there are too many deletion requests and the server stops rendering the page. If more of them are closed, the next requests will be visible. -- RE rillke questions? (ریلکه) (里尔克) (リルケ) 11:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A ton of deletion requests related to my uploads

On my talk page there is a long list of deletion requests. Some are photographs of photographs that date before 1923 and therefore are public domain. The campaign items from the Museo del Objeto del Objecto are not derivative for the most part as there are multiple items in the shots, with the exeption of items which also date from before 1923. I cannot go and answer all of these individually, so I leave this message here. There is also a message accusing me of copying stuff from the internet and magazines but a simple look at the metadata shows otherwise.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclosed deletion requests

A couple of questions.

  1. How do you get an admin to close a deletion request? (More specifically this one.) Is it just by "random" when an admin has the time to do so? Or what decides if there aren't enough arguments in favour for a keep or delete decision to be made?
  2. What is the policy if there is a hypothetical situation where someone keeps adding a keep or delete vote say every four or five days? That is, if there is a situation where the time from the last vote is never seven days. Would such a deletion request hang forever?

-Laniala (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Parser limit

Would it be possible to create combined pages by week instead of by month? Given the limit of the parser function, it is impossible to transclude all the DRs from a given month on one page and makes it annoying to navigate between pages. MBisanz talk 17:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How...

... many deletion request have there been in the history of Commons? Is there a statistics? --High Contrast (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos

Would someone be able to review the above request and come to some form of conclusion, since it has been ongoing since 21 December 2011. Cloudbound (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Blackcat (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing tags by non-admin

I keep getting my ass chewed out for removing deletion request tags that are withdrawn by the nominator. Is there a proper procedure that we can follow that will lessen the burden on admin having to do it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I found the policy on how to and when non-admin can close cases.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Old requests

The following requests may have been missed and need closing:

Cloudbound (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"No EXIF information" deletions?

There are a bunch of pictures being nominated on 6-6 because they are "of low resolution and have no EXIF information". I take exception to this, because I would like to hope that Commons has not formalized its submission to Big Brother so far that we have to have a camera serial number, GPS, and phone number graven on every image uploaded. In conversations about child protection in the past, I've specifically recommended that children should, as a matter of course, strip EXIF data intentionally. This is my practice as well, because who wants Wikipedia's self-appointed Inquisitors scanning the stuff and the web trying to find ways to make trouble for you? It is also common sense to crop pictures to the relevant section before posting.

I want to request that lack of EXIF information specifically be placed out of bounds for these discussions, to preserve the privacy of posters. (At least until whatever secret government watermarks are coded into the camera hardware are revealed to the public...) Wnt (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I do put images for DR including lacking EXIF as a reason, but only as a supporting reason, eg "Low resolution, no metadata, drive-by uploader, I suspect a copyvio". On its own, lacking EXIF isn't a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Calm down. EXIF data is normally just photography details (exposure and the like), plus camera make/model and time/date. GPS is not usual yet and the rest you're just making up. In most cases, lack of EXIF data helps make a case that the image is not original. We did have a conversation recently about making it clearer to uploaders that they should check contents of EXIF data and edit it if necessary; or even show them the EXIF before upload or allow editing of it. Not sure what happened about that (probably nothing...). Rd232 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably nothing. We do not have good tools for manipulating EXIF data. See for example here. --Jarekt (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As mattbuck said, lack of EXIF is not a reason, but it can be a clue for a copyvio (not being own work). Low resolution (as below 800px wide) are generally web format (camera bodies nowadays often gives more than 1Mpx picture) and that's why when having no exif and low resolution we may suspect copyvio. For example this image has no EXIF because it was created from 9 different shots, but as it is in a large resolution it's not supsected at all. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Same as above. I took this photo in August 1980 when i was 14; it has no data because the digitalized version has been taken from a Kodak 35 mm negative film; thus EXIF data is not per se a valid reason for requesting a deletion. BUT if an user uploads several files with different styles and formats, seemingly with different cameras and none with EXIF data, the latter becomes a clue that we are most probably facing a case of copyright violation. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not making up the part about the serial number. http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/ , etc. Yes, you can stalk Wikipedia editors around the web this way. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So?
  1. Download this photo;
  2. Paste it in the search box at www.stolencamerafinder.com;
  3. Be stunned to find out there are seemingly only two pics around the Net coming from that camera, whereas there's plenty of pics on the Net and Commons with that camera number (it's my digital camera, btw).
SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I should provide some context. I've been arguing about a case at the en.wikipedia ArbCom where the position being advanced by many of the parties, and supported by a change a few of them sneaked into the "w:WP:CLEANSTART" policy, is that if you can, by any sort of detective work, figure out a connection between two accounts, it's merely acceptable to spread the word all over Wikipedia and the rest of the world, but the data actually can be used to impeach editors who otherwise have been editing just fine with their current account. It is looking like your only protection from being called to account for edits on past accounts, or indeed, even on Encyclopedia Dramatica, is to maintain perfect anonymity. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
WNT, I understand your concerns, but anyone who releases stuff here does it at their own risk. We cannot but warn them about the illegality of intentionally uploading copyrighted work (well, is illegal even if you don't do on purpose, but you know what I mean) and tell them that sometimes data stored in the picture might be a trace they leave aroud. But Commons cannot become an agency for the privacy and data protection. It's not their task, nor anyone requires that to us. Who doesn't want these data are disclosed - and doesn't want to waste time in order to demonstrate they is the author of the uploaded work - simply avoid uploading files on Commons.-- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
PS apart from stalking myself I also tried to stalk some other photos' uploader by using the site you gave me, with miserable results: no one photo around the net that matched cameras' serial numbers. We should appoint that website to stalkers' associations so we finally would get rid of them... :-)
I'm not proposing Commons do data protection - but I do propose that uploaders be allowed to omit EXIF information without worrying about their files getting deleted. It's one thing to delete copyvios when you see them, another thing entirely to delete files because "they might be copied from somewhere". Wnt (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried that site with the serial number from the bottom of my camera and didn't get any hits. Can the commons techs have the serial numbers stripped from the data, or does that site just not search commons files?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Or, more trivially, that website can't keep what promised, or doesn't work well? :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a serial number with EXIFeditor or MetaEditor, but using i.Hex I see that File:Heron_perched_on_top_of_tree.jpg and File:Watermark sample.jpg contain a text "Q1476437". Is that it? Wnt (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Dunno. It doesn't match the serial number on the bottom of my camera which is 10 numbers, no letters. It may be the internal number? Does it match the other uploads I have from my camera? You could try spreading my images around the net and see if the site finds them all. If it does then we should see about stripping ID numbers from commons for privacy issues? http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300004280/01/eosrti-eos500d-im2-en.pdf is the online manual for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The web site didn't yield any result with it (I'm not sure what to think about it). If you have other files taken with that camera (EOS Tli firmware version 1.1.0) I didn't see them while quickly rifling through your uploads. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2 red seals, 3 heron (2 are the same image) and the watermarked goat sheep.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that number comes shortly after "EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS". Maybe it's not a serial number for the camera but for the lens? Wnt (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The same Q-number is in the File:Heron and small trout crop.jpg. But the red seal photos are .png's, which have a much smaller amount of metadata in them. (This does not mean I believe it is serial number free; it might be better hidden) Wnt (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is the lens number. I used an 80-200 Canon lens for the goat sheep and the 18-55 for the heron images. I had forgotten that I had converted the red seal images after I removed the licence number. One could google Canon EOS EXIF and see if any info is there?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You can if you want - though it's not crucial to the point. The take home message is that these serial numbers exist, they are not readily found by any old EXIF editor, they do not display in the data Commons shows, but they can (at least in theory) be used to invade editors' privacy and harass them. The obvious solution is to delete EXIF data as a matter of course, as can happen with any ordinary crop and reformat of the photo (though I wouldn't guarantee it...). Which gets me back to my original point - that editors' decisions to remove this data should be respected, which means, their files should not be deleted on this basis. It is not "suspicious", it is common sense. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See also [4]. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
WNT, again. I understand your concern. But "allowing deleting Exif Data" can become a backdoor for uploading anything regardless the actual intellectual property of the uploader. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, EXIF information is routinely deleted, for example, in the red seal photos mentioned above when they were cropped/changed to .png format. This is an editor's right already. I just want that to continue to be the case, formally. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a comparision file from the original. File:EXIF Canon 500D .JPG I think the software to read it may be free from Canon. It would be interesting to see if the data can be extracted from the commons image, or if it can be modified in an image. There may be a way and it may be stripped on upload now, but I doubt it. I may ask at the pump.Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention exif data can be changed using any HEX editor... Well WMF I do not agree that deleting exif data becomes a routine formally stated. No point in doing that else than "protecting uploaders' privacy" (which is not up to us to do). A warning is enough. If we consider our uploaders intelligent enough to read the disclaimers about licence, they would be also intelligent to understand a disclaimer reading that exif data might be used in some cases to trace a photo's camera and its owner. Maybe. That said, at such disclaimer should also be added a line that reads that in case the Exif data are deleted there might be some added problems in order to demonstrate one's ownership over a photo. Not that is the main problem for an uploader, of course, but if deleting exif data becomes a widespread habit we might have thousands of RfD for medias lacking Exif, making the RfD tool de facto unusable. That's why I disagree with making exif data deletion "institutional". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. Wecan simply recognize that good users can and do crop and change formats of photos, and not accept this as a rationale for deletion. Problem solved. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up at the village pump. They don't seem to be concerned. I also mentioned that we should find a more suitable thread to discuss it if there are concerns. I have no concerns, but I had asked about it at Commons talk:EXIF and that may be the best venue. I also realized that cameras with GPS would give locations if you upload 'my cat' or 'my house' images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Images with no EXIF an low-resolution should be viewed more skeptically, as that is typical of random web images, but, without anything else, that isn't enough for rationale for deletion.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn DRs

The following DRs could be closed as withdrawn: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A painting of bird portrait in profile.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grey man.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiky paper mache mask with feet, front view with grey background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Two paper mache mask with feet grey background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask with feet, front view with red background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:A painting of eagle portrait.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painting of wild goat with substantial jewel.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask with feet with grey background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache masks side view.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask laying.JPG --GrapedApe (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I request deletion of all images uploaded by a user?

I noticed a couple of pages in wiki contain images that are likely to be of fake items, and the pages might have been created for the sole purpose of selling these fake items. These pictures were uploaded by OrionHsu and Orionwebmuseum (they appear to be the same person). Many of them are obvious fakes - for example the figure of a servant girl holding a lamp is a copy of a bronze figure discovered in a tomb - (second picture), while the warrior figure is copied from figures of the Terracotta Army and these figures are never found to be made of jade in ancient China. I also requested help on what to do with those who use wiki for fraudulent purpose in en:Wikipedia:Help_desk#Problem_articles (username hzh), but what is the policy here with regard to these files here, and can they be all the deleted because their purpose appear to be selling fakes? Axb3 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed your link to the help desk. A How-To for mass deletion requests can be found at Commons:Deletion_requests/Mass_deletion_request. --El Grafo (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any specific infringement of wikimedia commons policy that I could use? I'm unsure of wiki policy on possible use of images to commit fraud. Axb3 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I just counted, there are over sixty files, is there an easier way of deleting these files? I am pretty sure these files are uploaded so as to use wiki to give spurious legitimacy to fakes and then sell them. For example the piece at this site (I traced this site from the uploader's own website here ), the same piece is used to illustrate the article here (the last one in the section). Also how do you get a user banned because I think wiki might have been used to commit crime? Axb3 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It is usually polite to inform a user when you start a discussion about him/her. I did it. Yann (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing the issue, I think that if the art works are duplicate, it should be mentioned in the description, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The items are not described as duplicate, for example the figure of the servant girl holding a lamp is described as Han Dynasty. It is clearly a false description. The original bronze figure here was discovered some time in the 1960s, so the jade copy must be a modern copy in jade of a bronze object. The same with the warrior figure which is an even more fanciful creation based on the Terracotta Army, encasing the figures in limestone presumeably to give a false suggestion of age. It is described as being discovered recently and is 2,000 years old. This is clearly an attempt at forgery, certainly not meant as duplicate. Axb3 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No one can use wikipedia to commit a crime in this world. In fact, the said crime is even not yet existed at all. OrionHsu (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre statement. Of course you can use Wikipedia to commit a crime. (And of course you shouldn't.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that these are items offered for sale at huge prices, I don't see how it can be seen as anything but attempted fraud. This one here - is this elephant puzzle, this mutton fat white jade is this item, this money shaking fortune tree is this, this wine cups which is this file, and yellow jade which is this. There are many more. To my eyes most of them look like fakes (for example the money shaking tree, the yellow jade, the cups). While for some items it may require an expert to pronounce on their authenticity (you need to touch and examine the items closely), the fact that the uploader included items which are obvious fakes (the File:100 2089GreenWhiteJadeCharngShinnWoman.JPG servant girl holding a lamp], the warrior figures is enough to cast doubt on the authenticity of the others. Axb3 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how this fraud would operate. Anyone who could pay such a huge amount would obviously have the items being expertised by a reputed professional first. How would this auction expect to sale these alleged fake items is completely incomprehensible. Please enlight me. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Who really knows what the seller of those items intends to do. I can come up with a number of scenarios, for example, a common scam is "I'm in dire money trouble and need to sell these items quick, so you can have them for a tiny fraction of what they really worth". But I could be completely wrong, and that isn't really the point. The point is that: 1) There are fake items in there (I can give you the reasons why I think they must be fakes), and many other items also look like fakes. 2) The description of those items are therefore false and meant to deceive. 3) Their presence in wiki may give a false suggestion of their authenticity, and wiki would be participating in an act of deception if wiki doesn't do anything about it when a warning is raised. This is in addition to violation of wiki rule about no advertising. Axb3 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Please start a deletion request. Yann (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think we need to wait for the decision of English WP. Yann (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#OrionHsu's uploads. Yann (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the files of OrionHsu, Orionwebmuseum, and Orionandhsu, all suspected to the be same person, have been nominated for deletion. Pages here - Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:OrionHsu, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionwebmuseum, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionandhsu. Axb3 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing one’s own del.req.

How do I do it? (Here, a guy convinced me it is too soon to delete.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Use {{Withdraw}} --GeorgHH • talk   21:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

34 CT images with copy-free tag

At Commons:Deletion requests/CT images with copy-free tag, I've made a request to have 34 images in the same series deleted, but do I still have to tag each single one of them? Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's now ✓ Done, thanks to Fastily. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone close this Dr?

Can someone take a look at this? Eduemoni (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DR ready for close.

Withdrawn by nom, (me): Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert "Bob" Bruce Mathias.jpg--GrapedApe (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Denniss. Rd232 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Images needing fix rather than deletion

Sometimes, you come across DR's that request the deletion of an image because only part of the image is unacceptable, e.g. a montage containing an image deleted for copyright reasons or an image containing an identifiable person who should be blurred out. In that case, the right thing to do is to upload a new version and delete the old version. Unfortunately, the daily DR log is very long and many images may be missed this way. What ends up happening is that a montage used in 50 wikis gets deleted, a bot removes all uses of them, and when somebody notices a few days later, they reupload a fixed version, and now someone has to go in and manually restore all uses of the image. I think a better way to handle this is to create a separate section, perhaps under COM:GL, called "Replace and delete," dedicated to fixing images that require deletion of the old version as soon as the new version is uploaded. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would be some templates for those cases, analogous to {{Non-free frame}} ("fix me") and {{Non-free frame revdel}} ("delete me, or at least the non-free versions"). Rd232 (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Too fast" deletions?

So now I am also able to work on the backlog and I often see deletion requests closed deleted very fast, sometimes just hours after starting. The guideline talks about seven days for not clear copvios, so I wonder about this practice. Even there are a lot of files where the educational value might be below project scope, it might be better to give more users the chance to have a look at it for judging and taking part in the discussion. I'd like to know the opinions of other users about this topic, tx! --Funfood ␌ 08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I agree that we need to wait for a week unless there is a clear speedy deletion rationale. For the backlog, you can start at Category:Copyright violations and Category:Media uploaded without a license (90% at least of this one needs to be speedy deleted). Yann (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Timing of mass deletion requests

Do mass deletion requests typically take longer to close? If so, perhaps the documentation could be tweaked to reflect this?
In September I raised a mass deletion request for what appeared to be systematic copyright violation by one user. (Probably not an ideal candidate for speedy deletion, because some images are clear-cut cases but most aren't). The pageview stats show that somebody's been looking at it, but there were no edits, so on 03 November I playfully tried adding it to Category:Copyright violations just in case that might encourage some kind of response/action. An admin simply removed the category. I don't know what else is likely to happen, or when. If cases like this take much longer for the community to deal with, perhaps that could be mentioned on Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request...? bobrayner (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is the same thing you do anywhere you need admin help - ping the admins at COM:AN. I wouldn't say that mass deletion requests take longer to close, though, so much as massive mass deletion requests take longer to close. This is especially true when, as in this case, the DR hasn't attracted comments from other members of the community. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Note also that it is fairly common for DRs to last for some time on Commons, your example is just one of many at Commons:Deletion requests/2012/09 that haven't been closed yet. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Groovy; thanks. I wouldn't want to jump the queue - if there's a long queue then a better option would be to try shortening it. Is there anything I can do to help? bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you can see if there are any unaddressed issues or questions on the DRs and comment on them (or bring up new issues if you see any). And if you feel up to it, you can harass the admins about closing some more discussions. Other than that, I can't think of much - I'll go through periodically and close a bunch, as will other admins, but that's an (I'm sure annoyingly) unpredictable process. As for your request, I suppose I might as well take a look at it now that it's been brought to my attention. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Your req. is ✓ Done. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete My Pics

I uploaded 5 pics a few days ago. I would like those files permanently deleted as I am not interested in publishing anything on Wikinews anymore. user:lindisfarne

✓ Done Rd232 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

trying to get this listed

Hi, I'm trying to get this image deleted [5] but when I list it on the nominations page it doesn't show. Is there a reason why it's not showing up? I had a hard time figuring out what to do. --Turn685 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Doing it manually is a pain: use the "nominate for deletion" button in the lefthand Toolbox, that does everything for you. (I've cleaned up this nomination for you.) Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Turn685 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you allowed to use commons to host personal images?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Schumin_holding_Dick_Cheney_head.jpg

Ben Schumin removed this image from his own Wikipedia user page after multiple complaints years ago, but it is now hosted on another user page along with hordes of other images here on commons. There are too many rules to read through, so can someone tell me, are you allowed to use commons to host personal pictures like that? If not, someone please nominate it for deletion. I assume that's against the rules. Wikipedia itself has people with one personal image of themselves on their own user pages, but I don't believe commons host that, and this isn't on his page anyone, its just stuck in storage with other images on someone else whose user name was created perhaps just to hold all of that, I don't know. Dream Focus (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to use Commons to host a small number of personal images for userpages. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Debatable whether en:User:Tubetest is a "small" number of personal images... The majority of images there are non-personal images, but there seem to be a number of personal images mixed in, and there are an enormous number of images on the page so the absolute number of personal images may be substantial. Besides which they seem to be images of other users, and the intention of the policy, AFAIK, is to allow personal userpage images relating to yourself. Rd232 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Very overdue request needs to be closed

Could someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruce Cooper.png, as it has been waiting for nearly 2 months. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Koset.jpg

File:Koset.jpg had the deletion templates added on 23 January [6] by an ip, who is likely to be en:user:Koset.jpg as they tried to get it deleted on en.wp that day (en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 13#File:Koset.jpg). The deletion was not completed though and a nomination page was never created (can IPs create pages here?). The reason given in the template was "orphan", but it is used at user:Koset on this wiki and at "koset" on the Indonesian Wiktionary id:wiktionary:koset. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Transcluding thumbnails onto deletion requests

Feel free to tell me that this is a bad idea, but:

Could we transclude thumbnails of the images on the deletion request pages? I thought I'd look over some of the open requests to see whether I could help out by providing my two cents, but the rationales are vague or in languages I don't read (or don't read well, at any rate), and I didn't want to click through dozens or hundreds to figure out what kind of images were being nominated. It occurred to me when I gave up on this for the day that if the images had been visible, that I might have been more likely to respond.

So what do you think? Is this feasible, at least when people are using the (very nice) AjaxQuickDelete.nominateForDeletion(); script? Would it kill the servers or annoy anyone? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I recently thought something similar myself. This would definitely be useful in some cases. There are usually between 200 and 300 requests per day, some of which contain multiple images. I don't know how many images a daily DR page would contains on average, but it would be many hundreds. If there were some way to show thumbnails for each request on demand (e.g. by pressing a button) then that would be less unweildy (and be less of a massive change, so less annoying), but that is another kind of scripting altogether. I personally can only sigh when there is a massive list of file links and there is no indication about the type of images that are being dealt with –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A script providing a toggle feature would be great. --Leyo 22:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy-blanking, revision-deletion, and deletion of non-file pages and of part or all of user: and user talk: pages

1) What is the proper, "sanctioned" procedure for removing a section from a user: or user_talk: page that isn't yours? See User talk:ScentzSoGood#AromaTherapy for an example of a section of a user talk page used for self-promotion, which is one of the grounds for deletion from the Commons. I'm hesitant to "be bold" and blank the section myself without some formal discussion/consensus.

2) What is the proper procedure for requesting deletion or revision-deletion or doing a "sanctioned" page-blanking or section-removal for the text portion of a file page or for a non-file page, such as something in Commons: or fillintheblank_talk:, when an obvious "_talk:" page is not available or is unlikely to be read widely enough to generate discussion?

The English Wikipedia handles these through en:WP:Miscellany for deletion. Davidwr (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Either blank it yourself, maybe with leaving a notice on the talk page, or contact an Admin at COM:AN. Section has been blanked on the userpage and link to advertized site removed. --Denniss (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:고등학생의 발기된 성기.jpg Delete

File:고등학생의 발기된 성기.jpg

Delete Plz. is Children Porn image.

The penis in this picture doesnt look like it belongs to a kid. Do you have any other proof that is in fact Children Pornography? Béria Lima msg 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, all that junk's nice, but...

...how do I request something for deletion? Shikku27316 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In the toolbox on the left hand side menu, there is a link "Nominate for deletion". --rimshottalk 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up a good point: For those of us used to going to PROJECT:DELETE on our home project to find out how to delete things, it's not obvious that the sidebar tools are there. At some point the sidebar tool documentation needs to be integrated with the rest of the documentation. Davidwr (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it already explained in the section Commons:Deletion requests#How to list deletion requests on this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Finding_unclosed_deletion_requests

Per this request I tried to identify old open DRs. The resulting list: Commons:Deletion requests/2012-02-20 Old oddballs has a lot of strange cases that fell through the cracks over the years. I do not think they should be added to the current daily log, since many were not properly initialized. Can someone look through them? --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests later than 12 January

Why does the listing Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01 stop on 12 January? I ask because there is no reaction to this request from 15 January. -- Хрюша ?? 08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because there are too many deletion requests and the server stops rendering the page. If more of them are closed, the next requests will be visible. -- RE rillke questions? (ریلکه) (里尔克) (リルケ) 11:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A ton of deletion requests related to my uploads

On my talk page there is a long list of deletion requests. Some are photographs of photographs that date before 1923 and therefore are public domain. The campaign items from the Museo del Objeto del Objecto are not derivative for the most part as there are multiple items in the shots, with the exeption of items which also date from before 1923. I cannot go and answer all of these individually, so I leave this message here. There is also a message accusing me of copying stuff from the internet and magazines but a simple look at the metadata shows otherwise.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclosed deletion requests

A couple of questions.

  1. How do you get an admin to close a deletion request? (More specifically this one.) Is it just by "random" when an admin has the time to do so? Or what decides if there aren't enough arguments in favour for a keep or delete decision to be made?
  2. What is the policy if there is a hypothetical situation where someone keeps adding a keep or delete vote say every four or five days? That is, if there is a situation where the time from the last vote is never seven days. Would such a deletion request hang forever?

-Laniala (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Parser limit

Would it be possible to create combined pages by week instead of by month? Given the limit of the parser function, it is impossible to transclude all the DRs from a given month on one page and makes it annoying to navigate between pages. MBisanz talk 17:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How...

... many deletion request have there been in the history of Commons? Is there a statistics? --High Contrast (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos

Would someone be able to review the above request and come to some form of conclusion, since it has been ongoing since 21 December 2011. Cloudbound (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Blackcat (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing tags by non-admin

I keep getting my ass chewed out for removing deletion request tags that are withdrawn by the nominator. Is there a proper procedure that we can follow that will lessen the burden on admin having to do it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I found the policy on how to and when non-admin can close cases.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Old requests

The following requests may have been missed and need closing:

Cloudbound (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"No EXIF information" deletions?

There are a bunch of pictures being nominated on 6-6 because they are "of low resolution and have no EXIF information". I take exception to this, because I would like to hope that Commons has not formalized its submission to Big Brother so far that we have to have a camera serial number, GPS, and phone number graven on every image uploaded. In conversations about child protection in the past, I've specifically recommended that children should, as a matter of course, strip EXIF data intentionally. This is my practice as well, because who wants Wikipedia's self-appointed Inquisitors scanning the stuff and the web trying to find ways to make trouble for you? It is also common sense to crop pictures to the relevant section before posting.

I want to request that lack of EXIF information specifically be placed out of bounds for these discussions, to preserve the privacy of posters. (At least until whatever secret government watermarks are coded into the camera hardware are revealed to the public...) Wnt (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I do put images for DR including lacking EXIF as a reason, but only as a supporting reason, eg "Low resolution, no metadata, drive-by uploader, I suspect a copyvio". On its own, lacking EXIF isn't a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Calm down. EXIF data is normally just photography details (exposure and the like), plus camera make/model and time/date. GPS is not usual yet and the rest you're just making up. In most cases, lack of EXIF data helps make a case that the image is not original. We did have a conversation recently about making it clearer to uploaders that they should check contents of EXIF data and edit it if necessary; or even show them the EXIF before upload or allow editing of it. Not sure what happened about that (probably nothing...). Rd232 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably nothing. We do not have good tools for manipulating EXIF data. See for example here. --Jarekt (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As mattbuck said, lack of EXIF is not a reason, but it can be a clue for a copyvio (not being own work). Low resolution (as below 800px wide) are generally web format (camera bodies nowadays often gives more than 1Mpx picture) and that's why when having no exif and low resolution we may suspect copyvio. For example this image has no EXIF because it was created from 9 different shots, but as it is in a large resolution it's not supsected at all. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Same as above. I took this photo in August 1980 when i was 14; it has no data because the digitalized version has been taken from a Kodak 35 mm negative film; thus EXIF data is not per se a valid reason for requesting a deletion. BUT if an user uploads several files with different styles and formats, seemingly with different cameras and none with EXIF data, the latter becomes a clue that we are most probably facing a case of copyright violation. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not making up the part about the serial number. http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/ , etc. Yes, you can stalk Wikipedia editors around the web this way. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So?
  1. Download this photo;
  2. Paste it in the search box at www.stolencamerafinder.com;
  3. Be stunned to find out there are seemingly only two pics around the Net coming from that camera, whereas there's plenty of pics on the Net and Commons with that camera number (it's my digital camera, btw).
SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I should provide some context. I've been arguing about a case at the en.wikipedia ArbCom where the position being advanced by many of the parties, and supported by a change a few of them sneaked into the "w:WP:CLEANSTART" policy, is that if you can, by any sort of detective work, figure out a connection between two accounts, it's merely acceptable to spread the word all over Wikipedia and the rest of the world, but the data actually can be used to impeach editors who otherwise have been editing just fine with their current account. It is looking like your only protection from being called to account for edits on past accounts, or indeed, even on Encyclopedia Dramatica, is to maintain perfect anonymity. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
WNT, I understand your concerns, but anyone who releases stuff here does it at their own risk. We cannot but warn them about the illegality of intentionally uploading copyrighted work (well, is illegal even if you don't do on purpose, but you know what I mean) and tell them that sometimes data stored in the picture might be a trace they leave aroud. But Commons cannot become an agency for the privacy and data protection. It's not their task, nor anyone requires that to us. Who doesn't want these data are disclosed - and doesn't want to waste time in order to demonstrate they is the author of the uploaded work - simply avoid uploading files on Commons.-- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
PS apart from stalking myself I also tried to stalk some other photos' uploader by using the site you gave me, with miserable results: no one photo around the net that matched cameras' serial numbers. We should appoint that website to stalkers' associations so we finally would get rid of them... :-)
I'm not proposing Commons do data protection - but I do propose that uploaders be allowed to omit EXIF information without worrying about their files getting deleted. It's one thing to delete copyvios when you see them, another thing entirely to delete files because "they might be copied from somewhere". Wnt (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried that site with the serial number from the bottom of my camera and didn't get any hits. Can the commons techs have the serial numbers stripped from the data, or does that site just not search commons files?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Or, more trivially, that website can't keep what promised, or doesn't work well? :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a serial number with EXIFeditor or MetaEditor, but using i.Hex I see that File:Heron_perched_on_top_of_tree.jpg and File:Watermark sample.jpg contain a text "Q1476437". Is that it? Wnt (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Dunno. It doesn't match the serial number on the bottom of my camera which is 10 numbers, no letters. It may be the internal number? Does it match the other uploads I have from my camera? You could try spreading my images around the net and see if the site finds them all. If it does then we should see about stripping ID numbers from commons for privacy issues? http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300004280/01/eosrti-eos500d-im2-en.pdf is the online manual for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The web site didn't yield any result with it (I'm not sure what to think about it). If you have other files taken with that camera (EOS Tli firmware version 1.1.0) I didn't see them while quickly rifling through your uploads. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2 red seals, 3 heron (2 are the same image) and the watermarked goat sheep.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that number comes shortly after "EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS". Maybe it's not a serial number for the camera but for the lens? Wnt (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The same Q-number is in the File:Heron and small trout crop.jpg. But the red seal photos are .png's, which have a much smaller amount of metadata in them. (This does not mean I believe it is serial number free; it might be better hidden) Wnt (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is the lens number. I used an 80-200 Canon lens for the goat sheep and the 18-55 for the heron images. I had forgotten that I had converted the red seal images after I removed the licence number. One could google Canon EOS EXIF and see if any info is there?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You can if you want - though it's not crucial to the point. The take home message is that these serial numbers exist, they are not readily found by any old EXIF editor, they do not display in the data Commons shows, but they can (at least in theory) be used to invade editors' privacy and harass them. The obvious solution is to delete EXIF data as a matter of course, as can happen with any ordinary crop and reformat of the photo (though I wouldn't guarantee it...). Which gets me back to my original point - that editors' decisions to remove this data should be respected, which means, their files should not be deleted on this basis. It is not "suspicious", it is common sense. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See also [7]. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
WNT, again. I understand your concern. But "allowing deleting Exif Data" can become a backdoor for uploading anything regardless the actual intellectual property of the uploader. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, EXIF information is routinely deleted, for example, in the red seal photos mentioned above when they were cropped/changed to .png format. This is an editor's right already. I just want that to continue to be the case, formally. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a comparision file from the original. File:EXIF Canon 500D .JPG I think the software to read it may be free from Canon. It would be interesting to see if the data can be extracted from the commons image, or if it can be modified in an image. There may be a way and it may be stripped on upload now, but I doubt it. I may ask at the pump.Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention exif data can be changed using any HEX editor... Well WMF I do not agree that deleting exif data becomes a routine formally stated. No point in doing that else than "protecting uploaders' privacy" (which is not up to us to do). A warning is enough. If we consider our uploaders intelligent enough to read the disclaimers about licence, they would be also intelligent to understand a disclaimer reading that exif data might be used in some cases to trace a photo's camera and its owner. Maybe. That said, at such disclaimer should also be added a line that reads that in case the Exif data are deleted there might be some added problems in order to demonstrate one's ownership over a photo. Not that is the main problem for an uploader, of course, but if deleting exif data becomes a widespread habit we might have thousands of RfD for medias lacking Exif, making the RfD tool de facto unusable. That's why I disagree with making exif data deletion "institutional". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. Wecan simply recognize that good users can and do crop and change formats of photos, and not accept this as a rationale for deletion. Problem solved. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up at the village pump. They don't seem to be concerned. I also mentioned that we should find a more suitable thread to discuss it if there are concerns. I have no concerns, but I had asked about it at Commons talk:EXIF and that may be the best venue. I also realized that cameras with GPS would give locations if you upload 'my cat' or 'my house' images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Images with no EXIF an low-resolution should be viewed more skeptically, as that is typical of random web images, but, without anything else, that isn't enough for rationale for deletion.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn DRs

The following DRs could be closed as withdrawn: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A painting of bird portrait in profile.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grey man.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiky paper mache mask with feet, front view with grey background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Two paper mache mask with feet grey background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask with feet, front view with red background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:A painting of eagle portrait.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painting of wild goat with substantial jewel.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask with feet with grey background.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache masks side view.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paper mache mask laying.JPG --GrapedApe (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I request deletion of all images uploaded by a user?

I noticed a couple of pages in wiki contain images that are likely to be of fake items, and the pages might have been created for the sole purpose of selling these fake items. These pictures were uploaded by OrionHsu and Orionwebmuseum (they appear to be the same person). Many of them are obvious fakes - for example the figure of a servant girl holding a lamp is a copy of a bronze figure discovered in a tomb - (second picture), while the warrior figure is copied from figures of the Terracotta Army and these figures are never found to be made of jade in ancient China. I also requested help on what to do with those who use wiki for fraudulent purpose in en:Wikipedia:Help_desk#Problem_articles (username hzh), but what is the policy here with regard to these files here, and can they be all the deleted because their purpose appear to be selling fakes? Axb3 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed your link to the help desk. A How-To for mass deletion requests can be found at Commons:Deletion_requests/Mass_deletion_request. --El Grafo (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any specific infringement of wikimedia commons policy that I could use? I'm unsure of wiki policy on possible use of images to commit fraud. Axb3 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I just counted, there are over sixty files, is there an easier way of deleting these files? I am pretty sure these files are uploaded so as to use wiki to give spurious legitimacy to fakes and then sell them. For example the piece at this site (I traced this site from the uploader's own website here ), the same piece is used to illustrate the article here (the last one in the section). Also how do you get a user banned because I think wiki might have been used to commit crime? Axb3 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It is usually polite to inform a user when you start a discussion about him/her. I did it. Yann (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing the issue, I think that if the art works are duplicate, it should be mentioned in the description, but that's not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The items are not described as duplicate, for example the figure of the servant girl holding a lamp is described as Han Dynasty. It is clearly a false description. The original bronze figure here was discovered some time in the 1960s, so the jade copy must be a modern copy in jade of a bronze object. The same with the warrior figure which is an even more fanciful creation based on the Terracotta Army, encasing the figures in limestone presumeably to give a false suggestion of age. It is described as being discovered recently and is 2,000 years old. This is clearly an attempt at forgery, certainly not meant as duplicate. Axb3 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No one can use wikipedia to commit a crime in this world. In fact, the said crime is even not yet existed at all. OrionHsu (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre statement. Of course you can use Wikipedia to commit a crime. (And of course you shouldn't.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that these are items offered for sale at huge prices, I don't see how it can be seen as anything but attempted fraud. This one here - is this elephant puzzle, this mutton fat white jade is this item, this money shaking fortune tree is this, this wine cups which is this file, and yellow jade which is this. There are many more. To my eyes most of them look like fakes (for example the money shaking tree, the yellow jade, the cups). While for some items it may require an expert to pronounce on their authenticity (you need to touch and examine the items closely), the fact that the uploader included items which are obvious fakes (the File:100 2089GreenWhiteJadeCharngShinnWoman.JPG servant girl holding a lamp], the warrior figures is enough to cast doubt on the authenticity of the others. Axb3 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how this fraud would operate. Anyone who could pay such a huge amount would obviously have the items being expertised by a reputed professional first. How would this auction expect to sale these alleged fake items is completely incomprehensible. Please enlight me. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Who really knows what the seller of those items intends to do. I can come up with a number of scenarios, for example, a common scam is "I'm in dire money trouble and need to sell these items quick, so you can have them for a tiny fraction of what they really worth". But I could be completely wrong, and that isn't really the point. The point is that: 1) There are fake items in there (I can give you the reasons why I think they must be fakes), and many other items also look like fakes. 2) The description of those items are therefore false and meant to deceive. 3) Their presence in wiki may give a false suggestion of their authenticity, and wiki would be participating in an act of deception if wiki doesn't do anything about it when a warning is raised. This is in addition to violation of wiki rule about no advertising. Axb3 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Please start a deletion request. Yann (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think we need to wait for the decision of English WP. Yann (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#OrionHsu's uploads. Yann (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the files of OrionHsu, Orionwebmuseum, and Orionandhsu, all suspected to the be same person, have been nominated for deletion. Pages here - Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:OrionHsu, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionwebmuseum, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionandhsu. Axb3 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing one’s own del.req.

How do I do it? (Here, a guy convinced me it is too soon to delete.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Use {{Withdraw}} --GeorgHH • talk   21:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

34 CT images with copy-free tag

At Commons:Deletion requests/CT images with copy-free tag, I've made a request to have 34 images in the same series deleted, but do I still have to tag each single one of them? Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's now ✓ Done, thanks to Fastily. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone close this Dr?

Can someone take a look at this? Eduemoni (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DR ready for close.

Withdrawn by nom, (me): Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert "Bob" Bruce Mathias.jpg--GrapedApe (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Denniss. Rd232 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Images needing fix rather than deletion

Sometimes, you come across DR's that request the deletion of an image because only part of the image is unacceptable, e.g. a montage containing an image deleted for copyright reasons or an image containing an identifiable person who should be blurred out. In that case, the right thing to do is to upload a new version and delete the old version. Unfortunately, the daily DR log is very long and many images may be missed this way. What ends up happening is that a montage used in 50 wikis gets deleted, a bot removes all uses of them, and when somebody notices a few days later, they reupload a fixed version, and now someone has to go in and manually restore all uses of the image. I think a better way to handle this is to create a separate section, perhaps under COM:GL, called "Replace and delete," dedicated to fixing images that require deletion of the old version as soon as the new version is uploaded. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would be some templates for those cases, analogous to {{Non-free frame}} ("fix me") and {{Non-free frame revdel}} ("delete me, or at least the non-free versions"). Rd232 (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Too fast" deletions?

So now I am also able to work on the backlog and I often see deletion requests closed deleted very fast, sometimes just hours after starting. The guideline talks about seven days for not clear copvios, so I wonder about this practice. Even there are a lot of files where the educational value might be below project scope, it might be better to give more users the chance to have a look at it for judging and taking part in the discussion. I'd like to know the opinions of other users about this topic, tx! --Funfood ␌ 08:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I agree that we need to wait for a week unless there is a clear speedy deletion rationale. For the backlog, you can start at Category:Copyright violations and Category:Media uploaded without a license (90% at least of this one needs to be speedy deleted). Yann (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Timing of mass deletion requests

Do mass deletion requests typically take longer to close? If so, perhaps the documentation could be tweaked to reflect this?
In September I raised a mass deletion request for what appeared to be systematic copyright violation by one user. (Probably not an ideal candidate for speedy deletion, because some images are clear-cut cases but most aren't). The pageview stats show that somebody's been looking at it, but there were no edits, so on 03 November I playfully tried adding it to Category:Copyright violations just in case that might encourage some kind of response/action. An admin simply removed the category. I don't know what else is likely to happen, or when. If cases like this take much longer for the community to deal with, perhaps that could be mentioned on Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request...? bobrayner (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is the same thing you do anywhere you need admin help - ping the admins at COM:AN. I wouldn't say that mass deletion requests take longer to close, though, so much as massive mass deletion requests take longer to close. This is especially true when, as in this case, the DR hasn't attracted comments from other members of the community. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Note also that it is fairly common for DRs to last for some time on Commons, your example is just one of many at Commons:Deletion requests/2012/09 that haven't been closed yet. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Groovy; thanks. I wouldn't want to jump the queue - if there's a long queue then a better option would be to try shortening it. Is there anything I can do to help? bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you can see if there are any unaddressed issues or questions on the DRs and comment on them (or bring up new issues if you see any). And if you feel up to it, you can harass the admins about closing some more discussions. Other than that, I can't think of much - I'll go through periodically and close a bunch, as will other admins, but that's an (I'm sure annoyingly) unpredictable process. As for your request, I suppose I might as well take a look at it now that it's been brought to my attention. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Your req. is ✓ Done. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete My Pics

I uploaded 5 pics a few days ago. I would like those files permanently deleted as I am not interested in publishing anything on Wikinews anymore. user:lindisfarne

✓ Done Rd232 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

trying to get this listed

Hi, I'm trying to get this image deleted [8] but when I list it on the nominations page it doesn't show. Is there a reason why it's not showing up? I had a hard time figuring out what to do. --Turn685 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Doing it manually is a pain: use the "nominate for deletion" button in the lefthand Toolbox, that does everything for you. (I've cleaned up this nomination for you.) Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Turn685 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you allowed to use commons to host personal images?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Schumin_holding_Dick_Cheney_head.jpg

Ben Schumin removed this image from his own Wikipedia user page after multiple complaints years ago, but it is now hosted on another user page along with hordes of other images here on commons. There are too many rules to read through, so can someone tell me, are you allowed to use commons to host personal pictures like that? If not, someone please nominate it for deletion. I assume that's against the rules. Wikipedia itself has people with one personal image of themselves on their own user pages, but I don't believe commons host that, and this isn't on his page anyone, its just stuck in storage with other images on someone else whose user name was created perhaps just to hold all of that, I don't know. Dream Focus (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to use Commons to host a small number of personal images for userpages. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Debatable whether en:User:Tubetest is a "small" number of personal images... The majority of images there are non-personal images, but there seem to be a number of personal images mixed in, and there are an enormous number of images on the page so the absolute number of personal images may be substantial. Besides which they seem to be images of other users, and the intention of the policy, AFAIK, is to allow personal userpage images relating to yourself. Rd232 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Very overdue request needs to be closed

Could someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruce Cooper.png, as it has been waiting for nearly 2 months. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Koset.jpg

File:Koset.jpg had the deletion templates added on 23 January [9] by an ip, who is likely to be en:user:Koset.jpg as they tried to get it deleted on en.wp that day (en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 13#File:Koset.jpg). The deletion was not completed though and a nomination page was never created (can IPs create pages here?). The reason given in the template was "orphan", but it is used at user:Koset on this wiki and at "koset" on the Indonesian Wiktionary id:wiktionary:koset. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Transcluding thumbnails onto deletion requests

Feel free to tell me that this is a bad idea, but:

Could we transclude thumbnails of the images on the deletion request pages? I thought I'd look over some of the open requests to see whether I could help out by providing my two cents, but the rationales are vague or in languages I don't read (or don't read well, at any rate), and I didn't want to click through dozens or hundreds to figure out what kind of images were being nominated. It occurred to me when I gave up on this for the day that if the images had been visible, that I might have been more likely to respond.

So what do you think? Is this feasible, at least when people are using the (very nice) AjaxQuickDelete.nominateForDeletion(); script? Would it kill the servers or annoy anyone? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I recently thought something similar myself. This would definitely be useful in some cases. There are usually between 200 and 300 requests per day, some of which contain multiple images. I don't know how many images a daily DR page would contains on average, but it would be many hundreds. If there were some way to show thumbnails for each request on demand (e.g. by pressing a button) then that would be less unweildy (and be less of a massive change, so less annoying), but that is another kind of scripting altogether. I personally can only sigh when there is a massive list of file links and there is no indication about the type of images that are being dealt with –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A script providing a toggle feature would be great. --Leyo 22:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy-blanking, revision-deletion, and deletion of non-file pages and of part or all of user: and user talk: pages

1) What is the proper, "sanctioned" procedure for removing a section from a user: or user_talk: page that isn't yours? See User talk:ScentzSoGood#AromaTherapy for an example of a section of a user talk page used for self-promotion, which is one of the grounds for deletion from the Commons. I'm hesitant to "be bold" and blank the section myself without some formal discussion/consensus.

2) What is the proper procedure for requesting deletion or revision-deletion or doing a "sanctioned" page-blanking or section-removal for the text portion of a file page or for a non-file page, such as something in Commons: or fillintheblank_talk:, when an obvious "_talk:" page is not available or is unlikely to be read widely enough to generate discussion?

The English Wikipedia handles these through en:WP:Miscellany for deletion. Davidwr (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Either blank it yourself, maybe with leaving a notice on the talk page, or contact an Admin at COM:AN. Section has been blanked on the userpage and link to advertized site removed. --Denniss (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:고등학생의 발기된 성기.jpg Delete

File:고등학생의 발기된 성기.jpg

Delete Plz. is Children Porn image.

The penis in this picture doesnt look like it belongs to a kid. Do you have any other proof that is in fact Children Pornography? Béria Lima msg 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, all that junk's nice, but...

...how do I request something for deletion? Shikku27316 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In the toolbox on the left hand side menu, there is a link "Nominate for deletion". --rimshottalk 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up a good point: For those of us used to going to PROJECT:DELETE on our home project to find out how to delete things, it's not obvious that the sidebar tools are there. At some point the sidebar tool documentation needs to be integrated with the rest of the documentation. Davidwr (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it already explained in the section Commons:Deletion requests#How to list deletion requests on this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why you are keep deleting???!!

Why you are keep deleting this image from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablito_Greco Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/milongadas/8911063457/ It has http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ !!! Explain please.

I don't see any image deletions in that article, none of your edits appear to have the image in there. The image I think you are referring to was deleted due to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pablito Greco in World Congress on Dance Research 2007.jpg, on the grounds that while it may appear on Pablito Greco's flickr under a free licence, he was not the photographer, and thus is unlikely to be the copyright holder. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I get it now. Thank you very much. Is there any form that he can sign or send to wikipedia, in case he is the copyright holder? 94.70.16.43 11:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Have the copyright holder send in an OTRS permission. If there would be any reason for the OTRS team to doubt the authenticity of the claim that the person sending in the request is the copyright holder (such as the problem noted on June 1), offer to send in supporting documentation on request. Davidwr (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to actively curate educationally distinct content

With the recent introduction of mobile uploads we do need to ensure that we are actively curating useful educational content, or else run the risk of being swamped by potentially large quantities of totally non-educational stuff, for example at least some of the images in our sexually-related categories and in Category:Selfies (see the discussion in the section above). We all know that some people upload simply to show off, and that many of their images are not realistically useful for an educational purpose.

Although our existing policy requires the deletion of images that amount to self-promotion or that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, in practice our procedures can be less than robust in providing sensible opportunities for discussion of the comparative educational merits of large numbers of rather similar uploaded images. To that end, I propose that we slightly modify our deletion request procedures to ensure that where there is a dispute about "educational purpose", and the file is kept, we record against the file how it is considered to be educationally distinct from our other holdings of the same subject.

The need to provide some rationale over and above the usual "I think it is educationally useful" should improve the quality of discussion during deletion requests. The proposal will also provide some measure of collective memory that would allow us at a later stage to discuss the possible removal of an unused file that was previously considered educationally distinct if we have since acquired much better holdings of exactly the same thing.

This would apply only to unused images that have been nominated for deletion with an 'Out of scope' (or similar) rationale, as there would be no point in recording this information where the distinct educational value is unchallenged and obvious.

Please discuss this proposal not here but at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose#Examples and Discussion under the sub section entitled "'Proposal 2: Actively curate educationally distinct content'". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Templates for deletion

This redirects here, but this page states it is for discussion of media deletions, and also refers to category deletions - but neither of those seem applicable for Templates. How to propose one for discussion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for review

File:Ghouta chemical attack map.svg is a copyright violation of a map.
File:Ghouta massacre1.JPG is from an unverified YouTube video.

Someone with language proficiency please take a look. Thanks. USchick (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Werbeanzeige.jpg

Hello, this file has two parts: on top a picture (first published in 1912, author unknown) and below four lines of text (published in: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Anhaltische Landeskunde, Heft 20, Köthen 2011, page 237–308). The author of the text does not agree to the publication. Would you please delete the Werbeanzeige.jpg? Thanks and greetings --Ködermaus (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Edurnepasaban.jpg

Which is the reason for asking to delete that picture? Apparently it's OK: the source mentioned says that the picture was made by 20 minutos, who publish their pictures under CC BY-SA 3.0. Have I missed something? --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The original source is obviously NOT this site, someone took this from elsewhere and posted it on this site claiming own work. --Denniss (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see arguments/prior sources listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edurnepasaban.jpg --Denniss (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting DR tags

So I created this batch DR which covers in a bundle images already pending individual DRs (because they are all so much alike), and the nominator of the said individual DRs reverted my VisualFileDiff batch addition of the 2nd DR tag. Is that cricket? -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The same user is also in the business of altering his own nomination texts, instead of adding comments to the the DR discussion: see this, one example among many. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Kiev_Rus_980_1054_copy.png incorrect templates after deletions notice attempts

I made a little mistake here, clicked the deletions link but the process went through Wikipedia, rather than commons.

I don't know which to remove, or which steps to follow, and am going away for a few days; apologies, but can someone sort out my mess please? Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of pic with very low res and/or content-destroying watermarks

Hi, i noticed we have a significant number of pictures, which are of very low resolution and/or have watermarks 'in a such prominent way the pictures are used in any project and also cannot be reused, because the prominent watermark cannot be cropped or removed by other edits without destroying the image as whole. In any WM-project such images would be removed immediately from articles because of advertisment abuse. Examples for such files in Category:Uploads from artvalue.com with watermarks‎ or pictures like this:Alborozo 20 (2690565282).jpg. In my understanding such pictures are no useful contribution at all, but only spamming/advertisement for the person/website/company shown in the watermark. So i want to initiate some action to remove such crap from commons by means of deletion. How to do this best? Is it covered by the deletion rules? (I read them but the give no clear decision). The deletion request would comprise no single pictures, but significant numbers of pictures with identical quality issues as in the category shown above. Tx for advice how to proceed Andy king50 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle, that these uploads should have not been made, they can however be replaced with better versions of the same originals — removing these files instead of replacing them would ruin any categorization and information done so far by other users. Even lacking better images for the moment, these tack abusive watermarks can have their distructive effect minimized thusly:
  • The dark-transparent bar at the bottom can be brightened back to match the rest of the photo; not the best quality treatment, but better than leaving it on or losing the image. Example: File:Abbott-arthur-1804-1843-united-sketches-of-madeira.jpg
  • The diagonal lighter “shadow” across the image can be darkened to match the rest; this must be done by selecting an overlaid text that matches the exact angle and typeface used, a tricky job, but here’s what I could do with 10 min. and PhotoShop7: File:Abeele-jodocus-sebastiaen-van-vue-d-un-salon-sur-la-campagne.jpg — someone with better tools and more skill could make it go away completely.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 02:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Tx for your answer and test edit. I think however one should not invest 10 minutes photoshopping one images with low res and the watermark is still visible (in the time, i can crop/edit up to 15 good quality images). There are at least some 500 images with this ugly watermarks. I doubt, that anyone will upload new versions, instead normally new files will be uploaded via the upload interface generating a new file with new name. In my opinion we do encourage advertisement abuse and/or more of this uploads by not deleting such files. To delete them after a short period (say 1 month) for improvement will disencourage such uploads at least in the case of the few mass uploaders of such files. I will just wait if there other views. If not i tend to create special subcategories to concentrate this mess in defined places, maybe for later mass-deletion or improvement (even if not very probable). Andy king50 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy close request for Streisand effect images

Can this please be speedy closed?

The commenters appear to be unanimous at this point in time.

I'd like for it to be speedy closed so we can move on with the ongoing Featured Picture nomination for a related file at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2.

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of personal photos

I don't have the time to go through the deletion process but can someone delete my following personal photos:

Thanks. Black Tusk (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

  •  Keep: These should not be deleted, they are very much in scope. That’s what should come up in the DR, should someone (but who?) «have the time to go through the deletion process». -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
These photos are MY property and I have the right to remove them from this website. Black Tusk (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what right are you exercising here? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Those not in use could be deleted as a courtesy, but more importantly none of them have a license. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Hrm, you are right. When he was referring to his property it appears he was referring to the images. Regardless, taking images of private property, even while on that property, is not a crime in Canada unless specifically restricted (by notice) by the owner. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of hoax photographs

I'm here to request the deletion of a group of photographs for someone who is a blatant hoax. The files are Agrippina Japaridze, Countess Zarnekau.jpg, Georgian Nobility - Agrippina Japaridze, Countess Zarnekau.jpg and 1903 ball - Agrippina Konst. Zarnekau.jpg. They're currently associated with the Wikipedia article Agrippina, Countess von Zarnekau, which I've tagged as a blatant hoax. I'd have not really mentioned the photos except that they're labeled as being this person- a person who by all accounts does not actually exist by that name. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Please create a deletion for these files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a site in Russian (samlib.ru/t/tegjulx_m/pers39.shtml) which hosts one of the abovementioned photographs. Unfortunately I don't speak that language thus I asked for help to @A.Savin: , maybe Aleksandr is able to tell us who that photo must be referred to. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The two photos on this site do refer to Princess Agrippina Dzhaparidze. So if the article is fake, the info on this site must be fake as well. --A.Savin 11:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
[out of chronological sequence] Thanks Aleksander! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The images are used in these articles:
The first one:
The second one:
--AVRS (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Keep: Although their attribution is incorrect and they were used to mistify readers in hoax articles, these images appear to be legitimate historical items and should be not deleted, but rather be kept, researched, and then properly classified, described, and renamed. (They are maybe copyright violations, depending on date and authorship, though.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect/outdated legal maps which have been replaced with new map

these 3 maps must be deleted: [10]; [11]; [12]

These maps are incorrect/outdated and have been tagged as such- a new correct and up to date map has been created: this one [13]- this is the correct one.188.26.193.4 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the section header (please avoid including long links in headers). As to the maps, I say  Keep because there is no need to delete these (as long as they are freely licensed): the inaccuracy tag is sufficient to guide re-users. -84user (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Warning tags without references or anything else to support them are an attack vector for POV pushing, aren't they? A similar Template:Info toned down to "not up to date and might contain inaccuracies" could convince me that this is not spam, where fresher and actually used (= hopefully reviewed) SVGs are available as in these cases. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of a photo of a minor

I recently deleted a page that gave a lot of information about a minor on Wikipedia. The photo Chong.jpg was attached to the page and since it's a photo of a minor, I'm a little leery about it remaining up. I would like to request deletion of this image. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I nominated it for speedy delete. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Czechoslovakian wolfdog

File:Czechoslovakian_Wolfdog_by_Hartl.jpg File:Wolfdog_by_Hartl.jpg

copyright infringement Il fascino del lupo. Cane lupo cecoslovacco [Copertina Rigida] http://www.ilfascinodellupo.com/index.php http://prntscr.com/2ua6kyWilczakrew (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

One already deleted as duplicate, the other is tagged as Speedy. Will be done shortly. Yann (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for review

I'm looking to add an image to the article on tennis player Jaroslav Drobný. Commons has a suitable image. I'm however not convinced that the licensing tag (Public Domain Dedication) is correct but cannot prove that it is incorrect either. What is the correct procedure for handling this? --Wolbo (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right to question the status of this image. This looks like someone just uploaded an image found on a news site. The thing to do for such rather obvious cases is to add {{Copyvio}}, if possible with a source, like this. --rimshottalk 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thx for the answer. It's a pity the photo probably doesn't stand up to scrutiny, would have been a nice one to use. Follow-up questions: 1) This {{Copyvio}} tag is for obvious cases and it mentions that the {{Delete}} tag is for non-obvious cases but is there a tag for merely requesting a review of an image without directly nominating it for deletion? 2) How did you manage to find the source? --Wolbo (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Category:Possibly unfree images lists some possibilities. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thx. Seems Category:Possibly unfree images and/or {{wrong license}} could be used in these situations. What is missing is some guidance on this on the Deletion requests project page. As an inexperienced editor, regarding Commons, I was looking for information on how to handle this but could not find any, also not regarding these two options. Hopefully that will be addressed.--Wolbo (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

responsibility

Is it true that an uploader won't have to prove that an image is free to use? Does a mere template with the claim suffice? Seb az86556 (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

See COM:AGF#Good_faith_and_copyright and COM:EVIDENCE. Jee 07:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look. Is there something like "deletion review" here for things that were kept? Or is re-nominating the way to go? Seb az86556 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Discuss with the closing admin on his/her talk page, first. Jee 08:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of picture

FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deletion_of_picture

For goodness' sake, use some common sense. 86.171.42.228 01:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Archive_3&oldid=708246663"