Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per COM:NOTHOST an COM:NOTUSED: Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills

Takeaway (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

You cannot just screenshot something and upload it as CC BY-SA, because you are creating a derivative work of the stuff you screenshot, and you have to clear the copyright in that as well. The search engine screenshots infringe the copyright in image thumbnails shown, and also in Windows / the browser. The Wikimedia screenshots do not properly attribute the MediaWiki software or the screenshotted pages and images; if any of the images is non-free then the screenshot is a copyvio.

BethNaught (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BethNaught I understand now and am happy to execute these deletions but not sure how to. Any clear instructions are very welcomeGretchenandrew (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gretchenandrew: Please read COM:DP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, uploader agreed to deletion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 3

[edit]

Self-created artwork without obvious educational uses, out of COM:SCOPE. See Commons:Project scope/Summary. Also: COM:NOTHOST an COM:NOTUSED.

Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Steinsplitter I disagree with these deletions. Please see the on going discussion on Village Pump in regards to art and educational value, in particularly in regards to the supremacy of photography and the role of image in the education of intelligent machines. It is currently being argued that art is not removed for the scope reason you listed.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Open_for_discussion._This_is_important._What_do_you_think?

@Yann: @Jeff G: @Colin: @Christian Ferrer: @Dvdgmz: @Seeeko: @Donald Trung: @Ruthven: He is an example of work being flagged for removal NOT because of poor quality, poor categorization but because it is not photography. Gretchenandrew (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing from COM:PS: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". Imho this is a (personal) artwork without obvious educational use. It is your personal art as fare i can see. I did not read the linked discussion/proposal[sic.] yet because tons of text, however the policy has not changed yet (and likely there is no consensus to do so, i fail to see a poll). Best. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Childish art, poor quality. No educational use. Any art reproduction smaller than 2 Mpx is of poor quality. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fun coincidence for Yann to call my work childish as I spent 5 years training with Billy Childish. I've shown work with The V&A Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I am managed by Stefan Simchowitz. Assuming their opinons on work quality are at least equally valid, let's set aside "childish" as not a valid reason for removal. Poor quality re: image size is interesting. This seems like a rule of thumb but I can believe it is documented somewhere as a guideline. I'd like to read up on this. These images were intentionally sized to the maximum size required to convey the necessary information. Smaller image size is very important to communities, users, and geographies for whom unlimited high speed data is not a given. These images are as large as they need to be. This leaves us with the question of "educationally useful." Can we agree this is the point of contention and reason for deletion alone? If so, happy to respond in depth about that. Steinsplitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenandrew (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2018‎ (UTC) Now signed: Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gretchenandrew: Re the size issue, please read COM:FTSS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, thanks for the article on COM:FTSS. Interesting information but I don't see where it says anything like, "Any art reproduction smaller than 2 Mpx is of poor quality." But I am happy to exchange these images for .png of higher quality if we can agree that will allow them to remain on the site? Thoughts Yann?Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have not yet heard from Steinsplitter as to whether or not we can agree on "educationally useful" as the point of contention here is why, by category, I believe these images to be so:

Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer files - These paintings are about me and my family’s experience of my mom’s ongoing struggle with Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer. Just as battles are not just defined by tactical maps, we are not educated about disease only by what is seen under a telescope. What is cancer? Is it a set of medical diagrams? There is educational value in the humanizing the experience. Is it possible that doctors and researchers studying the disease could learn from a more intricately expressed understanding of how one family has responded to the disease and its treatment? Is it possible that other patients and their families, having just been diagnosed with the disease and turning to the internet, could find educational value in artwork that speaks to their experience? Here art’s educational role is to share experience and to humanise.

Bow New Hampshire files - What is a place? Why is a historic photo depicting a possibly unrepresentative structure more educationally useful than an artistically rendered depiction of the interior of a structure? Each are of a place and time, each show a narrow perspective, each tell a story, each have a point of view. If you’ve never been to Bow, New Hampshire what is the best way to educate you on it as a place? Here art’s educational value is to remind us that life in a particular place is lived by individuals with individual lives that are nonetheless deeply defined by the place itself.

Perfect Female Body files - The female body rendered in photographic or diagram form has a long history of the male gaze, the act of depicting the world and women in the visual arts and literature from a masculine and heterosexual point of view, presenting women as objects of male pleasure. The female body as depicted from the female point of view has educational value in both a competitive and individual sense. The internet and its imagery are important modes of cultural cues and information for those growing up today. Allowing art into this conversation, into the definition, expands the educational value of images, all of which should be read with consideration to who made them and for what purpose.

Female Conception files - The act of conception is very often misrepresented as an active male sperm penetrating a passive egg. As the egg exert a pulling force this is scientifically untrue. Here is a perfect example how a seemingly innocuous scientific diagram can perpetuate a discriminatory world view. All images, event photography even diagrams, contain bias and perspective. In acknowledging this Wikimedia can see a clearer path to allowing non-photographic images to exist as equals on the site. The act of conception is everywhere plagued by this misunderstanding that perpetuates serytoes and limiting gender roles. These images are about conception, portraying women as equal partners in the biological process.

Powerful person files - Artificial intelligence is in the process of using wikipedia and search results more broadly to learn to identify and make decisions based on images and their associated words. To limit “power” to white men and political figures is to narrow an important concept to a western ideal. Here the works are educationally useful to the education of intelligent machines which are learning to identify what power is based on existing content. It should be noted that in all of these cases the argument of how intelligent machines are using wikipedia to receive their education is relevant.

Displacement files - The dictionary definition of displacement is, “the moving of something from its place or position.” In scientific terms displacement is the measuring of volume through submerging an object in a fluid. In human terms our time continues to see the movement of displaced persons. Within Freudian psychology displacement is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind substitutes either a new aim or a new object for goals felt in their original form to be dangerous or unacceptable. In all its definitions there are questions of scales and pressures alongside an implied feeling of a vanished the initial state. Displacement is something different to the scientist, the refugee, the psychologist and the artist. Because displacement has many overlapping definitions used by specialized communities it is an especially important word to be represented by art. The artist’s unique role is to operate between the structures of language, in gaps not covered by its various uses and definitions.

In summary - Part of art’s educational role is to add humanity and experience into the understanding of what is something is or can be, the offering of an intentionally personal experience into the universal. Might these works be considered just as educationally useful as a lot of armature photography allowed on the site? And possibly might they fulfill a knowledge gap that is distinctively difficult to span with text and photography?

This is not about free hosting or self promotion. The required labor of categorization differentiates these image and their context from sites like DeviantArt and Flickr. These images, as more as any others on the site, have been intentionally added for their educational value to both people and artificially intelligent machines.

I argue these images are educationally useful and should be allowed to remain. Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I think you are onto something here. Specifically, this paragraph:

In summary - Part of art’s educational role is to add humanity and experience into the understanding of what is something is or can be, the offering of an intentionally personal experience into the universal. Might these works be considered just as educationally useful as a lot of [amateur] photography allowed on the site? And possibly might they fulfill a knowledge gap that is distinctively difficult to span with text and photography?

And this one from your proposal at the village pump:

Considering art's unique role in education, how do we make space for paintings, drawings, [and] non-photographic interpretations of what words mean within wikimedia? One suggestion would be to remove “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills” as an example of something that is not in scope and allow artwork to be removed on other grounds.

The policy you are disputing comes from here: COM:EDUSE and COM:NOTUSED, where "educational" is very broadly defined there as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". By that intentionally broad definition it is hard to argue that your images are not educational - and to that point you provided some non-traditional, but completely valid, explanations of their educational value (if not instructional, then informative knowledge) above.
I think you start to run into trouble because, with this view, it is hard to see how the example "artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" would apply to any seriously considered artwork, regardless of the subjective opinion of the artists' skills, as long as there was a reasonable instructional or informative educational rational for the image in question. It is important to recognize (and justify) that by proposing the removal of that example from the policy page you are (not inappropriately) suggesting a fairly radical change to Commons policy compared to how most people have interpreted the policy historically. I think some editors are concerned the change could lead to a large increase in the number of images hosted on the commons, but I don't think that concern is a fair reason to dismiss your proposed change.
Unfortunately, I'm not very active on the Wikimedia Commons, and so I'm not able to point to any other specific policies or guidelines that support this view. However, based on this rationale, and assuming you have a reasonable educational explanation for each image, I think these images should be kept on the Commons and accordingly the example in question should be removed or changed to better reflect the potential educational value of non-photographic images when explained appropriately. Cheers. ~ PaulC/T+ 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no educational value. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 4

[edit]

Self-created artwork without obvious educational uses, out of COM:SCOPE. See Commons:Project scope/Summary. Also: COM:NOTHOST an COM:NOTUSED. See also pervious deletion requests.

Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - All files restored, as [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=320069475&oldid=320066098 they are now on scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 5

[edit]

Thirteen versions of the same text logo with different border sizes, none of them in use.

Lord Belbury (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vk}} File:Art-basel-nft-11.jpg as the best and  Delete the rest all per nom as oos.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC) edited 16:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep notorious artist donating content to Wikimedia projects. --Joalpe (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are thirteen copies of the same text image, with the same identical summary description ("Art Basel NFT"), that differ only in their border widths. There is no explanation of their purpose, none of them are in use, and it's not even clear that they're meant to be 13 distinct artworks. If an artist uploaded a portrait with 13 different border widths, or 100, or 2000, would Commons always keep all of them? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Belbury: Is that a !vote?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was intended as a response to the point that the images were all usefully donated art. No objection to Jeff's suggestion to keep one of them, although it would be nice to know what the image is actually meant to be. Is it an artwork called "Art Basel NFT", is it an NFT, is it a logo for a show, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Belbury: Thanks. It would be a real shame if file 11 was what she was trying to sell as an NFT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as per nom. and Jeff. Yann (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 6

[edit]

Derivative works. See one of the source at Getty Images.

Yann (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Gretchenandrew&oldid=658257318"