Commons:Deletion requests/File:HeleenMees2019.jpg

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.

File:HeleenMees2019.jpg

[edit]

Courtesy per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep According to the Commons guidelines for courtesy deletions there are seven aspects re courtesy deletions.
  • "Admins shall only delete for:
  1. Existing policy reasons
  2. Is the file within our project scope?
  3. How long ago did you upload the file?
  4. Is the file something we have lots of, or something that is pretty much irreplaceable?
  5. How good is the quality of the file?
  6. Is the file in (non-trivial) use on other Wikimedia projects?
  7. Is there community consensus for the deletion?"

As far as I can see, the answers to these questions are:

  1. The file was uploaded to Commons on 13 October 2020 (as a crop from the original file, also in Commons), under a CC-BY-SA-2.0 license given by the photographer on his Flickr account in 2019, as confirmed by FlickreviewR 2 on the same day.
  2. The file is within the project scope of Commons: it is a photo of a well-known economist from the Netherlands.
  3. The photo was made in October 2019, and was uploaded to Commons on 13 October 2020.
  4. Commons holds 4 photographs of Heleen Mees, plus 2 cropped photographs.
  5. The quality of the file is OK.
  6. The file is in use in several other Wikimedia projects.
  7. There is no community consensus for deletion, as far as I know. Vysotsky (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Vk}} per Vysotsky.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to  Neutral per the uploader and other deletes below.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the cropped photo is bad and it is simply an attempt by misogenyst Wikipedia editors like Vysotsky to lower the standing of Heleen Mees. The photographer clearly never intended the larger frame to be used this way. Also, the larger frame will remain on Wikimedia commons, it is just the cropped image that should be deleted for courtesy reasons. Bmwz3hm 17:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments ad hominem mostly pop up when other arguments fail. I guess I am the first mysogynist editor whose first upload on Commons was a photo of a Dutch feminist and certainly the first mysogynist editor who started a few dozen articles about women (incl. Nobel Prize laureates and Heads of State) in Dutch Wikipedia. Vysotsky (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The misogeny of Wikipedia with all its double standards for men and women is well-known. And the fact that you have gay friends doesn't mean that you don't discriminate against LGBT people. There is a proper image on Wikimedia Commons of Heleen Mees. The photographer also asks that the cropped photo is removed. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:HeleenMees2019.jpg Bmwz3hm 20:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a passer-by with not much pull on Commons (though I'll tell you I blocked a couple of this account's socks on Wikipedia, back before they learned how to edit within guidelines, and semi-protected the article when all that socking was going on), but I don't see any (common-sense) reason at all for keeping this image here. Mees has been subject to various kinds of harassment, certainly in real life, and while I am staying out of the blame game and I don't want to impugn Vysotsky, I think that considering the BLP we should do more, not less, and err on the side of caution. What I would suggest to the (male) editors and admins here is that a close-up of a grown woman in a pose that shows that *gasp* she has wrinkles just like real people is really not a fair thing to keep on record here--and surely I don't have to explain systemic sexism here. Personally I think she's beautiful and it's a lovely smile, but I'm just an old guy and if I've learned anything, it's that sometimes I just need to shut up and listen to women. We have another photo, and it's better; Commons's seeming desire for redundancy is just not helpful here. So, editors and admins, just delete the file--yes, "just" delete it, since it's not a big deal, it is the right thing to do, and in doing so you are removing something whose purpose, besides for sexist reasons, is just completely unclear. And Vysotsky, sorry, but I really think you should withdraw from the Mees matter altogether, on all the Wikis. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Courtesy deletion says: The Wikimedia Foundation urges editors to "[treat] any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and [encourage] others to do the same." This is a poor quality image, and there is a vastly better image of Mees available here on Commons. Both the subject and the photographer are unhappy with this crop. Those people should be treated with patience, kindness, and respect as the WMF expects of us in such cases. It is sad to see disrespect here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen above. Ched (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the one who took the photo and as the originator I second the removal of this photo. The quality of the crop is too low and the crop takes away from the quality of the photo and image taken. (Mark Vletter (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Cullen above. BBBjng (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I always take advice from other editors in Wiki seriously and think about their considerations. The advice by User:Drmies to me (above) is quite clear: “withdraw from the Mees matter altogether, on all the Wikis.” As Drmies is an experienced editor, I looked at my edits in the “Mees matter”. I counted a dozen edits across Wiki over a period of 7 years (totaling 0,1 per mille of my edits), with a neutral character, mainly adding (open access) publications by Mees and removing vandalism. I also uploaded three photographs to Commons, incl. the cropped image discussed here. My last edit on Dutch Wiki (my home Wiki) re Heleen Mees was in November 2017, removing vandalism. I will nonetheless consider the advice by Drmies. I also got advice from User:Bmwz3hm, via Wiki mail 5 days ago, after my "keep" above. It was short (3 words only, unlike previous friendly e-mails) and pointy (“Go fuck yourself”). User:Bmwz3hm made more than 500 edits crossWiki (all regarding Heleen Mees -100%, as can be seen here), is a single-purpose editor and seemingly very close to Mees. It is rather curious therefore, that I am the one advised to stay away from “the Mees matter altogether”. Food for thought. For now: Il faut cultiver notre jardin. Vysotsky (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS I wouldn't exactly call repeated removal of descriptions, categories and links, like User:Bmwz3hm recently did here and here learning how to “edit within guidelines”. Vysotsky (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: I have warned them for such vandalism. Some of us appreciate your edits countering such vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the vandalism and won't do it again. However, Vysotsky told Mark Vletter that the cropped photograph could not be removed or overwritten by a higher quality photograph even though Wikimedia Commons does consider courtesy deletions. The vandalism started with Vysotsky introducing the cropped photograph and then falsely telling the maker that nothing could be done about it. Also, Vysotsky falsely suggested that the 2020 photograph was somehow illegitimate even though the magazine Nouveau gave a full release to Wikimedia Commons for the use of the photograph. Vysotsky also threatened me "not to push my luck". I don't believe that Vysosky's conduct is acceptable under the guidelines of Wikimedia Foundation. Bmwz3hm 09:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link to my actual words to Mark Vletter can be found here. I didn't in any way suggest the 2020 photograph was illegitimate. On the contrary: my Wiki-mail to User:Bmwz3mh on 12 March 00:26 hr.: "Dank voor het regelen van die mooie foto van Heleen Mees door Carin Verbruggen. Toch is die foto over een week of wat weg, als je geen actie onderneemt. Want Verbruggen moet zelf een e-mail sturen naar [email protected] waarin ze de foto vrijgeeft onder een Creative Commons-licentie, zie https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS/Procedure. [...] Als je nog assistentie nodig hebt, mail me dan gerust." (My translation: "Thanks for arranging that beautiful photo of Heleen Mees by Carin Verbruggen. However, the photo will be removed within a week if you don't act. Verbruggen has to send an e-mail to OTRS releasing the photo under a Creative Commons license. [....] If you need any assistance, don't hesitate to e-mail me.") It was User:Yuraily Lic who initially proposed the 2020 photo for deletion because of missing permission. Please read more carefully, and stop accusing me falsely. Vysotsky (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had already obtained full permission from Nouveau and forwarded it to Wikimedia Commons before I uploaded the photograph on Wikimedia Commons. While the photograph is now on the English and Dutch Wikipedia page of Heleen Mees, the cropped image is the main photograph of Heleen Mees on Google. The crop is of low quality and it should be removed for courtesy reasons now all parties agree that there is a much better photograph. See how carefully I read Vyotsky's messages: "Don't push your luck, please. Vysotsky (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)". It is both a threat and implies that I was "lucky" that the Nouveau photograph was accepted by Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again. Bmwz3hm 10:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never raised any doubt on the permission from Nouveau, but you always seem to assume bad faith. And no, I wasn't referring to the 2020 photo when making that remark. That's easy to check, by clicking on the link under my remark: a direct link to your repeated edit warring on the 2019 photo. It was a reference to the "last warning" you had recently received from @User:Эlcobbola, and your old indef block on the Dutch and English Wiki. Regarding the occurence of photographs of Mees after a Google search: you'll soon find out that the 2019 cropped photo will fall low, as the photo isn't featured in the main Wikipedia language versions nor in Wikidata. I guess you know that searches with Google are personalised, so it also depends on your own search history. Vysotsky (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cropped photo won't fall low. There are photos that haven't been used for ages that still pop up on the Google search page and other search machines. The surest way to end that is to remove the photo. BBBjng (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most people only "vote" once. But since you're a newcomer, and a single-purpose editor too, I don't mind. Vysotsky (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The newcomer only found this page, for a contribution. Lidewij (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen above. Bmwz3hm 10:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Against delete. The photo gives a positive insight into who this person is. This is never the case with an artificial state portrait. Lidewij (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I agree with Drmies -- my reaction on first seeing the image was thinking "good looking women". However, we have several other images so we can do without this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HeleenMees2019.jpg&oldid=568165028"