Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll

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 User:Paper9oll

[edit]

I would like to delete the 3 unused screenshots screenshoted and uploaded by me. Paper9oll 07:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll

[edit]

I am requesting the deletion of the listed images uploaded by me. These images were previously en:WP:BOLDly tagged with {{AI upscaled}}. I reverted the tagging, an initial discussion (1) yielded no consensus. Subsequent discussions (1, 2) have been unproductive due to an unfair comparison in the review process. The comparison used a 1080p screenshot from a YouTube video while my image is a higher-resolution 4K version. This resolution discrepancy creates an unfair advantage for the 1080p image in visual comparisons. Even in cases where the 4K version is still available, the 1080p version was used for the visual comparisons. This deliberate choice to use a lower resolution for comparison further undermines the accuracy of the review process. This flawed comparison process has resulted in my 4K image being incorrectly labeled as "AI upscaled", which is inaccurate and detrimental to my work as an senior editor since 2013. I believe a fair and accurate review is impossible under the current circumstances hence I requested the deletion of these images to prevent further en:WP:casting aspersions of my work, broadly construed, as G7 (Author or uploader request deletion) isn't applicable after 7 days. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 08:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep No one is en:WP:casting aspersions and that's not a valid reason to delete images even if we were. And just to put it out there since Paper9oll specifically mentioned my original comment in the deletion request, the idea that someone's hair in a 4K video would naturally be less detailed to the point of being blurry compared to a 1080p video doesn't make any sense. 4K is obviously clearer and more detailed then 1080p. Although I don't think it necessary means Paper9oll used AI to upscale the screenshots. If I we're to guess the original 4K video was upscaled using AI, which is probably why it's been removed from the channel. Either that or the screenshots where upscaled by whatever software Paper9oll used without their knowledge. It doesn't really matter on our end though. There's still no legitimate reason to delete the images regardless. They should just be tagged as {{AI upscaled}} and that be the end of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "If I we're to guess" highlights my main concern with this topic, which is why I referred to it as "casting aspersions". Additionally, saying "They should just be tagged as {{AI upscaled}}" may seem simple in theory, but it has consequences. This approach—based on assumptions that form a consensus—effectively portrays me as an editor who uploads AI-upscaled images to Commons. This is a characterization I strongly reject and do not wish to be associated with hence I started this DR as G7 isn't applicable. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on here is based on people's personal opinions and its not "casting aspersions" for other people to have opinions about if the images are AI upscaled. That said, I can understand why you wouldn't neccessarily want to be portrayed as a user who uploads AI upscaled images, but no one is specifically blaming you for doing it. I'm certainly not. At the end of the day templates aren't authoritative and no one cares about them anyway. Like I said, the original video was probably upscalled which has absolutely nothing to do with you. It would be neccessary to tag them as such if that's the case though. But there's no reason to take it personally regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]