Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Kmit (1975).jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Michael_Kmit_(1975).jpg

Appears to be a scan of printed material.  ?? Own work??      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a cropped (detail) scan of an original (own work) photo - this is clear from the large version of the image. If you are not an expert in images and old photos, then you should not rely only on what "appears" to you, and make deletion requests. You may be doing a lot of good work on Commons, but it is inappropriate and unprofessional of you to assume that all my uploads are 'copyvio'. If you supply me with instructions regarding a way of sending you a photo of the original photo in my album, then I will. --Pkravchenko (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So the artifacts come from the fact that it is printed on a paper with those hexagons? -- I forget what it is called, it's been a long time since I did B&W darkroom work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are being confused with patterns from half-toning which are completely different in that they are spot patterns of ink on a white surface. As this is a 1970s photo, it is very consistent to have been printed on textured photographic paper. See the article on Identifying Chromogenic Prints and click on the large-scale image of the Ektacolor print mid-1970s as well as the Agfacolor print 1978 on the same page. The texture, similar to my 1975 photo is clearly evident. For a discussion of the history of Kodak textured paper in general see here.

What is the next step in this "nomination for deletion"? Is there an objective panel which reviews your claim? Do you apologize for making a nomination based on ignorance and an imputation that I am not honest? Who and when will remove the deletion template?? Pkravchenko (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The DR will be closed by one of our colleagues. As for the imputation that you are not honest, I note again:

• I did not suggest that you were not honest, merely that you might misunderstand "own work". Many new users think that scanning something makes the scan their own work.
• That suggestion is supported by the fact that approximately 20% of your uploads have been deleted as copyright violations or have active DRs -- again, without any imputation of malfeasance, perhaps simple misunderstanding or mistake, but copyright violations nonetheless.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "merely a suggestion", as you put it, and nominating a file for deletion — justified by reasoning based on 1) a lack of understanding about the difference between a scan from a book and an original, and 2) a conclusion based on a premise, albeit a false premise, that "People who upload 20% or more copyvio files are liars, and therefore their files have to be deleted". Irrespective whether you deliberately or consciously imputed dishonesty or not — your nomination is based on the premise that I am dishonest, because if there is no technical reason for nomination, then the only apparent reason is because I stated that they are my 'own work'.

Let's take your cherry picking of 'data' which you use to justify your nomination, effectively used as a character assassination:

1. Firstly, my contribution to Commons has been more than just uploads — I have contributed to other people's files, by adding extra information and introducing English or Ukrainian translations, in almost all cases adding links to the relevant WP pages/topics.
2. I have also done a lot of categorization, either correcting, or adding categories to pages where there were none.
3. I have transferred files from WP:en and WP:uk, where appropriate, to Commons, and added the corresponding translation/information to the pages.
4. In all cases where the files were deleted, they fell into 2 categories: a) where it was my mistake regarding the date between the creation of the work and 70 years from death of the author, and b) where I uploaded files specifically showing covers of references which I was asked to display for verification purposes, and which were clearly marked as such. (The fact that the requester did not provide an alternative way of displaying/sending the files, is consistent with your refusal to do the same — see my request earlier above).
5. Moreover, none of the files deleted were deleted because I falsely, or erroneously attributed them as 'my own work'.
6. In all cases, whether deleted or not, I have accurately included the authorship and/or sources.
7. In all cases, where the file was from someone else, I gained permission and verified this through OTRS!

So the reasoning that my file has to deleted because I am not to be trusted when I say the file is "my own work" is a hasty generalization and any justification for deletion based on this is misleading. --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Keep - OTRS received --Sreejith K (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Kept: valid OTRS Jcb (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)