User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:BTS - Dynamite (official cover).png

File:BTS - Dynamite (official cover).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Proof album cover

Hello Paper9Doll, I am new to Commons. I believe the cover is a simple geometric stylized "PROOF". Hurricane BP Member (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricane BP Member Hi, welcome to the community. I doesn't looks anywhere like the word "Proof" as you've mentioned, unless I'm blind which I'm not, I can't grasp how it's stylized to the "Proof" no matter which way I rotate the image or flip horizontal or flip vertical or combination of any. Simple geometric should be straight forward to anyone that's neutral and doesn't has conflict of interest to the topic, which sadly this image isn't straight forward. — Paper9oll 05:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The first two trapezoids from left is a "P", the next three is an "R", the next two resembling BTS logo is an "O", the next two is also an "O", and the last three is an "F". They are "PROOF". Hurricane BP Member (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Hurricane BP Member As mentioned in my earlier reply, it should be straight forward and/or easily recognizable at one look. Your follow up reply indicated that it isn't straight forward and/or easily recognizable at one look, neither can I interpret it as such nor can I picture how the shape is the related to the word "Proof". In addition, as mentioned earlier, simple geometric should be straight forward to anyone that's neutral and doesn't has conflict of interest to the topic, in which your initial reply and follow up reply, shows that you are not neutral and has conflict of interest to the topic, otherwise there is no other way that you would know that the shapes are related to the word "proof". Lastly, I don't see any valid reason for your upload as non-free version (which is the correct licensing as your arguments is invalid as the image does NOT has simple geometry that are straight forward and/or easily recognizable at one look to fall under public domain) already exists in respective Wikipedia in which there were no usage-related issues to date. — Paper9oll 06:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking back this discussion, your explanation sounds exactly the same to a blocked sockpuppet which I have communicated previously. — Paper9oll 07:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests

Hi, You can't ask for a speedy deletion request if Commons is the source, which is probably the case for the images you tagged. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Yann, yes I'm aware of that portion, however some of the sources listed in reverse image doesn't actually indicates as originating from Commons. Anyway, not going to dispute that, given that is rather ambiguous on whether the remaining sources that didn't listed the image source originated from Commons actually taken the image from Commons.
However, would like to understand more on why you reverted on the "no permissions" ones, my rationale for tagging them using MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js was because the user/uploader has history of copyright violation of claiming works found on the internet as their "own work" and in turn also licensing under CC. — Paper9oll 12:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This user has consistent EXIF across their uploads, so there is no doubt s.he is the photographer of these images. Among nearly 200 images, there are issues with less than 10 images, so you can't say there is an "history of copyright violation". Yann (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Yann Correct me if I'm wrong, you're implying that there isn't a need to have "own work" verified as "own work" by VRT because based on their 200+ uploaded images, the consistent EXIF is able to proof the user is the photographer correct? To me, more than 5 images, is already an issue to justify "having history", but doesn't matter, just saying. — Paper9oll 12:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Yann (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Yann Ok understood. Apologies for causing the trouble due to my mistakes and misunderstanding of "own work", in addition to overlooking the consistent EXIF. Thanks and have a nice weekend! — Paper9oll 12:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The remaining 6 images may be OK (just improperly attributed), as I can't find any issue with their images except a few mistakes (FOP issues, etc.). Yann (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

File approval

Hi! I recently uploaded this file and asked the photographer for approval through Instagram DM, and I explained it would be under a CC-by license, to which he approved. I archived our conversation and linked it on the file’s Permission parameter. Could you see if you could approve it? Thanks! Beulagpinkeu (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beulagpinkeu, unfortunately I'm not a reviewer, please wait for someone applicable to review the file, this however may take up to several months or a year in worst case which shouldn't really matter as long as you have all of the necessary details archived as evidence. As long as there isn't any objections from other editors, you're free to leave the file as it's here on Commons. If there happened to be any form of objections such as licensing and/or permission issues, then you would have to address it by sending the evidence via email to Commons:VRT. Similarly, usage on other Wikimedia projects depends on whether there are objections from other editors on each projects. — Paper9oll 16:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I’m sorry. I just recognized your contributions and thought you had that authority.
Thanks, though!
Beulagpinkeu (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Beulagpinkeu No worries. — Paper9oll 16:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi Paper9oll, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 04:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@C1K98V Thanks you — Paper9oll 13:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi @Paper9oll, thanks for notifying. I used a tistory which is actually under CC, but apparently it's not owned work. I have a question regarding it: what if it's an own work, I have seen some fancams from different user accounts on YouTube that attended the MMA 2022, would those be fine to use if, let's say, I inquired permission from the user and the user allowed me to use it, would that be okay to use?Also, are the album covers copyrighted? Those are just actually similar here: [1][2] Cjse23 (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cjse23 Yes, if you have the permissions to do so. Do note that the screenshotted image must comes from the video's footage itself not from the video's thumbnail as copyright applies differently and the process for approval also applies differently. In addition, you need explicit evidence to proof it as verification applies here on Commons, similar in concept to why you need to provide citations when you're adding new materials to English Wikipedia. Certain types of album covers are copyrighted hence they shouldn't be uploaded here per COM:FU. I believed/assumed that you only and/or mainly edits English Wikipedia only hence if you want to upload album cover, upload it directly to English Wikipedia instead of Commons Wikimedia, as all types of album covers are allowed on English Wikipedia per en:WP:NONFREE. The only time, you upload album cover(s) to Commons is for example the ones you provided i.e. it only contains basic text or shapes only (if it contains basic text or shapes but also contains copyrighted logo which is often not a basic text nor shapes then that album cover shouldn't be uploaded here) otherwise anything fancy is not allowed here. For basic shapes, this varies, for example en:File:BTS Proof album cover art.jpg consists of what is the surface simply basic shapes, however it's actually an original design per discusssion at en:WP:FFD when a stubborn IP (read fan) decided to argue their way with the community that the cover should be recategorized from non-free to public domain because it consists of basic shapes and also read as Proof which no one community is willing believe the IP's bs. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. This video is an example of the fancam, but it is not under CC. I am communicating with the user account if they will allow permission Cjse23 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cjse23 No problem. Noted on the example. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to ask real quick about this: is this tistory post, an own work of the uploader? Cjse23 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cjse23 Nope, similar to that previous Tistory falsely claiming as own work and falsely licensed under CC. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your pictures/photos

Hi Paper9oll, can I use your photos for the German Wiki? I'm updating existing K-POP entries step by step and would like to use your picture "Oh My Girl at Golden Hourglass showcase on 250723 (1).png". Do you have a direct access for your other pictures? Thank you very much, have a nice day! PFNKa (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi PFNKa, you can just use the Wikipedia syntax [[File:Oh My Girl at Golden Hourglass showcase on 250723 (1).png|thumb]] to include it inside the article. For Infobox, simply copy Oh My Girl at Golden Hourglass showcase on 250723 (1).png and paste it onto the Infobox's parameter field. I'm not sure on German Wikipedia however I assumed the wikitext syntax is more or less the same as English Wikipedia, if you needed a guide, you can refer to en:H:IMAGE for the English Wikipedia version, it should also work on German Wikipedia, otherwise you can ask for help (I'm not sure what page to do so) on German Wikipedia instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paper9all, thank you very much for the release and the information. The German Wikipedia is not identical to the English one. Some articles are missing in German that are present in English. For this reason I would like to add or update the German Wiki. Many thanks again and greetings to beautiful Singapore! PFNKa (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@PFNKa For clarification, I don't owned the image hence I'm not sure why you imply that I "release" the image for usage. The original author is (Ten Asia) whom have uploaded the work to YouTube and licensed it under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licensing, for further information on the licensing itself, read File:Oh My Girl at Golden Hourglass showcase on 250723 (1).png#Licensing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I uploaded a non fair use image of Keena, who is now fifty fifty. The other members have left.

Keena is the only member of Fifty Fifty so I think the Wikipedia should be updated. I don’t know if there’s anyway to add pictures through commons and since it is your article, I’m asking if you could. Only if you want to. File:Fifty Fifty Keena at Icheon Airport in South Korea.jpg Thatsoddd (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not my style to perform request on behalf of blocked user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure if using an ip adresss if I were to, is breaking a rule. I also am not sure if it would be vandalism to the website. Thatsoddd (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thatsoddd Yes, using IP to edit when you're blocked is considered as block evasion. Read en:Block evasion. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Submit

Hello. Can you submit my YouTube photos of Korean artists, please? Thank you so much. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Submit

Hello @Paper9oll, can you submit my photos of Lee Joo-woo? Thank you. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mickey Đại Phát Review you mean? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I mean the photos of Lee Joo-woo that I have uploaded. Have you submitted it yet? Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mickey Đại Phát Okay done. Hopefully I didn't missed out any. And also btw, "review" is the correct word instead of "submit" or "submitted". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. I noticed that you are fluent in Chinese and Korean, too. So when I uploaded the photos of the Korean, Chinese and Hong Kong artists from my frequent YouTube channel search – include am730 (HK), China News Service and Vogue Taiwan (CHN), and TV10, Marie Claire Korea and mang2goon (KOR) – next time, you can review it. Great thanks to you. Have fun. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello Paper9oll, I placed the userbox on your home page that you are a license reviewer, so that users can identify you, and because you are a license reviewer. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 03:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the disturbances. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This is NOT mandatory requirement hence I have reverted your edit. In addition, "users can [already] identify [me]" as a license reviewer through my custom Infobox. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For review

Hello there @Paper9oll can you please review this image and it's corresponding images for verification.

File:Maria Tani (谷まりあ) 2024 08.jpg Turniner (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Turniner ✓ Done. And btw, not sure why you initially posted this request onto Foundation:User talk:Paper9oll instead of Commons:User talk:Paper9oll. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Aespa - Drama.png

File:Aespa - Drama.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Namoroka (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

AI upscaling

Hi, in future could you add the {{AI upscaled}} template to a file when you use AI software to upscale it to a version that's a higher resolution than the source video frame? Thanks. Belbury (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury I didn't use any AI software to upscale any images that I uploaded hence I don't see any point to tagged it such. However, noted on that if I happened to upload any AI upscaled image in the future. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm referring to images like File:Jessica Jung at Dupont Paris event on 12122023 (2).png, which are larger than their source videos and appear to show some signs of AI upscaling.
The maximum resolution I'm offered for the YouTube source video is 1,920 × 1,080 pixels. Jung's head and shoulders take up about 500 × 600 pixels of that.
The head and shoulder crop you've uploaded is 1,224 × 1,504 pixel image; twice the size of the original, as I see it.
If you zoom in on your upload, you can see that the face and the hair around the face is very detailed, but the edges of the clothing and jewelry, and the hair further back, are much less well defined.
Perhaps you're using software that's performing some kind of upscale step without your knowledge. What is your process for extracting a still from a YouTube video? Belbury (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Belbury I simply downloaded the video, did a direct capturing down to the frame (not screenshots as that would be reduce the quality), save it and upload it hence I'm rather puzzled that it was deemed as such. Also, I couldn't see the differences between "the face and the hair around the face vs "edges of the clothing and jewelry, and the hair further back". Image quality assessment can be subjective, influenced by factors like viewing equipment and/or individual perception and/or cognitive biases like en:The dress for example. Regardles, be assured that I didn't utilized any AI software to date and also been tagging {{AI upscaled}} to images that I've reviewed prior. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Your file
My file
Very puzzling! What resolution video do you get when you export it from YouTube? And what software are you using to export it, and to capture the frame?
For reference here's a side-by-side of your version against what I get when I take a snapshot from within my Firefox browser (right-clicking the YouTube player video and clicking "take snapshot" to get a 1,920 × 1,080 image) and crop it. --Belbury (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Belbury Certainly different because I don't use your method. Downloading using YouTube downloader software, and capturing software is either Premiere or Corel or Pinnacle (can't remember exactly which). I think I have addressed your questions to the best of my ability hence not sure exactly what to write. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
But are you exporting a video at a resolution above 1,920 × 1,080? Or is your capturing software taking a 1,920 × 1,080 video and raising the resolution for you?
File:Lee Sung-kyung at Dr Romantic 3 premiere on 26042023 (4).png is maybe a better example of what look to me like clear AI upscaling artefacts. Across her forehead, individual hairs are visible, but below her chin this instantly cuts off to a much lower resolution blur. Her hand and clothes are also much less well defined than the rest of the photo, in a way that doesn't seem like a natural focus blur from a video camera.
If you don't know what to say, that's okay! I can raise a discussion somewhere else to get some wider input on this. At this point I'm just concerned that some of the software you're using might be upscaling video footage without telling you that it's doing this. Belbury (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Belbury Can't remember for Jessica one. Yes, Lee's one is 4K. "the software you're using might be upscaling video footage without telling you that it's doing this", certainly not, as I'm a professional in my day job and is using the same softwares for editing works otherwise my client would have raised concerns on this and I would have knew about this before hand. Regardless, be assured that I didn't utilized any AI software to date hence rather offended that I was aspersionsly casted as such regardless nothing much more to say ... happy editing! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 19:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No offense intended! Perhaps there's an issue with the original source videos that I'm not seeing.
I'll raise a thread at the help desk to see what other people think, and ping your username in it. Belbury (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Belbury Understood and noted, however I don't have any further comments to really add-on on as I had given the best of my ability to response to your queries and basically ran out of words on this topic hence I may not reply. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 19:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaling discussion

Hi again. Just to let you know I've started a discussion about your uploads at Commons:Village pump#Dispute resolution on whether images are AI upscaled, if you want to add anything to that. Belbury (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury I understand your interest in AI-generated images. However, I have previously and exhaustively explained that I did not use AI upscaling on the images I uploaded here. Furthermore, the 4K source video I originally downloaded from YouTube to do capturing is no longer available. Therefore, your A/B test is based on a 1080p version of the video, which does not accurately reflect the original source material. Using a lower resolution version for comparison introduces significant differences and would lead to inaccurate conclusions. Regardless and unfortunately, further discussion on this matter does not appear to be productive. I kindly request that you refrain from further discussions involving me, mentioning or notifying me in discussions, on this topic broadly construed as I don't appreciate the repeated accusations regardless of the intention intended; I would appreciate it if you would respect this request. Please note that if this request is not honored, I will unfortunately have to escalate this matter to the appropriate administrative noticeboard, which, in good faith, I would prefer to avoid. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not looking for you to say anything more about it if you don't wish to, it just seemed polite to inform you of the discussion that was happening.
I won't ping you in discussions or post on your talk page again, but I will continue to discuss the images at the Village Pump while this issue is open. If there is a consensus that your uploads have been AI-upscaled, then they will be tagged as such. Belbury (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paper9oll/Archive_1&oldid=984312759"