More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Vandalism is not appreciated
Please note that you have release these files under a non-revocable free license, they are within scope and some even in use so they will not be deleted. If you continue to act this way you will be blocked from editing. Denniss (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- How very bitey! Exactly what I would have expected on a Wikimedia project. Requesting deletion and revocation of a formerly released image is NOT vandalism and I would strongly urge you to show a little more respect. When I was editing, I always tried to be constructive and I DO NOT deserve to be treated like a vandal. For the record, before I requested deletion, I went hunting through the rabbit warren of "help" pages on this site trying to find out how and whether my contributions could be removed. As this website is not-exactly user-friendly, the only useful thing I could find was section 7 of Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#General_reasons. This section seemed to suggest that my photos could indeed be removed. I followed the instructions therein and listed my uploads for deletion. At the very least I would have expected a discussion or, if they couldn't be removed, some sort of polite explanation why not. Instead, I get bitten (yet again) and accused of vandalism and making nonsense edits. So, congratulations, Denniss, you're helping grow Wikimedia's well-earned reputation for propagating arrogance, rudeness, unfriendliness and everything else that could possibly turn constructive editors away. Anyone with half a brain can see why I (temporarily) returned but evidently it still needs explaining. I came here looking for help in regards to the possibility of my uploads being removed. The least you could have done is assumed good faith. However, I learnt long ago that the only people propagating good faith here are a decreasing handful of admins and an equally decreasing number of new users. Have you ever wondered why this place has gotten so quiet? Perhaps you should. Oh, by the way, you needn't bother blocking me. Unlike you, I got a life ages ago and have no intention of contributing anything. Banishment only holds significance to the children remaining in the playground; those of us out in the real world couldn't give a flying f**k. ClaretAsh (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- The editor may have uploaded someone else's work. If someone gives you a car they don't own, then the real owner can have the car repossessed by the police. Even you own the car, the finance company can repossess if you don't keep up the payments. Wiki is not what is written on the box.
- If the files you uploaded are not your own work, the 'real' owner can email and have them removed. simple. Oh, but if you are the real owner, too bad, the project can tease you without mercy, I think it says it in COMMONS:Nya Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah in the 'Nyah' and 'so there !!' sections. Oh and we'd love repeat business, so the Nyah nyah nyah really helps.. Penyulap ☏ 12:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi ClaretAsh,
- I am sorry that your recent visit to Commons escalated in such an unnecessarily unpleasant way. While your wording (and your deletion wish) suggest that you had already some prior reservations against Commons/Wikimedia, I concede that the above posted vandalism-message-template was a less than ideal choice here, as it suggested bad-faith action. I assume that it was choosen as you had re-inserted the deletion-tags onto your files after closure of the deletion-requests.
- You might not be aware of, but those who have taken responsibility for this project are faced on a daily basis with people vandalizing (really) the content, manipulating source or author entries, spamming, posting slander, uploading inappropriate/attack images and, most importantly, lying about authorship of their uploads. This can lead — especially if one cares about this project — to frustration and sometimes to reacting harsher than intended to minor policy violations. Sorry that this seems to have happened in your case.
- Back to your original issue:
- 1) most importantly and independent of the hosting on Commons: CC licenses are considered non-revokable or in words from the legal code "the license granted here is perpetual" and you cannot "withdraw this license".
- 2) most of your images are in use on Wikimedia projects.
- 3) those which are currently not in use on any Wikimedia project, may still be in use on other websites (independent of Wikimedia). I have checked that for a number of your uploads and most were also externally in use. Some of these external websites may use your images per hot-link, meaning they would loose the image if it is removed from Commons.
- 4) as you already mentioned our deletion policy, it clearly states that images uploaded >7 days ago are not subject to speedy deletion if "Author or uploader request deletion". The correct way would be a regular deletion request.
- 5) So, if you still want to remove your files, you may file those of your uploads, which are neither internally nor externally in use, again for regular deletion. As this deletion would be mere courtesy, it may (or may not) be granted. However, it would be futile to file for deletion those images which are internally or externally in use.
- --Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|File:Trim184.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.