|
No indication that the nominator even attempted to determine the image's copyright before listing it for deletion. talk) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) [reply- Note the original image nominator was User:Ricky81682 the nominator here who is brand new self confessed alternate account seems to be a violation of the username policy as clearly intended to be confused with the existing user. Regards the deletion, there is no requirement for the nominator to search down copyright status, the onus is on the uploader to correctly specify an demonstrate it. No issue to review here. If the image can be shown to be properly under a suitable license, simply reupload it, or show the details to the deleting admin and request it's undeletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What confusion? My name has nothing to do with the nominator. --
talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) [replySo a an account consisting of a name and 5 digits where the difference between the two is just those last 5 digits in reverse. And the first edit is to ask for a review of a deletion nominated by the other account. And of course mere coincidence and no confusion possible, whatever. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [reply- The image was deleted in November. Also, seeing what happened below to the last editor who questioned that admin's actions, it's clear he has many friends around here. I suspect the same fate may come to me. --
talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) [reply- That's not a great reason. If you aren't courteous enough to ask the deleter for more information or to reconsider, I'm not sure I'm interested in restoring the image.
- All that aside, do you have any proof that the image is available under a free license? The copyright process here, de facto at least, is that text and images are presumed to be OK, but once questioned, the uploader/adder must provide proof of the free licensing. Otherwise, they're deleted.
talk) 08:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- Keep deleted per Usrnme h8er below.
talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse, no evidence provided to back up the Free license claim. If such evidence is available and can be posted with the image, no DRV is needed for the image to be reuploaded. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close - since the nominating account hasn't presented any evidence of copyright permission and has now been blocked, despite their protestations about no confusion with the account who nominated this for deletion, posts to the other users talk page like this suggest otherwise. Similary nomination for deletion of articles created by the other editor --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the deleting admin. SPeedy deleted as a copyvio. The image was a crop of this press image. I seem to have deleted some, or all, of the uploaders images for the same reason...webscrapings all - Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
