User:Drewcifer3000/TalkForMake-Up.jpg

Archive of discussion with User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson concerning the deletion of Image:Make-Up.jpg

A discussion has been attempted on Jeffrey O. Gustafson's talk page, but all posts have been deleted and responded to within the edit summary. So, for posterity's sake, I've archived my posts and his edit summaries here:

Hi. I just noticed that you deleted the image Image:Make-Up.jpg. The rationale given under the deletion log is "replaceable fair use" but I fail to see the logic in that. As far as I can tell, according to WP:FUC the image satisfied all criteria, even criteria one, which you seem to be citing in your deletion rationale. No free-equivalent can be created simply because the band is no longer active. Additionally, I myself have been unable to find any free-equivalent, and I have done considerable searching to come to that conclusion. If you yourself know of any free-equivalent out there, given that we are now working from a finite amount of resources since the band is no longer active, please let me know or upload the image yourself. Otherwise, I see no reason to delete the previous picture. Drewcifer3000 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image is a higher def duplicate - see Image:Makeup.jpg (edit summary by Jeffrey O. Gustafson)

Yes, Image:Make-Up.jpg is a higher definition duplicate of image:Makeup.jpg. Kind of. Image:Makeup.jpg is a cropped and higher contrast version of the original image which you deleted. I don't know if there is a policy of editing fair-use images aside from adjusting its (proportional) size, but I would assume there is some sort of policy against that. I've been unable to find any policy about that, however, so I could be wrong. But I would still assume the original image would be preferable over an edited version. Additionally, although Image:Make-Up.jpg was of a higher definition, it doesn't seem to contradict WP:FUC criteria 3b: "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used (especially where the original is of such high resolution/fidelity that it could be used for piracy)." It would be a stretch of the imagination to imagine an image of the original's size and resolution being used for piracy of any kind. Drewcifer3000 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The image will remain deleted. It is redundant, and the lower resolution will take precedence so as not to deminish the potential market value of the copyrighted work. This is final. (edit summary by Jeffrey O. Gustafson)

Jeffrey, I appreciate your point of view, especially since you seem to back it up with considerable knowledge of Wikipedia policy and because (it seems) you are an administrator. Along those lines, however, I'd like to point out a few things which aren't backed up by policy necessarily, but perhaps by common sense. Take from it what you will.

It is very difficult to hold a conversation with you when you keep blanking your talk page and respond only via edit summaries. Granted, it is your talk page to do with what you will, but I would like to have a serious conversation about the image in question, regardless of how assured you are in being correct. From looking at the edit history of your talk page, it seems as if you do this with everyone's postings on your talk page, and from what I can tell, it usually shuts down any further conversations on the topic. This is probably exactly the kind of reaction you intend, but it kind of defeats the whole idea of a collaborative encyclopedia when you refuse to entertain any kind of discussion. There's a reason it's called a "Talk Page," after all. Frankly, it makes you seem like kind of a jerk and does not speak very highly of yourself and Wikipedia administrators in general. There is no policy against being a jerk, but I might steer you towards Wikipedia:Civility. This is not a personal attack, merely an observation.

I would also like to point out that language like "This is final" in what was previously a pretty low-key conversation is kind of mean and inflammatory. Again, just an observation.

As for the image itself, we should definitely go by Wikipedia policy, so to that end:

"It is redundant" I agree with you in that having two versions of the same image is somewhat redundant. However, according to the first criteria of WP:CSD#Images and media, the lower-quality image (Image:Makeup.jpg) should be deleted, not the original. To quote the deletion policy: "Any image that is a redundant copy, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia. Likewise, other media that is a redundant copy, in the same format and of the same or lower quality." But, let's also not forget that the two images are different versions of the same image (with the derivative image being cropped and edited for contrast), which the above policy does not mention at all.

"the lower resolution will take precedence so as not to deminish the potential market value of the copyrighted work." Why? Does a slightly larger image (and we are talking about slightly larger here) diminish market value in any way at all? Again, according just to WP:FUC and WP:CSD this does not seem like valid grounds for deletion.

From what I can gather from WP:IUP#Deleting images and WP:CSD#Images and media, the image was deleted improperly or at least in a vague or misleading way. Since you deleted it without the steps outlined in WP:IUP, I can only assume you deleted it based on the criteria from WP:CSD. The deletion rationale you gave ("replaceable fair use") has nothing to do with Speedy Deletion at all, so I am still confused under what policy you deleted the image under. You cited Fair Use, but deleted it without the proper process. And you deleted as Speedy Deletion, but failed to give an appropriate Speedy Deletion rationale. Not necessarily against Wikipedia policy, but certainly misleading and confusing.

So, that is my two cents. Apologies for it being so long.

The Wikipedia policy I've cited here is merely what I've been able to rustle up in my defense in the last 20 minutes or so. Since you seem to know more about the policy than I do, if I am missing some Wikipedia policy article that would explain things, please let me know. Also, if you're completely opposed to having any clutter on your Talk page, which it seems you might, please feel free to respond on my Talk page instead of your own. Thanks for your time, I look forward to your response. Drewcifer3000 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edit reverted without an edit summary by by Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Given the lack of discussion, a deletion review has been requested here. Drewcifer3000 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)