Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll

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

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]

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

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]

I'm interpreting that you're saying "It's no big deal" but it is a significant issue for me. {{AI upscaled}} effectively states "This image has been digitally upscaled using AI software" conclusively, rather than "This image is likely digitally upscaled using AI software" assumptively. Regardless, if the conclusion is kept and if the various assumptions-based discussion that form a consensus then I don't think the current {{AI upscaled}} which was intended for obvious cases and not for edge cases (like mine) is suitable in its current state unless it's enhanced with additional params. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an edge case. The position put forward at the pump, which is getting broad agreement, is that the images appear to be AI upscaled for several clear and specific reasons. The position you're putting forward is that you didn't upscale the images personally, you just took them from 4K versions of the videos which aren't available any more, and you can't exactly remember which capture software you used. Both positions can be true. The videos could have been upscaled before you got there, your software could have been using an upscale setting that you'd overlooked. Belbury (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If these statements – "The position put forward ... appear to be AI upscaled", "The videos could have been upscaled", and "software could have been" – are not considered assumptions, I fail to see how any statement could be. You were asked to provide proof to support these claims, but all I observed is theoretical arguments and assumptions. Furthermore, the assessment is clearly flawed by relying on a 1080p version of a 4K video (which is no longer available) to form a consensus based on these assumptions without any concrete explicitly evidence to support otherwise and in turn dismissively having the mindset that it's "no big deal" to be tagged with {{AI upscaled}} which is clearly has flawed wording is clearly unacceptable for a encyclopedia that pride itself to be neutral point of view and collaboratively in nature. Hence, I request that the listed images be deleted instead of continuing to get "broad agreement" out of assumptions. Alternatively, I suggest enhancing {{AI upscaled}} to catered for such assumptions-based "broad agreement". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pump thread isn't a theoretical one, it highlights several specific practical issues in the images, such as the hair instantly becoming a lower resolution below the chinlines. Feel free to join the discussion if you have a different view on these, and if you think they could plausibly be present in a non-upscaled video frame. Belbury (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be a theoretical one however it does "highlights several specific [assumption-based] practical issues in the images". For hair theory, I've addressed it below. I also don't see any value in joining an already assumption-based discussion to further debunk assumption based on possible assumption on why the differences when I had already stated prior on "viewing equipment and/or individual perception and/or cognitive biases". Hence, you're basically asking me on why, when I don't know, and still expecting me to debunk using assumptions on why the differences on your version. I don't have a crystal ball to find an definitive answer nor could I go inside everyone minds just to see their "individual perception and/or cognitive thinking". Regardless, as I have stated prior, if the community assumed that it's AI upscaled then I believe that {{AI upscaled}} should be enhance to catered for such otherwise please grant me the deletion. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. No such choice was made by me, neither of the two images I used for comparison offered a 4K version at the cited YouTube source. Could you give a link to a video that has such a 4K version, if any are still available today? Belbury (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither of the two images I used for comparison offered a 4K version at the cited YouTube source" – here is the exact problem, there are others available. Regardless, I no longer have faith in the assumption-based process when many responses use terms like "looks like", "entirely possible", "appears to be", and "I think". If these aren't assumptions, I'm struggling to understand what constitutes a definitive statement. I request that the listed images be deleted instead of relying on "broad agreement" based on assumptions, which is not particularly helpful in this situation. Alternatively, I suggest enhancing {{AI upscaled}} to better accommodate such assumption-based assessments if the community deems that "the original video was probably upscaled which has absolutely nothing to do with [me]" and/or "whatever tools ... used to download the video and display it on their computer are doing some sort of 'smart' upscaling without their knowledge". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template could certainly be clearer that it's subjective. But, and I'm not saying this as an insult, you seem to doing a lot of talking around the issue instead of addressing the points we have made. Seriously, why do you think the woman's hair is blurred in the 4K screenshot but not in the 1080p one if it's not due to AI upscaling? Or let me guess, the question isn't valid because "thinking" is subjective? lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to say "addressing the [assumption] points we have made" when I had already addressed them previously. Even if I were to address those points again, what exactly do you expect other than for me to simply repeat the explanations I've already provided? Regarding "the woman's hair is blurred in the 4K screenshot but not in the 1080p one", you seem to have the observation reversed, and don't forget that this is an [motion] video and I already addressed such concerns previously, quote "Image quality assessment can be subjective, influenced by factors like viewing equipment and/or individual perception and/or cognitive biases". In addition, it could also be milliseconds differences in stoppage to screenshot, content served being upscaled/downscaled, pixelation, etc. Hence, as you could see, me stepping into your shoes is also an assumption-based response on finding on why the differences, which only advertently strengthen my points made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is the exact problem, there are others available - yes, it's a problem that nobody else has seen the 4K versions. Can you provide a link to one of them? (It would be more useful to have this conversation at the pump thread, than on this deletion request which is fundamentally just about a user requesting that some their own uploads be taken down again.) Belbury (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 68 images that you previously tagged, why select "two images" of "others available"? Regardless of the specific images chosen, further discussion will eventually lead to more assumptions and subjective interpretations, with expected responses relying heavily on terms like "looks like", "entirely possible", "appears to be", "I think", or similarly meaning words or "whatever tools [I] used to download the video and display it on their computer are doing some sort of 'smart' upscaling without their knowledge" or something along the same line. Instead of continuing this unproductive line of questioning and/or assuming and/or debunking, I request that you grant my request for deletion since the 68 images is considered as problematic (it's to me because it was already tagged previously as such and yes, it's a big deal) instead kept on dragging the horse carcass and not dropping the stick for like 2 weeks and counting already. There are simply other more productive things to do. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you think (because you tagged it initially), I should instead re-upload based on the current available resolution and/or replace the current en:WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION version? If so, I will withdrawn this result. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, yes, if you were to replace the images with lower resolution versions that matched the videos currently available on YouTube, there would be no question of whether they had been upscaled. Belbury (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that for those images where 4K isn't available anymore over the coming days. Withdrawning those images for now. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, hopefully that will clarify whether your export process is doing anything to the images. If I have any future concerns about those uploads or the existing 4K ones, now that I can see which ones those are, I'll raise them on the pump thread. Belbury (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can't see the point of what is the problem with {{AI upscaled}}. "This image is AI upscaled" is just a potentially useful piece of information for reusers. It doesn't imply that the uploader has done a bad job. It even doesn't imply that the uploader himself has AI-enhanced the image. The image may be a bit less useful than the equivalent one without AI-enhancing, but I think nobody is saying those images are redundant.

Therefore, if there is reasonable evidence that those images are AI-enhanced, what's the problem with describing them as such with a template?--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeoff has been reuploaded to 2025 available resolution, will do the same reupload for the remaining based on highest available resolution in 2025 using VLC. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll

Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll

Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll

Navigation menu

Search