Files in Category:Jefftemp (Camila Merino)

Two nearly identical smaller photos of Camila Merino, both claiming to be own work by different people, neither with camera metadata, neither to be believed.

• File:CamilaMerino.jpg
• File:Fto wiki.png

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete - New user upload, no metadata available, both file have similar resolution. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Jefftemp ("tourist snaps" or personal pictures)

'"tourist snaps" or personal pictures' uploaded by Matlin per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&diff=566818733&oldid=566765145

• File:2003 03 28 Szentgotthárd DSCF0002 (51025373677).jpg
• File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0003 (51024543468).jpg
• File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0008 (51025279781).jpg
• File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0087 (51025373897).jpg
• File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0088 (51025373832).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0019 (51025279741).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0024 (51025374227).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0025 (51025374192).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0033 (51024543763).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0034 (51025279601).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0035 (51024543713).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0036 (51025374017).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0081 (51025373987).jpg
• File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0082 (51025373947).jpg
• File:2003 04 18 Robert 009 (51002931976).jpg

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Jefftemp (TUGAS POSTER KELOMPOK 6)

Both files are identical, were uploaded by different users as own work, and probably are copyvios as posters uploaded as part of an assignment named "Digital Literation Mid-Term Test".

• File:Poster kelompok 6.png
• File:Story through a song.png

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Jefftemp (Adminpedia files)

Created for attack/harassment. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.svg.

• File:Adminpedia-de.svg
• File:Adminpedia-en-2.png
• File:Adminpedia-en.png
• File:Adminpedia-en.svg
• File:Adminpedia-fa-2.svg
• File:Adminpedia-fa.svg
• File:Adminpedia-fi.svg
• File:Adminpedia-image.png
• File:Adminpedia-it.png
• File:Adminpedia.png
• File:Adminpedia-image.svg Added per restoration of this file at COM:UNDEL; see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.svg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep and restore the deleted one. This is not attack, but smart criticism. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete I don't see the point to have these files here, except for annoying people. --Yann (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep, Also not the first attempt. This isn't an attack it's a form of criticism and admins delete images for myriads of reasons like copyright laws and privacy protection, so pointing out that they delete images isn't an attack, it's literally what we expect of our volunteers with the tools to do so and this might mean that valuable images that are used in high visibility pages also get deleted. You've been trying for around 4 (four) years to get these deleted. Also it's never a good face for any establishment to deny any satire, a realistic way that these images could be used is in an article critical of admin action on Wikimedia websites, something which plenty of articles have been written about (see necessary websites like Wikopediocracy, numerous others like it, Reddit's WikiInAction, among others, as well as a number of Signpost articles about deletion debates, or just in general bad calls by admins when they are being discussed). Any image could be used as an attack image, a Vietnamese-Gernan user I know was constantly attacked with an in scope pornographic image by Musée Annam who was sexually harassing her, but that doesn't make that image less useful for educational purposes, it just means that he is a [insert explicitive here] (not meant as an actual attack, more like a joke, I don't hate him). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Donald Trung: That attempt was just for File:Adminpedia-image.png, and I have precedent this time. The non-svg versions are still low quality, and all are still in poor taste.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Low quality images usually only get deleted if a better quality image of that same image exists, as far as I can find there are no high quality versions of all images and SVG files shouldn't automatically lead to the deletion of non-SVG files, simply because in many cases many websites only allow the usage of JPEG and PNG images. I never said that they weren't in poor taste, but satire almost always is. In fact it's extremely rare to find satire that isn't in poor taste, but I don't think that this should be a reason for deletion onto itself, these images are simply critical of admin action and were used by "anti-establishment" users to express this. Again, I would not prefer to have an establishment that wouldn't tolerate satire of itself, especially mild satire like this. With "mild" I mean that much more condemning images (which could be seen as attack pages) could have been used. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep If one could argue that it was created only to attack/harass and also can only be used for that, then we might have a reason for deletion. As to the first I am not a mind reader, so I will admit that it's possible that they were created only for that purpose, but they can be used to show the power disparity in the project which hosts the website with the number of visitors per day being overshadowed only by Google (I am talking about the project we are on right now). So the question is: "Is criticism of the second most popular project on the web notable enough to have a few files?" I believe that the answer is: "We probably don't have enough". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete I'm all for intelligent, constructive, criticism -- we could use more of it. But these are not constructive. Simply saying that we delete things does nothing to improve the project -- of course we delete things -- well more than a thousand per day. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you know the concept of satire? -- Chaddy (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't all of this falling under Satire? Fleshgrinder (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep For me as a longtime administrator on de-WP this sign is an important part of the daily work and characterizes in an excellent way the sense of administration. The deletion request is ridiculously humorless in the highest way. --He3nry (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep und verbessern statt löschen!!!! --Gardini (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep Harharhar, suffering of boredom, lately? Those files exist for some 15 years, and here you come... --Amga (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep Simply no -- Chaddy (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep Well... Fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy? --Björn 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep Preventing criticism has always been a good idea, right? Halbschwabe (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep irony, sarcasm... are important parts of critics and life --Über-Blick (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Info for transparency: These "keep" votes from people active in German Wikipedia are now coming in because He3nry alerted the administrator's noticeboard there. Well, like He3nry, I'm an admin in German-language Wikipedia, and not only there, but here on Commons too, and I don't feel offended at all by these satirical "anti-admin" banners. This is a way for people who think that admins delete too much to let off some steam, it's entirely harmless. The basic variant File:Adminpedia.png is widely in use on user pages in German-language Wikipedia (per GlobalUsageCount 238 times!), for many years (it was created in 2006 and is basically part of de-WP's folklore, I'd say) and I never heard of an admin there who would have felt harassed by this. So, I'm joining the  Keep votes, of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep Nü, es sollte schon bleiben. Etwas Humor und Selbstironie schadet definitiv nicht. Humor ist der Kitt, der Welten verbindet. Viele Grüße --Itti (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep I agree with 4nn1l2 - these images are not attack/harassment, although the irony they contain may not sit well with some people. A little off-topic, Debate between deletionism and inclusionism has been going on for over 10 years (even longer) in various projects, which reasonably explains why such images exist - and will also exist in the future. Stang^★ 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pages in Category:Jefftemp (Commons ban pages)

• Category:Banned Commons users‎
• Commons:BAN
• Template:Banned user
• Template:Banned user/doc
• Template:Db-g5
• Template:Db-meta

These pages were created by Gwilliams124‎ by fiat against policy, as attempts to change COM:BP without consensus by importing concepts from enwiki. Banning has been considered here for many years to be too bureaucratic, and process creep. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Gwilliams124.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete, no idea why this was allowed in the first place. The English-language Wikipedia's banning policy basically allows any individual admin to ban a user while it requires wide community consensus to unban a user, this basically means that once a user is banned (s)he's banned for life unless they managed to have made enough friends before the ban to vouch for them. Importing these templates and categories legitimises these user-unfriendly processes, though I do think that a number of these templates and categories for globally banned users would be useful, even though I'm personally against the concept of banning a user here locally because of conduct on another website. That aside, there are simply no good reasons to have a template that explicitly links to The English-language Wikipedia's banning policy to be used here, that simply doesn't make sense under any circumstances. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment, I'd like to try to assume good faith here, but I find is awfully suspicious that an account registered only 5 (five) days ago suddenly creates policy pages and imports the English-language Wikipedia's G5 speedy deletion policy and general banning policy without ever engaging any content or policy discussions here. My guess is that this might be trolling. Interestingly enough, at the Wikinews (where they have registered only 8 (eight) days ago they made a number of import sockpuppet templates). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: Content intended as vandalism (G3). --Эlcobbola _talk 16:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Files in Category:Jefftemp (oficinadopaisagista)

These files contain spam for oficinadopaisagista.com.br in their structured data. See also COM:ANU#Spamming using multiple accounts.

• File:Alinhamento e disposição das árvores. Projetos paisagísticos Transplante de árvores.jpg
• File:Projetos paisagísticos Alinhamento e disposição das árvores. Palmeira.jpg
• File:Viveiro de árvores, plantas para paisagismo.jpg
• File:Árvores para paisagismo Palmeira Imperial para paisagismo. Oficina do Paisagista.jpg

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't this stretching the definition of "spam" here? Let's say that there's a photographer who own a business and wants that business to be attributed, if we get OTRS / VRT permission and link to their business in the attribution we'd consider that "a donation" and such content is welcomed. Yet if such photographers upload these high quality images themselves here wishing for the same attribution it somehow becomes "spam"?! The Wikimedia Commons contains a lot of images from commercial websites, as long as these images are realistically educationally valuable. Why delete the image when you can simply remove the links? That is even if links for attribution are considered unwanted. If these images were imported from Flickr with the same description nobody would complain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Donald Trung These are not links on Flickr that we have merely copied. This is part of a concerted effort directly on Commons to promote that website and sell more trees that has already seen deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete. These files are part of a larger group of files (mostly already deleted) that were uploaded in a multi-user effort that is clearly for the purpose of advertising. The links to a commercial website are not part of the file sourcing. They are embedded as part of descriptive text such as "Plant nursery specializing in large trees, buy trees". File names in some cases are promotional text plus the company name. I don't think the nominator is stretching the definition of spam at all here. In addition, some of the deleted uploads from this group were identical to images found on other websites and mostly likely falsely claimed as own work. Under these circumstances, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle may apply with regard to sourcing/attribution. If these images are kept, at minimum the promotional links should be removed from the structured data. Marbletan (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination/discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)