Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png

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:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png

[edit]

No evidence that it was published (or even taken) in the US before 1923. Uploaded to the English Wikipedia first as ca. 1920s ([1]), when challenged there swiftly uploaded here with the new date of "ca. 1900s", without any evidence to support this sudden change of 20 years. The claimed date may be correct, but without any means to verify this, we shouldn't just assume it to be correct. Fram (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't see any evidence for the 1920's. appears to be same date as , but these are all guesses. are you seriously arguing that it was taken in 1924 or 1925? tell you what, there are several biographies. if i go to the library of congress and sort through their photo credits, will you accept a report, or do you need a notarized statement from the photographer? btw check out the provenance of which has the exact same problem. by your actions on the latter item, we will judge whether you are fair dealing or just hounding. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you, the uploader, have any indication whatsoever that this image was published in the US (or even elsewhere) before 1923? You, the one claiming that it is public domain, has to provide evidence to support your claim; I can't prove that it isn't public domain, having no reliable indication of when the image was taken or when it was first published. Your comment is nothing but distraction, the Library of Congress has nothing to do with this file, and I am discussing this file, not any of the probably thousands of others on Commons that may have similar problems (although the one you link to is at least considerably older, and any claim that that one was not taken prior to 1923 would be dubious: publication date is not clear though): and how you will judge me is the least of my concerns. Fram (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you, would you, care to address the question: what standard of proof will you accept? will you accept a search of the written photo credits in printed sources? is that acceptable to you? without a confirmation from you i won't bother with such a search. stop wasting my time. the very same date of publication problem exists among two photos on the same page; you choose to selectively enforce the rules, based upon your hounding of an uploader. such conduct on your part is instructive. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the photo credits in reliable printed sources would be sufficient. It is not our job to second guess them. Find a source from pre-1923, or a more recent source that indicates where and when it was first published, or who the photographer was (so that we can verify his date of death), or that indicates that the picture is released in the PD: any form of verifiable evidence. As for why this image: let's see, I started an ArbCom case to stop a serial copyright violator, one of the files presented as evidence was this one, no one disputed the evidence, after the case was closed I challenged the PD license on Wikipedia (because it is rather useless to try to stop a copyright violator, and to identify some violations, but then to let them remain unchallenged obviously); and then you decided suddenly that it needed to be transferred here, with a new date (making it twenty years older) without any evidence to support this change; yes, it seems obvious that my conduct is the problem here. You are the one that uploaded a probable and already challenged copyright violation, and it was you who fabricated a new date for the file out of thin air to defend it; so feel free to raise my conduct at any location you see fit, but beware the boomerang... Fram (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
excellent, time for a trip. thanks for the regurgitation, but i don't need to raise anything, about your incompetent "malignant assiduity." i will enjoy your crash and burn just like Betacommand. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 01:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what I have done to you to get such an extremely aggressive attitude and personal attacks. Can we stick to this image now and drop the rest? It doesn't help to resolve this one bit. So, back to the topic at hand: if you don't have the evidence that this disputed file really is PD, why did you upload it at Commons? I note from Commons:Blocking policy that "Insertion of deliberately false information" is a blockable offense here: your invented date for the picture, and PD claims based on (so far) thin air seem to apply here.Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i had the opportunity to go to the Library of Congress today. none of the photographs here, are in the printed sources.
  1. [2] headshot - Bain LOC PD
  2. [3] 3/4 seated Haggard LOC PD
  3. [4] standing CDV Stereoscopic NYPL unknown status
  4. [5] head shot gray beard Bain LOC PD
  5. 3/4 standing Barraud NPG? unknown status; web image not available
  6. [6] head shot brown beard, this is a reverse of the NPG x6513, Beresford, 1902
  7. this image - head shot gray beard, could be NPG x9076, Claude Harris, bromide print, circa 1920 web image not available, unknown status
there are however photos in the printed sources not here Ellis 5 photos; Pocock 2 Photos; Higgins 3 Photos.
his papers are in the Norfolk Records Office; personnal papers with grandson Commander Mark Cheyne, maybe contact is in order.
i uploaded it because you challenged it. you hound RAN; i hound you. i have reason to believe that this photo is NPG x9076 in the public domain. documentation of photo dates are notoriously thin, none of the Bain photos have dates, many circa notations. you could spend years cleaning up the metadata on photographs. in this light your accusation of "deliberately false information" is farcical. take your block threats and shove them up your ass. i am not alone in my disdain and contempt for your disruptive hounding of productive editors. they are sharpening their knives, and you had better change your behavior, before they ban you as they banned betacommand. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no definitive evidence to the contrary is available, I would say the photograph itself is evidence it was taken prior to '23, as at that time, Sir Henry was gettin' busy dying of Syphilis. In the photo he doesn't look the least bit concerned over his impending death, he looks rather healthy to me. (Then again he could be dead already and have had a really really good mortician.) Penyulap ☏ 08:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy close. The file doesn't appear to have been uploaded in good faith, see [7]. Dubious/unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we unfortunately cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 06:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sir_Henry_Rider_Haggard.png&oldid=92992259"