Commons:Deletion requests/Photogaphic images by user:Toilet

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Photogaphic images by user:Toilet|year=2024|month=December|day=22}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Photogaphic images by user:Toilet|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Photogaphic images by user:Toilet}} at the end of today's log.

Photogaphic images by user:Toilet

[edit]

I doubt that the uploader has the rights to make a release under a free license; additionally, most of the photographs are of bad quality (low resoltion on easily replacable pictures). Especially this image is a clear evidence that the claimed author "Peter van der Sluijs" can't be the true author, as it would be harb to own a copyright when you are yourself depicted in a situation where a relote release is not really likely.--Grand-Duc (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Did you check these for being in use first? I don't see any in use, but I didn't check them all, and it would be very helpful to have an explicit statement that they were all out of use when nominated, if that's true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one uses those pics, and the uploader donna have any interest to do so. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I included the files above in my DR, no one was in use anywhere. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the account is not active on other projects says very little about whether the user is. It is not uncommon to have a separate account here. --LPfi (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info The user did contribute recently, but obviously shows no interest for the DRs. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some people don't like to get into arguments, especially ones that start abusively.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded one of the 500D-tagged pictures and extracted the full metadata with EXIFToolGUI. There are no makernotes with e.g. information about the camera or the lens included. There are several distinct groups of images of the same size, the largest group being images of 640*427 pixel. Several images show a note of Picasa in their metadata. All clues combined let me think that "Toilet" is someone who has grabbed a lot of images from the preview size of Picasa and/or another image hosting service without thinking about the copyright. I think that is too risky to keep these images according to COM:PRP. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your tool is broken then, as Commons gets that information straight from the EXIF data, and running "exiftool Peacock_male_and_female_640x427px.jpg" gets me a buttload of information, including plenty of information about the camera and lens.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a lot of information, but no makernotes, where you can find the serial number of the camera and lens, in the case of equipment from Canon. Try this with one of my files, e.g. this one, and you'll see a "double or triple buttload" of information, even, what surprised me, the full Photoshop history of this image... Or, in this example, you'll see the serials of camera and lens (a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS), the temperature (29°C) and the camera settings. But disregarding this technical point of view on the images, is there sufficient evidence that User:Toilet is indeed entitled to release the pictures under a free license? I say there is not enough evidence and the files need to be deleted according to COM:PRP. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason, besides your dislike of User:Toilet, to actually think that these aren't his files. According to the standard you've put forth, we'd have to delete most of the user-made photographs at Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In another DR of one of Toilet's works, it was suggested to check the ID of the name "Peter van der Sluijs". Well googleing that name leads to apparently several different persons, amongst them a Peter van der Sluijs, MD, some other higher ranked white collar workers and an important YouTube video, important because it reminds me this picture. On the other hand, we have a "Peter van der Sluijs" on MySpace, where it is apparent that he is the true Toilet. And there is indeed a source for the blue shark head... And evidence that the user wanted Commons as his personal image repository. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expand the mass deletion request:

Files are out of scope, partly violating COM:PEOPLE. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely no copyright problems with these pictures as shown above.
Wrong, nothing has been proved, we don't know anything at the moment. The user is active, but not willing to participate in the DRs. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know anything about the images you uploaded, either, and I don't see why him claiming again that it was his work would make any difference. This copyright paranoia is unhelpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - I don't understand why the uploader gets chased this way, the images are definitely not out of scope - Jcb (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Photogaphic_images_by_user:Toilet&oldid=48506400"