Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dress cleavage.jpg
Low res and lack of metadata make me suspect a copyvio; such low res as to not be realistically useful anyway; no educational purpose. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually must agree with you on this one, there is no educational value. I am okay with its deletion, however I refute your persistent claims that I am violating copyrights. All images are from my personal archives as original work as stipulated in the terms. I don't produce these types of personal photos anymore, and many of them were taken with an older model Pantech Duo and transferred over the course of two to three years over multiple CD's and Hard Drives. Therefore, metadata will be lacking as the file has been copied and renamed multiple times. If you're not willing to acknowledge this statement, then I say you're slandering against my work and calling me a thief. Be more open for discussion or detract your erroneous claims. --Brow276 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mattbuck just said "make me suspect a copyvio", he didn't say "is a". And well, your "as stipulated in the terms" might be meant honest. However, most copyviolators do write "own work" into the source entry. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep; request more info/details from uploader. "suspicion is not proof"; if we applied "suspected copyvio", therefore delete, based on the criteria cited, then there are a few hundred-thousand OTHER files on commons, that have to be removed
- also, disagree; image fits scope @ commons. nominator went "on a spree" deleting every file uploader has provided, with same basic rationale "suspect copyvio, file has no value" Lx 121 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom: No source, questionable license, no EXIF-data with that low resultion, one time the pictures of the uploader (also impo copvios) are from the mobile phone, 2nd not...well, we should assume good COM:PRP. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- don't entirely understand your syntax on this one yik. but disagree with the parts of your arguement that i could follow, & once again, the policy you are citing has nothing to say about "guilt by association"
- also; the uploader is pretty vigorously disputing the copyvio claims. i'd like to see more info from the uploader before deciding on a removal based on claimed, but not prooven, copyvio.
Deleted: Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: per COM:PRP High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
