Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Think outside the box

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.

Images by Think outside the box

[edit]

My reasons for wanting them deleted are: 1) they identify me in the real world can due to some issues I'd rather they were deleted to prevent people from tracking me. 2) "I previously used it elsewhere" is a violation of copyright because they are not originally my images but a fried who now wants to sell her collection. I never informed her I used the images on this site. 3) I am the only contributer, and to be frank the images are pretty crap and add very little if anything to wikiprojects. 4) As for why I only tagged some of my uploads, I only tagged images I was the only contributer to. The other images I didn't tag were uploaded from wikipedia on behalf of another editor, so should NOT be deleted. I am only asking images which I am the sole author of to be deleted. Think outside the box 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18 separate DR's merged into one. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You care to explain this in a more logical fashion? Most of your arguments are contradictory or half hearted at best. #1 - most of the images can not be used to track you what so ever (and the rest are highly unlikely). Lichen on a tree? Daffodi's? Spider's? A cat? #2 Where does "I previously used it elsewhere" come from? So you are saying all these pictures were taken by a "friend" - what about the rest of your uploaded images? Did that "friend" take them too? #3 - The images are crap? Well then why would your friend want to sell them? Plus I don't think most of them are crap, no, they aren't pro shots - but neither are mine. #4 you being the only contributor really makes no difference. On commons, unless someone sees an image needing a categorization - it probably won't get touched by anyone else. Also - did you leave images that your "Friend" took, but other people edited?
 Question How's this for a question - what is the _real_ reason you want these deleted? --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Further contradiction: if you didn't take the photos, how on earth could they be used to identify you IRL? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got to be honest this puzzles me too. I'm not someone who sticks with rules no matter what but bearing in mind I originally reviewed these I fail to see what "identifies" you here - I guess the same as above - why the delete request really? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago on Wikipedia there was a big "move everything to commons" drive. I have not tagged images which were uploaded from Wikipedia for other users who I know nothing about. Those images have nothing to do with me and do not identify me. These above images, however, do identify me because the person who took them lives with me, and therefore these pictures, which were taken in and around where I live, could be used by a determined person to trace my geographical location. On the commons upload form there are huge notices saying "copyright violations will be deleted" etc, but no warning saying "anything you upload will NOT be deleted upon request. It will remain here forever no matter how hard you try to get it deleted." I do not understand your resistance to deleting them. They are of no use and or can easily be replaced. In fact, there are many many similar images already on commons. It is common curiosity to delete. Think outside the box 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the problem isn't the fact that an author requested deletion. We aren't contesting that. The problem is you listed many different reasons (you numbered 4, but really there were more) to delete the files - and many of those were contradictory. For example - did you take these pictures? Or did a "Friend"? You must understand we dislike being lead around in circles. --ShakataGaNai Talk 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ShakataGaNai, forgetting my seemingly contradictory reasons for a second, are you saying I need no reason whatsoever, and the simple fact that I'm the uploader and have requested deletion is enough? That is what you imply with your above comment. In that case, why are we even still arguing over this? Ok, I'll break it down for you. My friend, who lives in my house, took these pictures. We share a computer, and without her knowlege I uploaded her images which were store on the computer to Commons. That in itself is a copyright violation, and should be enough to have these images deleted. As for the other argumets you have put forward, me being the only contributor does make a difference. If someone added a categorization or not is besides the point - your not going to give them attribution for the image just because they added a category to it, are you? In that case I could get attribution for every image on this site by adding a category to them. That is madness. Further, this image is of my neibours cat, and my neibour doesn't know I feed their cat and that it comes into my house. Suspose they stumbled across this image, it wouldn't be too hard for them to work out who I am by looking at the other images, which reveal my location by containing common place marks for the area. Think outside the box 19:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. See now you are explaining several seemingly contradictory pieces of information. This helps us make more sense of the situation, because to be honest, we are suspicious of what is going on. As for the contributions, I did not mean that simply by adding a category to an image do you get attribution. But I also had no idea what you were classifying as a "contribution" to an image. As for being "her" images. How many of these are her's, how many of the rest of your images are her's? --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the images I have uploaded are mine. But only the ones I have tagged for deletion (the ones listed on this page) are copyright violations. The ones I have not tagged are images from Wikipedia which have the right licence tagging, so should not be deleted. Think outside the box 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you going to delete them? Think outside the box 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well? Think outside the box 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Think outside the box 10:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echo, echo, echo. Seriously, is anyone here? Please delete? I made this request like nearly a month ago. Think outside the box 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE DELETE THESE IMAGES!! Think outside the box 13:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted those images which were not used outside commons, which leaves 4 of which probably 1 is not replacable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-replacable is probably the Image:Bottle_garden.JPG, isn't it? I'm surprised we don't have even a slightly similar image. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_by_Think_outside_the_box&oldid=164711704"