26 Mar

Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

‎Content added while evading a block or ban: -1
← Older revision
Revision as of 13:53, 26 March 2013
Line 1,070:
Line 1,070:

*{{oppose}} Content should be judged on its own merits. Of course, if a person who had been banned for copyvio started adding "own work", we might not assume good faith, but if the content is good, why should we delete it? If it is not good, then we don't need this proposed rule to get rid of it. I can think of several editors, past and present, who are very abusive and difficult to deal with who have contributed perfectly wonderful images. If one of them is banned for abusive, counter-productive activities, and other interaction issues, should we than delete his or her work? If he or she sneaks more work onto Commons, should we delete it? I think not. . Jim . . . . [[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]] ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

*{{oppose}} Content should be judged on its own merits. Of course, if a person who had been banned for copyvio started adding "own work", we might not assume good faith, but if the content is good, why should we delete it? If it is not good, then we don't need this proposed rule to get rid of it. I can think of several editors, past and present, who are very abusive and difficult to deal with who have contributed perfectly wonderful images. If one of them is banned for abusive, counter-productive activities, and other interaction issues, should we than delete his or her work? If he or she sneaks more work onto Commons, should we delete it? I think not. . Jim . . . . [[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]] ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

+

+
*{{o}} Mostly per Jim. --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] ^{[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]} 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=93306085&oldid=93304351