Commons:Deletion requests/File:WatPhraKaew-CR-PhraKaewMarakot.jpg

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.

File:WatPhraKaew-CR-PhraKaewMarakot.jpg

[edit]

I checked the en.wikipedia page and there was no indication of source or author. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Block the nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment We should not block users for asking a source. The proper way is to start a DR and not add "no source" as we would normally do. Then others can comment if they think image should be deleted or not. Since image have metadate I find it likely it is own work and that image could be kept unless someone finds a reason to believe it is not own work.
Just changeing the license to {{PD-self}} should not be done by a single user unless there is some indication like "I took the image..." "Own..." "My image..." or whatever. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanically pressing the "delete" button like this is disruptive. It should be blocked. There is no indication at all that this file would not be in the Public Domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and a comment like "block the nominater" is not disruptive? As far as I know there is also users that does not like it when you nominate images for deletion. But just because someone does not like the nomination does not mean it is disruptive.
We have no clear practice that I know of on what to do with images that uses {{PD}} as far as I know. Ignoring the problem is a bad solution (it has been deprecated/obsolote for 4 years now - since january 2006). Therefore I find it ok to nominate some of the images that has been checked ad where it was not possible to say for sure "It is own work" or "It is PD-old" etc. DR will hopefully either give us a clear delete or keep and that can be used when looking a other images with {{PD}}.
If you know of any good discussions on images with {{PD}} feel free to leave a link. --MGA73 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template says about itself: "if you add it to an image after Monday October 10 2008, it is liable to be tagged as {{Nsd}} or {{Npd}}." Yet Zscout370 is adding nsd or npd to old uploads, obviously against policy, and rather below the radar. He is is also making some regular DR's, but in a destructive way: series of DR's for images that clearly were made on the same trip. And without any other reason than the tiny formal problem of a template that cannot be applied to new uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that nsd or npd is normally not good on these olde images. We should use a DR if there is a problem. But he did not add nsd or npd to this one - so please "spank" him for that where it is relevant. I think arguments like "Nomination of file X was a mistake so let us keep file Y" is a bad argument. That is why I used metadata as an one argument and not the nominators actions.
I think that a clear result here (and maybe in a few other DR's) can give support to dealing with other similar images. That way it would not just be a single user that gets the idea to change license on images but a groupe of users saying "If it has PD and if there is metadata and/or if there is nothing that looks "bad" then it is ok to change to PD-author". --MGA73 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Pieter is right here. This image was uploaded long before 2008--in August 2005 more than 3 years before this license tag became deprecated in October 2008. Why do we not trust the uploader...just because he used an old PD license tag? How is this logical? --Leoboudv (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If uploader had written "own work" it would have been easy. Problem is that uploader did not tell if it was own work, if it was found on some PD web page or if it was given to him by a friend etc. All we have is "Originally uploaded to the english wikipedia by en:User:Jfl". But I agree that the image does not look like a copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not uploaded by me, it was moved to commons by me! And the original uploader to en-WP, sadly no longer active, chose simply PD without stating explicitly that he took the photo himself, but without being overly paranoid it is clear he meant PD-self. So quite clearly just adjust the copyright info on that photo page, and keep it. andy (talk)

Kept. Avi (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WatPhraKaew-CR-PhraKaewMarakot.jpg&oldid=33760237"