Commons:Deletion requests/File:D.jpg
Commons do not need another exhibitionist photograph 87.123.118.195 09:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Bottom was censored because of a grabbed pic from a porno. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep same nominator, same supporter, same time difference between the 2
commons is not censored
image depicts a male nude from an unusual angle; has some artistic, as well as anatomical merit
@ user:yikrazul: you keep using the "copyvio" claim, without providing ANY evidence to support it
when you wish to argue this point, please explain WHY you feel so certain that the images are copyvios.
i see no basis for assuming this to be the case
the EXIF-data shows the image has been edited, as does simply looking at it
that the edit was unskillful is obvious; the editor left a blanked-out area that could easily have been cropped
BUT the reason for the edit is unclear
i'd consider that the user might have wanted to edit out some personal details; possibly a second person in the image?
also; the physical characteristics of the subject-person appear to be reasonably consistent with a range of other images (of what appears to be the same subject-person) by the same uploader, a number of which are quite clearly NOT "grabbed from a porno", & which are claimed as self-authored.
lacking any evidence to the contrary, i'm willing to assume good faith
Lx 121 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- NO SOURCE, NO PERMISSION, taken from a video (look at the flurry background), and of course EXIF-data showing the 72dpi-copyvio. The blanked area would feed the "no scope" issue, and that kind of picture is lacking a clear scope. speedydelete. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- hello, again, again, again, yikrazull;
- 4th discussion, different files, same arguements.
- i'm going to cut & paste parts of the body of text from my previous response, to your previous response, to etc...
- i shall add some file-specific comments, at the end
- hello again yikrazuul, again;
- different file, same conversation. i see that you like to slightly "remix" your arguements each time; same lines (plus or minus one), different order.
- since i DON'T feel like repeating myself endlessly, i'll do this in point form:
- item 2. you have not "proven" any copyvio. the exif data does not "clearly show" copyvio. the fact that the image was photo-edited & saved @ 72dpi proves nothing; at best that would be "circumstantial evidence", & rather weakly so.
- there are MANY reasons why the file might have been edited; & many reasons why it might have been saved @ only 72 dpi. the apparently limited photo-editing skills of the uploader would be an obvious factor.
- unless you can come up with some actual evidence to support your claims (such as a source from which the material was "stolen"'; or at least a credible, conflicting claim of authorship), then the "copyvio" remains an unproven allegation
- item 3. the uploader has provided multiple images of what pretty clearly is the same subject-person. a number of these files appear to be self-authored. the reasonable assumption is that the the uploader created the material, & then edited it before uploading it to commons.
- item 4. you do not understand commons scope
- item 5. commons is a media repository, we do not have a policy about "quantitative limits" to our collection of files. arguements that "we have enough of..." or "we have too much of..." show a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & concept of commons as a media repository.
- item 6. "commons is not censored" means something; you do not get to just brush it off!
- item 7. you are dodging the question about the source of the "anonymous" IP editor, whose only "work" is deletion noms (the procedures for which the "unknown" user seems to understand remarkably well)
- back to "live"
- yes, the image appears to be a still from video, it appears to be a webcam; this in no way either proves, or disproves, anything about copyvio.
- your comment "The blanked area would feed the "no scope" issue" does not make any sense.
- the blanked area is pretty obviously intended to eliminate a second person from the image; it has absolutely no relevance" to scope, just as it does not prove anything about copyvio pro or con.
- the only thing it does suggest, is that the image could benefit from cropping
- with zero evidence of a copyvio, this file DOES NOT qualify for "speedy deletion"; to suggest that it does, implies either a lack of understanding of the rules & purposes of "speedy", or a desire to "short-circuit" discussion.
Deleted Jcb (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
