Wait til the AfD for Brokencyde is finished (shouldn't be long, cos it's looking pretty snowy to me). Assuming it's a keep, unsalting would seem uncontroversial.—S MarshallTalk/Cont23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Image:ARRahman2.jpg – This discussion was started by a disruptive doppleganger account simply to stalk the contributions of another editor, without genuine regard for the actual copyright issues. Image remains deleted, per the copyright violation determination, that is easy to confirm, of the deleting administrator. – Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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]
So 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? Stifle (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. -- Ricky28618 (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. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 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]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The page was deleted under the reasoning that fictional characters must not be categorized as villains per WP:POV and OR. However, The Walt Disney Company has released a franchise named "Disney Villains", which is more than just characters who are antagonists, witches, etc. There are direct-to-video films, video games and other merchandise by the franchise that can be categorized under "Category:Disney Villains", other than just characters in the official line-up. Therefore, the category would be named after an existing franchise and not as a way to label characters as villains only because they are "bad guys". --LoЯd۞pεth18:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - consensus is clear that we do not categorize fictional characters by characteristics like "hero" and "villain" because they are mutable. No indication that the original close was in error and no indication that the well-established consensus against such categories has changed in any way. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have clearly not read the reasons for recreating this. "Category:Disney Villains" will not be for listing characters as villains, but to include merchandise from a franchise named Disney Villains. This category would include direct-to-video films, video games, etc. --LoЯd۞pεth01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It must be wonderful to have the power to look through the eyes of others to be able to know what they have and haven't read. I hope you use this power responsibly. Otto4711 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion — I agree that the category is not straightforwardly POV, but no reason has been given to prefer recreation of this confusion-risking category over creation of one of the clearly titled categories suggested by GoodOl. — Charles Stewart(talk)10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
