Commons talk:Deletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Deutsch: Auf dieser Seite werden Verfahrensfragen rund um Löschanträge diskutiert. Bitte hier KEINE Löschanträge oder Wiederherstellungswünsche stellen.
English: This page is for discussions concerning the deletion request process itself. Please do NOT post individual deletion requests or appeals here.
Español: Esta página es para discusiones acerca del mismo proceso de requerimiento de borrado. Por favor NO añadas requerimientos de borrado individuales o apelaciones aquí
Français: Cette page est consacrée aux discussions concernant le processus de demandes de suppression proprement dit. S'il vous plaît, n’ajoutez ici NI demande de suppression NI réclamation au sujet d'une suppression.
Italiano: Questa pagina è per discussioni relative a richieste di cancellazione. Per favore NON aggiungere quì richieste individuali di cancellazioni ne' appelli ad esse relativi.



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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


... 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg 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[edit]

The following requests may have been missed and need closing:

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

"No EXIF information" deletions?[edit]

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. , etc. Yes, you can stalk Wikipedia editors around the web this way. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Download this photo;
  2. Paste it in the search box at;
  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? 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 [1]. 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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.[edit]

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}} --GeorgHHtalk   21:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

34 CT images with copy-free tag[edit]

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?[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to get this image deleted [2] 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 had the deletion templates added on 23 January [3] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit] 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???!![edit]

Why you are keep deleting this image from the article: Image: It has !!! 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? 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)


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)
  • I didn't find anything newer than March 25-26, 2009, but I found several copies of the image in use from that time period, including and Sorry I don't have anything definitive. Davidwr (talk) 16:47, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg 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)

  • Investigation reveals the uploader has simply removed the license as part of the DR process. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Licenses can not be revoked --Admrboltz (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Request rejected. @Black Tusk:, read the rules: once you've released a work on Commons with free licence you can't revoke the latter. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Hmm; Northland Pyrite Mine seems a private property; so (if true) the author has no right to grant such a license. Jee 12:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Jee, He is the property owner. He uploaded the images himself. He tried to have them deleted by "revoking the license" and removing the license template. Some of them are used in articles. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Saffron, are you sure? I checked his user page; but failed to see such a self disclosure. And we can't assume (unless he himself reveal so); otherwise it become outing. Moreover, some images looks like a "reporting" against the company (Boland Lake Resources); so it may affect the reputation of the company or the position of the author if any too. Jee 02:23, 1 February 2014 (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[edit]

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)

Please create a deletion for these files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a site in Russian ( 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)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg 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[edit]

these 3 maps must be deleted: [4]; [5]; [6]

These maps are incorrect/outdated and have been tagged as such- a new correct and up to date map has been created: this one [7]- this is the correct one. 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the section header (please avoid including long links in headers). As to the maps, I say Symbol keep vote.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

File:Czechoslovakian_Wolfdog_by_Hartl.jpg File:Wolfdog_by_Hartl.jpg

copyright infringement Il fascino del lupo. Cane lupo cecoslovacco [Copertina Rigida] (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[edit]

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)


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[edit]


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