Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1

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 Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 1

Images all sourced from Facebook with permission statements along the lines of "photo publicly shared on Facebook with no restrictions" or "owner publicly uploaded photo and shared it without any reservations". A person or company sharing a photo publicly on Facebook does not mean that they deliberately released it into the public domain (or as is asserted in these uploads, under a CC-BY licence). They may not even have owned the rights to the image in the first place.

I tagged some of these as lacking any permission yesterday, when they just linked to a Facebook page as their source, and the uploader added "photo publicly shared on Facebook with no restrictions" to them as a statement of permission, removing the permission templates. I've pulled all the Facebook-sourced images into this single discussion, with and without that statement.

Lord Belbury (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be clearly misusing your priviledges. I will report you. Such baseless recommendations is not even funny. This is more than trolling my uploads. You think you're hurting me by doing this. If you're not happy with any earlier disagreement we had on Wikipedia or Meta why not take it up with me directly? Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassanjalloh1: I'm protecting the photographers here by taking this up with you, and asking you to show that they have released these photos under a CC-Attribution licence. It is not enough to say that you found the photos on Facebook and the user didn't mention any restrictions. The photographer must confirm that they want to release their work like this. We can ask them if they'd like to, but we shouldn't make that choice for them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your view about Commons policy is very narrow and this may get you into a lot of hurdles with other editors. According to you, if an image does not showw CC Attribution at source, there must be a direct confirmation from the author. Really?? Then it would be so ironical for you to ignore the thousands of images (including your uploads) that do not indicate a CC Attribution at source or confirmation from the author. Society is so complex to look at things in black or white. There is always a grey area. Always. That's why policies are overwritten and developed. The key here you should focus on are images that indicate "copyright" or (c) or a name credit. Facebook policy general indicates that when you choose the public upload option, you opt to release your rights to the image (except indicated otherwise). And in all the images that you flagged there is none that is copyrighted. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in order to host someone's image on Commons with a CC licence, we have to show that that person released it under that licence, usually by linking to a source page where they've said as much, or receiving an email from them where they've agreed to it. I always do this when uploading images.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that all Facebook photos have all of their rights waived by default. Where did you hear that? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this your approach to how you flag people's uploads will create an unhealthy environment for editors, that's why I may raise this issue with admin. You think everything is cut and dried. In your terms: "no explicit indication of CC-Attribution at source; then author confirmation; or else delete". Really? There are thousands of images on Commons that have no indication of CC-Attribution at source or an author confirmation. You ignore the actual spirit of Commons, which is ATTRIBUTION! The underlying theme for all these policies is Attribution. Commons want all images to be attributed to their creators (which I did in all the images above where the author or creator is known). And then second most important is restrictions. Are there any copyright issues or restrictions or even potential restrictions for sharing the images above? Absolutely NO! According to Facebook's most recent terms of service: "...if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Meta Products you use." Simply when you choose the public setting, that indicates compliance with what Facebook states above. Here is the link. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That gives Facebook/Meta the permission to store and share it. It does not give you, or Wikimedia Commons, permission to do so, and it does not release anything under a CC-Attribution licence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So clearly you are saying WP or any other sister projects don't fit the category of "...such as service providers that support our service"? That's why I said stop focusing on the fine print and ignoring the obvious. It would save you more time and problems or issues with others. Try searching for something encyclopedic on FB's search and let it display Wikipedia information for you, or just going through your timeline and clicking on the info icon of each media article, etc. You think everyting is black and white. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my take, yes, Facebook saying that they might share content with service providers does not allow Commons to host those images under a CC-Attribution licence as you have done here. I'll step back and let some other users give their thoughts on whether there is a suitable "found this on Facebook" copyright template, and whether we should focus on the fine print. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Belbury I want to prove to you that you were really "going after my uploads" baselessly like someone who's in for a revenge on someone. For instance, these photos you included above:

ARE ALL OVER 50 years old, and no one knows the author. You were so trying to hurt me you couldn't even have time to check Commons Copyright Rules for Sierra Leone. And I clearly describe the photos (including the country). In addition to the above, you also went along and flagged these:

All those photos were taken before or during the post-Independence era of Sierra Leone (c 50s - 60s). What you're doing is creating an unhealthy environment for users, some of whom may think that uploading photos to Commons is very much complicated, when in actual fact there are people like you that make things very complicated for others. Later I will highlight this issue with the admin noticeboard. --Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the opening discussion post says, these images were flagged because you took them from Facebook, asserted that the only proof needed for upload was that the poster hadn't said that Commons couldn't use them, and claimed them all to be CC-Attribution licenced. This page is a discussion where we can look at the situation and clear the problem up, working together. If you can show that some of these photos must be in the public domain, then that's helpful, thank you. To respond to your points:

The photos that are "ALL OVER 50 years old, and no one knows the author": Commons:Anonymous_works#No_author_information cautions us to be careful here. We shouldn't conclude from an anonymous Facebook upload that nobody knows the author, or that they aren't scans from books. The 50 years isn't just from the date it was taken, either, it's "50 years from when it was made, first made available to the public or first published, whichever is last": we should try as best we can to find out where these images were first published. If someone in Sierra Leone scanned an old, previously-unpublished family photo and uploaded it to Facebook today, it would remain in copyright until 2072.
The photos of people who are now dead: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sierra Leone is about the death of the photographer rather than the death of the subject, so we should try to find out who the photographers were. Some of these people also died within the last fifty years.

Please do try to assume good faith of other editors (see COM:GOODFAITH), though, assuming malicious intent just upsets both of us and makes it harder for me to care to continue this conversation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone uploaded to Facebook a photograph of a public figure taken over half a century ago by someone that is not known, according to your POV, that person has copyright over the photograph - so I have to seek their permission (as owner). This is unbelieveable. You have to understand that someone may upload someone else's work, but copyright always lies with the author or creator. In this case, the authors are not known. If you dispute that, then provide evidence that indicates that infact the authors are known. The burden of proof lies with you if you say I'm not saying the truth. You can't just "swing your hands" with no evidence and say it's not true. Most times what editors do is provide a link to where the copyrighted photo is uploaded, such as Getty Images or Alamin. You are really different and unbelieveable. This is why I'm saying you're engaging in traumatizing people with your baseless claims. If you dispute that the author is infact known, then it's your responsibility to prove the existence of the author. Not me. This is where you've been getting this whole thing all wrong. Can you prove to me that the photos I mentioned just now you can find them anywhere online or offline with an explicit indication of their authorship, ownership or copyright restrictions? If you can do this, then I can support deleting them, because even me I don't want copyrighted photos to be linked with my account.

My advice for you is to stop making baseless claims and do proper vetting on photographs before tagging them or nominating them. Many editors do proper vetting before tagging photos, because unlike you, many care about not hurting other people. This is a serious issue. Not for me any more; I don't want you to traumatize other editors. As I noticed you've been doing this to others. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden lies on you. See COM:EVID. And since you're continuing to insult me and misrepresent what I've said, I'll leave you to it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will never insult you. I just had to point out the obvious for you to understand how I see it. By the way, I understand what you did in the case of the John Karefa-Smart photograph. Although I didn't get it from that website, but since it is indicated there as copyrighted (c) that I can understand. But all the other photos there is no legitimate basis for your actions on them, as far I'm concerned.

When I stated that the burden of proof lies with you, I clearly understand the relevant Commons policy, and that's not about that. I actually meant in general terms. If someone makes a statement or claim and then you say it's not true, it's your responsibility to provide reasons as to why you say it's not true. If you say my statement is not true, then why did you say it's not true. You can't just simply say it's not true. I say the author is unknown, and you say it's not true just like that without any real reason except your best defense is "Commons cautions us to becareful". Really. That's your defense?

You threatenting me with a block, following this series of disputes between us is totally against Commons:Harassment. here. And the fact that you take specific interest in my uploads with some unreasonable actions that have been done by you alone is also Commons:Harassment. For that I will take steps to report this matter with admin. I would like someone else to look into this matter. By the way this is what the policy states: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." IYou think any reasonable person may want to upload copyrighted materials that have a potential of complications? Obviously no. And it's not like it's an habit I do all the time. You're totally intimidating me, simply because I had the courage to tell you the truth. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following image from the same user to this deletion request:

File:Fatima_Maada_Bio.jpg

It's sourced to Facebook and claims This photograph was publicly shared by Fatima Bio, first lady of Sierra Leone, on Facebook. Image has been reused here the same way it was shared (no edits on it)., but per the above conversation this does not mean the photo has been released into the public domain or under a CC-Attribution licence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted per nom. Putting something on FB does not mean they have the rights to the photo - see COM:L. --Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 16 February 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 Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 2

Many (and presumably all) of these aerial drone shots of Freetown are uncredited YouTube stills. Some shots appear in a few videos, so may be copies of copies, but none of the ones I can find are CC-licenced.

Some examples of perfect matchups:

File:Central_Freetown_M.jpg is taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNQhpi9MfE&t=35 by Amed Mackie
File:Aberdeen Bridge C.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNQhpi9MfE&t=187 by Amed Mackie
File:Queen Elizabeth II Quay, Freetown.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNQhpi9MfE&t=77 by Amed Mackie
File:Aberdeen Beach 5.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEBzINWVXs&t=403 by Africa We Love
File:Freetown Roads 7.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxMgoaQfH0&t=45 by James Chusi

Uploader seems unlikely to be the original drone operator, if they've chosen to upload low-res screenshots which occasionally show the YouTube progress bar rather than using their original footage.

Lord Belbury (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you like delete all of them! I won't be traumatized by you for soleley contributing to society. All those were NOT copyrighted or copyright protected! You've practically forced me out of Commons. I will not allow you to continue harassing me. If you like even recommend my account for deletion too. Adios. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy if you just took the time to understand Commons:Licensing. Stills of other people's videos that you found online are not your own work, and if they're uncopyrighted you need to show evidence of that, at least by telling Commons where you took the stills from. It would be great to be able to extract higher quality stills, and without the progress bars, if you can remember where you found the videos. If you're unable or unwilling to tell us, though, the only option is to delete. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm exhausted, I'm tired. I'm in the hospital while doing all these. I'm happy because I intended doing something good, not because if it stays there - I told you this during our first convo. So thank you. I'm done. Do whatever you feel like doing. YOU WIN. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a war, I'm just checking whether an upload meets basic Commons policy, when it doesn't look right. You may think that publishing a drone operator's footage of Freetown under your own name without asking them is "good", but I doubt they would thank you for that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Aberdeen, Freetpwm B.jpg even has a Youtube progress bar on it. Uploader does not understand Commons copyright policy. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 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.

COM:DW of sculpture; no FoP per COM:FOP Sierra Leone

Эlcobbola _talk 20:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If because I had the courage to speak up and raised issues of concern, which has drawn the attention of others to extraordinarily scrutinize my account and uploads, I'm totally not worried about it. I just believe others will see what is going on here. --Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what "issue of concern" you raised but this images are not allowed here by the country of Sierra Leone. It's unfortunate but that's the reality of the law in that country. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete images under commercial license violate sculptor's copyright. @Hassanjalloh1: your country unfortunately does not have a w:en:freedom of panorama provision that would have permitted free uses of public artworks (including architecture and sculptures) without the need of licensing permissions from the artists of those artworks. See COM:FOP Sierra Leone. Also, we routinely request deletions of public artworks from countries with no commercial freedom of panorama, see the following examples:

The only permanent way is for the country (Sierra Leone) to adapt the FOP provision, that states that photography, TV broadcasting, and cinematographic (movie appearance) of copyrighted works of art permanently placed in public spaces is not an infringement to copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the artwork is Sierra Leone Peace and Cultural Monument. According to [1], the sculpture is a byproduct of RSLAF Corporal Inah Dixon, who is also an artist himself, together with other Sierra Leonean artists Samuel Marco and Alusine Bangura, under the direction of now-retired Maj. Gen. Alfred Nelson-Williams. It was opened to the public in 2011. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 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 Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 4

Uploader has requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siaka P Stevens.jpg that "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." and says they have now left the Commons project.

No sources are given for these, just that they are the own work of the uploader, which they aren't, or for File:RSLAF.png that they took a photograph of it, without saying what document was being photographed. These may not meet Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sierra Leone, where government-created artwork isn't automatically public domain. Could be public domain if created more than fifty years ago anonymously, but the uploader hasn't told us where they came from.

Lord Belbury (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Desperate to wipe all my uploads out. Bringing a "fight" from Wikipedia to Commons. You won. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally said "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." But these are all of questionable copyright status, and that should be looked at. You can help us to resolve that, or not. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would note that you must be mixing me up with somebody else if you think that this is "bringing a "fight" from Wikipedia". I've never interacted with your account at Wikipedia. All I've done is fix or flag some of your images here on Commons, all of the proposed deletions being backed up by admins, so far. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. The claim of "own work" seems rather unlikely given the inconsistency of these uploads (varying file formats and graphic styles). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sierra Leone suggests that files like this could be in the PD after 25 years (applied art) or 50 years (copyright owned by a public corporation), but I'm not given any correct and properly evidenced dates to determine this. --Rosenzweig τ 13:59, 5 June 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 Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 5

Uploader has requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siaka P Stevens.jpg that "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." and says they have now left the Commons project.

These six images of Freetown's roads are either the uploader's own work which they want taken down, or they are (like the many dozens of other "own work" photos uploaded by this user which turned out to be from Facebook or YouTube or Twitter) taken from someone else without credit. Files with similar names (File:Freetown Roads 6.jpg etc) have already been found to have been lifted from YouTube.

If these images are used without permission they should be deleted. If they are actually the uploader's own work then we may as well honour their request to take them down.

Lord Belbury (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're really funny. Basically stalking me. Even my own photos I took. This is crazy and funny. I never thought I'd encounter such a person online. Going ALL OUT TO ENSURE WHATEVER I UPLOADED GOT REMOVED. You want to wipe me out completely, simply because I seriously raised my voice and been telling you the truth that some may not say. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally said "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that shows you wanted me out. You're virtually speeding up to delete my files the moment I said, without you following Commons policies for file deletion. Why are you so focused on me? Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I say in the deletion request here, these images are quite similar to the other "Freetown Roads" uploads from you, which you had taken from other people's YouTube videos without permission, and without telling us that's what you had done. After you literally asked Commons to "help me delete everyting I ever uploaded" and claimed to have left the project, I went ahead and flagged these for deletion. Either they're your photos and you asked us to delete them, or they aren't your photos and we must delete them.

If you've changed your mind and want to keep these six photos on Commons, and are seriously claiming them to be your own work, just say that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if I decided to leave the project, your answer is to "erase me completely" by pulling ALL my uploads, even those I took MYSELF. I'm not sure there is any Commons policy that states once someone leaves the project, their files should/must be erased from the project. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I seriously can't understand why this is happening between us. I understand that you seem to be following Commons policies but this is unprecedented. I have never seen an editor so focused so deep on another user like this. I'm wondering what you might do next after you've gotten all my uploads deleted. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, you literally asked Commons to "delete everyting I ever uploaded". COM:CSD says that "For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed", and there's the additional concern that these may just be six more photos you found on Facebook and thought it would be okay to use. If you had actually left Commons, as you announced at 2pm, there would be no way to find out whether you'd taken the photos or copied them from Facebook.

If you've changed your mind about asking Commons to delete your uploads, that's okay, but you need to say that. It would also help if you could clarify whether you took these six photos yourself or not. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Older" is a comparative, it means there is something of an alternative that is been compared to. I believe what the policy means is that in the case of duplicated files, for instance, you could ask for one to be deleted. Plus you've been the only one to always seem to jump to "my rescue". These are all signs of user targeting. Here you seem to be basing your decision on just the simple fact I mentioned that I wanted my files deleted. You don't care whether there was no need for them to be deleted. This is a sign of trying to get rid of someone. I'm trying to show you all your "foot steps". Honestly, I admire your dedication, but fixation on a single editor is not a healthy procedure here. And I'm sure someday, sooner or later, there will be concerns about such a practice in Commons. Here, I have nothing else to do. That's why I said do whatever you feel like doing, and you've proven that you really want to get rid of me. I hope other editors are seeing all these. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COM:HA#NOT states Commons policy on tracking a user's contributions for policy violations, Commons has no concerns when this is done in good faith.

If you are unwilling to say that (unlike the other Freetown Road images) you genuinely took these six photos, and you also don't want to tell us not to delete these photos, it sounds like we should delete these photos.--Lord Belbury (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you've been doing to me is totally NOT tracking. Here is what the Commons' tracking policy says:"Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Your actions go far beyond tracking especially as I have raised the issue many times, which would have been best for you, but instead you persisted.

What you're doing to me, in normal life is what they call "excessive policing". And it is harasment. Whether you're trying to enforce a policy or law you don't suppose to persistently be targeting a particular individual when there are thousands of us in the community. Now I fear to even upload any file thinking that you may come up with any kind of justification just to make sure my file is deleted. This is what you've been doing to me: "excessive policing". And it normally happens as a result of profiling. You've already profiled me, probably among other things, as a user that can only upload copyvio files, when in actual fact not all my files are copyvio. Many others are seeing what you're doing to me. And some day, sooner or later, this issue will be a concern and something will be done about users taking on retaliatory tactics on other users just because they raise their voice which made them upset or angry or for criticizing them, and then decided to embark on retaliatory tactics all under the guise of trying to enforce Commons policies. You've been specifically targeting me - harassing me! And that's the truth.

Here's the bold text of Commons harassment policy: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikimedia Commons unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing."

What is written in that text is exactly what you've been engaging on, disguising your actions as enforcing Commons policy because that's what other editors can easily see that you're doing, and this in turn has resulted in me uploading files unpleasant thing for me now. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about harassment, the thread at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Hassanjalloh1 is still open and is a great place to do that. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there is nothing more I have to say about this issue. I'm only responding to whatever claim you seem to be making. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not, my questions were just (a) have you changed your mind about asking Commons to delete all your photos, and (b) did you take these six photos yourself, or are they like the other Freetown Road photos listed in the earlier thread above, where you found them on YouTube or Facebook or somewhere and wrongly believe other people's social media content to be uncopyrighted? If you want to post paragraphs of text about how Commons admins should review my behaviour, do that in the Admin Noticeboard thread where they will see it. This thread is to discuss the six photos listed. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even ask me whether I took the photos myself, if I already indicated there I was the author? That's why I said you've already profiled me. And this is completely unethical and wrong. Do you do this to other users? This is making me really upset. You have no right to profile any user here. You have to follow Commons policies. YOU HAVE PROFILED ME AS A LIAR and this is totally unacceptable. You are not following policies here. And something really needs to be done about your actions. You're using Commons policies as a guise. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the other Freetown Road images (and many Getty Images photos, and pictures you found on Facebook, and the Freetown City Council Seal, etc) as your own work, but they were not, suggesting that you may have misunderstood the upload fields, or mistakenly believe that taking a screenshot of a YouTube video makes you the author of the file.

Could you just confirm whether you took the photos yourself? A simple yes or no will suffice. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you keep on bringing up this on me after I simply stated above, "Basically stalking me. Even my own photos I took. This is crazy and funny" shows that you are "excessively policing" me and you have no right to do that. You have no right to keep on asking a user almost the same question over and over. That's harasment. It's not a normal behavior. No one exclusively assigned you to police me. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see what the closing admin makes of all this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said previously, all of my remaining photos, as long as it's you I am not going to waste my energy defending them anymore, because anything I say to you makes no sense. That's why you're only getting responses to whatever claims you're making. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassanjalloh1: simple answer: yes or no answer. Are these your own self-photographed images or not? "Not" - if taken from other external image sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already indicated to them categorically clear that I took the photographs. I really don't understand what impact a "yes" or "no" will do. This all makes me really feel upset how I'm being treated. And this is my final response to this thread. I'm really upset and not happy about how I'm treated - as if I'm some kind of alien. Thank you. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassanjalloh1 I am slightly more lenient than several users here. I checked your six uploads above. While I may want to believe in your statement, the problem is that you imported your images from Facebook. The metadata information contains "FBMD" transmission codes. Therefore, you should have uploaded your originals instead of importing your images from your Facebook account. If that isn't possible, you need to send an email correspondence to Commons via COM:VRTS process to verify that you are the true copyright holder of the said six images. We tend to delete images of users imported from their Facebook accounts, see the following earlier cases (from our country): Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DaxCordova and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NegrosSniper. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PRP. Files taken from Facebook (per metadata) plus copyvios uploaded by this user suggest that these files might be copyvios too. The uploader has done nothing to corroborate his claim of own work (like upload original, non-FB files or contact VRT) despite being asked to do so in February. --Rosenzweig τ 13:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1

Contents

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 1

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 2

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 4

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 5

Navigation menu

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 1

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 2

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 3 (FoP-related)

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 4

Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 5

Navigation menu

Search