In future edits please use one of the following date formats as implemented by the #time: parser fuction.

• {{#time:F j, Y}} → April 29, 2024
• {{#time:j F Y}} → 29 April 2024
• {{#time:Y-m-d}} → 2024-04-29

Thank you. – Allen4names 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template's instructions to Administrators make no sense whatsoever. First it says "if the previous version(s) did not satisfy the non-free content criteria...". I presume 99% of the old versions did satisfy the criteria, but don't anymore. Are we supposed to be evaluating the current satisfaction of the criteria for previous versions or the past satisfaction of the criteria? The top part of the template implies current, the instructions to admins says past. Secondly the instructions say that if the previous versions did satisfy the criteria, we're supposed to revert the image to the previous version(s)(?!). This makes no sense. Why would we revert to a previous version just because it satisfies the NFCC? This would mean reverting virtually all non-free images with multiple versions. What would be the point of this? Can someone please clarify what action admins are actually supposed to take in regard to this template? Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 8 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that discussion answers either of my questions. I'm just going to conclude that the current instructions are nonsense and rewrite them myself. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording and category use in this template says image, but it is also used for audio/video samples. Perhaps it should be changed? --Cybjit (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done But the the category name still says "image". — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this tag applies to nearly every image on the entire English Wikipedia. If that is the intent, would it not make more sense for this to programatically determined? If nothing else, since deletions are not permanent, just give it to a bot with Administrator privileges, and skip the middle man. Because surely something that applies to nearly every image is being placed not by humans but by a bot. — trlkly 17:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the paragraph that says "Administrators:", Would you add div class=sysop-show? 2602:304:68AD:3220:54C4:7389:89C3:C2A9 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To hide admin notes for non admins, don't forget to add < and > between them. Notice that I'm using a different IP address because my IP addresses above and what I'm using now is in a range. 2602:304:68AD:3220:88A2:9669:138E:11C8 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Why is it necessary to hide all of the administrator notice? If you look at the wikimarkup, the administrator instructions are hidden:

Otherwise, please revert the file back to the last acceptable version. Once you're done, remove this tag. Use "change visibility", checking only the "Delete file content" option, in order to preserve the upload history in the "File history" section. The standard rationale for an orphaned non-free file is F5.

However, the part of the administrator notice that is currently visible is fine. It's often useful if other editors are aware that an administrator may need to be involved in a tagged article to delete prior revisions under the conditions outlined in the template. JustBerry (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Note. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 11:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]