Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jeromeyuchien

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.

Files uploaded by Jeromeyuchien (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Previously published on [1] without a free license. Author needs to send a free license to COM:VRT.

Wcam (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Included in the DR below, closing to avoid confusion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 4 July 2022 (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 Jeromeyuchien (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Mass images of artifacts uploaded by this user are likely to be fakes or errors.

Related discussion:

List of files

shizhao (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

 Keep I looked through a few of these images and there's zero evidence that they are either fakes or errors. Actually most or all of them were legitimate from what I could. Not to some might be fake, but the seriously ridiculous amount of images nominated for deletion makes it impossible to determine if they are or not in any meaningful, serious way. In the meantime the Wikipedia discussions linked to by the nominator prove absolutely nothing. Except that a few Wikipedia users decided to harang Jeromeyuchien over their uploads, apparently for no legitimate reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to explain in English, maybe you can google translate this chinese discussion, we have proved these antique are 100% fakes.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88/%E5%85%B6%E4%BB%96#%E9%9C%87%E6%83%8A%EF%BC%81%E4%BA%BF%E5%85%83%E6%B8%AF%E5%B8%81%E8%BA%AB%E4%BB%B7%E7%A5%9E%E7%A7%98%E6%94%B6%E8%97%8F%E5%AE%B6%E4%BD%8E%E8%B0%83%E7%BC%96%E8%BE%91%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91%EF%BC%81 Sacha (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I think if you going to nominate this many images, you should present some evidence. --RAN (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of objects is fairly small, but he uploads up to 20+ images of each object. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know lots of English, but we do present some evidence in Chinses, maybe you can google translate them.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88/%E5%85%B6%E4%BB%96#%E9%9C%87%E6%83%8A%EF%BC%81%E4%BA%BF%E5%85%83%E6%B8%AF%E5%B8%81%E8%BA%AB%E4%BB%B7%E7%A5%9E%E7%A7%98%E6%94%B6%E8%97%8F%E5%AE%B6%E4%BD%8E%E8%B0%83%E7%BC%96%E8%BE%91%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91%EF%BC%81 Sacha (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His ridiculous antique cannot be real, just like I have no way had been to Mars. Sacha (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The Ru ware and Chengua chicken cup pieces would each be worth US$20 million+ if genuine (see the articles, but they aren't. Both of these types have been widely imitated, copied & faked for centuries, but he insists his ones are the real thing. I don't know about Neolithic stuff, but his claims can't be trusted, and he repeatedly spams his images onto relevant articles. A commercial motive cannot be ruled out; I asked him if the pieces were for sale (linked talk page discussion) and answer came there none. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep COM:INUSE is very clear that images must not be deleted while still in use on Wikimedia projects. Per COM:NPOV, "A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose and is not liable to deletion on the grounds that it is 'wrong' in some way." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    我已经用中文解释过很多次他的文物是假文物了。如果这样的图片可以引用到维基百科里，那么我现在就可以随便手绘一张复古的脸，然后上传到维基百科，声称这是某代埃及法老的脸部复原图。 Sacha (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    如果中文维基选择不用这些照片，这是中文维基的权利。如果其它版本的维基仍然选择继续用这些照片，这也是他们的权利。Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view/zh就是这个意思：“維基共享資源所扮演的角色，不是在於審理素材的爭論，也不是迫使本地計畫優先使用某個檔案版本。這些檔案的提供必須要符合維基共享資源的收錄準則，並且能夠合法存放，以利我們充分運用。無論在何種條件下，如何實際使用這些素材，應由本地計畫的社群做出決定。” -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify my reasons for voting keep, a lot of the photographs have exif data that say they were taken on either an iPhone or Ipad, and the image quality looks about right for that hardware. I image if these images were from a museum employee who was documenting extremely rare artifacts that they would use a cell phone or tablet to do it. More likely this person visited museums where these were on display as part of an exhibit and just took the photographs that way. Or it's possible they have a friend in the industry that who gave them a private tour. It happens sometimes. I don't think the images should be deleted in absence of any direct evidence of exactly what website, magazine, or whatever they were supposedly ripped off from though. If these bowls are super rare it shouldn't be that hard to find out what other images of them are out there or to compare them to these images to see if they are similar enough to prove they are copyvio. BTW, with the Chicken Cup in particular the images comes from here and they are PD. It shouldn't be that hard to find the sources for the other images. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Met images are very clearly not the same piece. Very similar, yes, as imitations and fakes always will be by definition, but different. Many of the images are extreme close-ups that could clearly not be taken from a museum display. I believe his claim (on all the image files) that he owns these pieces; what I don't believe is that at least the later ones are genuine (as his file names and descriptions claim). Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not copyvio. The uploaded user claims to be a collector and these are the collectibles he bought. But it was pointed out by multiple users that his collection was fake or the description was wrong. If these images are used for educational purposes, they should only be used for articles related to fake artifacts (maybe) shizhao (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read through two of the discussions and he didn't say he owned the pieces in either on of them. Even if he said that he did somewhere else though, so what? At the end of the day it doesn't matter what he said in response to a clearly bad faithed inquisition by multiple users if the images are PD. Like we aren't going to just delete the images from The Metropolitan Museum of Art when they are fair use just because you don't like how he answered a question. In the meantime nothing you've provided as "evidence" shows anything. The fact that I provided a link to where the Chicken cup images came from and your side is still linking to them as "evidence" when there's nothing wrong with Commons hosting the files just go to show that this whole thing is nothing more then a bad faithed fishing expedition. Either that or you just don't get how this process and copyright law works. Either way, there's no evidence that the images should be deleted. At least not Chicken Cup or the other ones I looked into. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here is the quote of evidences given by zhwiki user 如沐西风 (PS: I add some links and notes for clarify). I hope it could help this discussion. Thanks. --
Quote

zh:Special:Diff/72334967:

----
zh:Special:Diff/72470510:
  • 很多文物的破绽很明显。例如图2、3的“汝窑”，釉色并非汝窑，而更像是钧窑（换句话说，Jeromeyuchien让汝窑烧出了钧釉）。图4的“官窑盘”也不是官窑的釉色。至于底足内阳刻“修内司”三字款，臆造的胆子有些大。没有见到书里或者正规博物馆有这样的东西。通常认为瓷器写款始于明代，明代之前有时会在瓷器底足内刻划少数文字（例如唐代邢窑瓷器刻“盈”字，有学者认为意思是大盈库，见“翰林＂、“盈”字款白瓷研究 - 故宫博物院）。再说，“修内司”这三个字也太像电脑字体了。南宋修内司官窑等窑口的窑址已经被考古人员发现，学界对于这些名窑实际上已经有比较深的理解。图6-8 6 7 8 所谓“哥窑”器金丝铁线、紫口铁足的特征也不典型。
  • 其他的破绽如前文所叙，各种文物都靠“采集”（如何采集到成化鸡缸杯？是去昌平盗十三陵还是去盗明代亲王或者功臣陵？如何到半坡遗址采集完整的尖底瓶？半坡遗址早就是全国重点文物保护单位了）。毫无来由地声称自己拥有价值不菲的瓷器，却没有任何公开资料报道。
SCP-2000 03:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR: These artifacts are extremely rare. It is impossible to collect all these artifacts by an unknown person. Also, Jeromeyuchien's artifacts are different from same kinds of artifacts. SCP-2000 03:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get how a bunch of links to Wikipedia articles is "evidence." Especially with the first bullet point, Chicken Bowl, when I provided a link to where the images came from and they are PD. The images on the non-Wikipedia websites aren't even the same as the files being nominated for deletion. So what exactly are they suppose to be evidence of? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning is: Jeromeyuchien's Chicken Bowl not real Chicken Bowl. shizhao (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If these images are used in articles, they will bring misinformation, mislead readers, and defeat educational purposes shizhao (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll show you what wrong with this photoes, but I cannot explain in English, perhaps you can use translation apps.
一、半坡遗址的双耳尖底瓶都是半身纹，而且比较细密，而且是盘口；此人上传的“尖底瓶”，是这么粗的斜绳纹的，喇叭口的。
二、从此人的用语如“夏家店文化”也能看出，此人完全不懂中国的考古学。夏家店遗址有上下两层，差了好几百年，“夏家店文化”是一个外行词汇。
三、他的“青铜器, 战国, 爵杯, 夏商周”，这件青铜器风格十分混搭。浮雕的风格很明显这是罗樾V式商朝晚期的风格，但是眼睛却是II式的风格，是商代早期。具体来说，这个饕餮没有眼眶，而且太丑了。且他在上传的标题中，说这件物品的年代是夏商周战国，驴唇不对马嘴。
中国有句老话，叫“窥一斑而知全豹”，通过这三个例子，我们就可以得知他上传的其他图都是假的。 Sacha (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He do said he owned the pieces, in Chinese. The word 采集 means he pick up those things from the ground. One cannot 采集 a Chicken Bowl, just like I have no way have been to Mars. Maybe you can translate the follow words.
我不能鉴定那个鸡缸杯是假的，因为它长得和真的差不多，但是我可以看出他上传的其他石器时代、青铜器时代的“文物”都是假的，且这个人没有半点文物的常识，所以我们当然可以合理推测他所有的图片都是假的。就像一个人不懂得微积分，那他的麻省理工数学博士学位证肯定是伪造的。
如果这样的图片是合法的，那么我对着我的阴茎拍一张图，然后上传到维基媒体，说这是乔·拜登的阴茎，然后将它引用到乔·拜登的词条里，也将是合法的。 Sacha (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Translation): I can't say that "鸡缸杯" is fake because it looks too real. However, since he has already uploaded numerous fabricated photos of "artifacts" from Stone Age and Bronze Age, and he has shown not even a little common sense of historical artifacts, it is definitely reasonable to conclude that all his photos are fake and fabricated, no exceptions. Just like if a person claims to have received a PhD degree of Mathematics from MIT, but has no knowledge of calculus, we can jump to the conclusion that his degree is fake.
(cont.) If such fabricated images are legal, then it is completely legal for me to take a picture of my own penis and claims that it is Joe Biden's and upload it to Commons and use it in articles. MilkyDefer 03:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
我不可能将他上传的那么多图片一一指出哪里有问题，所以我只能举几个例子；但如果你们认为哪个是真品，可以告诉我，我可以给你讲解它为什么是赝品。但如果你们认为即便是赝品也可以堂而皇之的出现在维基百科的词条里，那我将立刻上传乔拜登的阴茎。Sacha (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Translation): It is impossible for me to point out the problems in his images case-by-case. I can, however, provide some examples. Please let me know which one you think is genuine and I will tear down its disguise. BUT, if you think, even if these images are hoaxes and fabricated, they still can blatantly appear in Wikipedia articles, I will upload Joe Biden's penis photo immediately. MilkyDefer 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So with the chicken cup in particular, this image of it looks extremely similar to images of the "real" bowls. Except the chickens tail is a little different, but it's close enough that you'd have to have some serious evidence besides personal opinions for me to think Jeromeyuchien's version is a forgery or whatever. Frankly the evidence to the contrary is just hyperbolic nonsense since Chicken cups aren't actually that rare in the grand scheme of things. Sure, there's only like 17 in the world, but 13 of those are in museums and I assume viewable by the public. Just to give a few examples of public showings in the last 10 years, one was shown in Hong Kong in 2014, another was shown for three months in West Palm Beach, there was one on display for six months at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and another was on display for 8 months at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. So, really if anything they are quite common. It would be extremely hard to arguing no one ever took a picture of a chicken cup bowl during all the time they were on display though. I'm sure the same goes for the other images. They might seem rare, but likely aren't and have been shown in museums multiple times the world over. To give another example, a Ge Kiln Ware dragon handle censer bowl sold at auction recently for like $4000 dollars, which isn't jack. Jeromeyuchien could have easily bought one at that price. Even Neolithic Chinese artifacts can be found on Ebay for as little as $200 to $2,000 dollars. It's laughable to claim someone would bother forging something that they can easily buy on Ebay for $200. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • （翻译）@Sacha：就拿这张鸡缸杯做例子吧。这张图与「真的」鸡缸杯看过去非常相似，除了鸡尾巴的部分有一点点不一样。不过，由于实在是太过相似，你需要强而有力的证据来证明这张图片是假的，你的个人感觉不能算数。实际上我觉得鸡缸杯并不是那么稀少的东西，你说它这图是假的反而是有点天方夜谭。确实，这东西仅有17件存世，但是其中也有13件被收藏在博物馆里，我推测应该是公开展览的。就拿过去10年间的公开展览说吧，其中一件在2014年在香港展示，还有一件在西棕榈滩展览了三个月，还有一件在大都会艺术博物馆展览了六个月，还有一件在费城艺术博物馆里展览了八个月，可见这种事情不罕见。这不比得蒙娜丽莎，人们对着同一件真品拍了数不清的照片（这句话的意思是说明既然有这么多件真品，稍微有点不一样的地方也算正常）。如果你要说它在公开展览的期间一张照片都没有拍，这基本上是不可能的事情。我觉得对这个人的其他照片也是一样的道理，这些东西诚然稀少，但是可能并不那么稀少，而且可能早就被全球巡回展览很多次了。我再给你举个例子，最近有一件「传世哥窑，龙柄香炉」以4000美元的价格拍卖成交了。对Jeromeyuchien而言买一件这样的东西轻而易举，哪怕是新石器时代的中国文物也能在Ebay上以200到2000美元之间的价格拍到，谁会有那个闲心去伪造两百美元就能买到的东西，搞笑呢？ MilkyDefer 04:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for translate! Sacha (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    我仔细看了此人上传的鸡缸杯图和大都会的图，你看一看鸡的羽毛的形态，再看一看这个鸡的青花勾边，再看一看鸡头的形状，鸡翅根的那几个方格……[3]，这是北京故宫收藏的鸡缸杯的图，你和大都会的比一比，虽然鸡的羽毛细节也不一样，但是风格是一致的，鸡的形体也是一致的。再反观这个人上传的鸡缸杯抠图[4]，墨色凝重，鸡的体型也和两件真品不一样。你竟然说它们extremely similar，你真的有仔细对比那两张图吗？
    在中国，这样的仿制品有成千上万，乍一看，真品仿品长得是挺像的，但是请你仔细观察。况且，此人在页面中声称，这件鸡缸杯来“from Dr. Jerome Yuchien PhD 游謙 采集”，并链接到了他的同名博物馆：Jerome Museum Institute of Asian Arts。请注意：采集是捡到的意思，这个词暗示了他拥有这件物品。然而，这是一个从未见于报道的“博物馆”，此人也是一个从未见于报道的“收藏家”。即便鸡缸杯并不像蒙娜丽莎一样全世界只有一件，但至少也是屈指可数的。一个人拥有了一件鸡缸杯，并且实名公布到了互联网上，却没有任何媒体采访报道，这是不合逻辑的。正如你所说，无论是在香港、西棕榈滩、大都会还是在费城，所有这些巡回展览都见于媒体公开报道，怎么独独在这位博士的线上博物馆展览时没有报道？至于ebay上200美元就能买到新石器时代的中国文物，我在潘家园也能买一麻袋，也许您可以了解一下中国的潘家园？（中国著名的假文物贩卖中心）
    如果说是因为这些图片还在其他维基项目上使用所以无法删除，那这是维基方针的问题，是程序问题，我没有什么好说的；但我希望至少可以达成共识：1.赝品不应该用在介绍真品的词条里；2.他的图片都是赝品。Sacha (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, but it's an extremely inaccurate translation that either embellishes or outright fabricates parts of what I said. Other then that, your thing about China's Panjiayuan seems like a strawman since Sotheby's, which is an extremely reputable auction house, recently sold a pair of calcified jade rounded square disc ornaments from the Neolithic period for $7,000. Good luck trying to argue that they were forgeries. Like I said, this stuff is extremely cheap and not at all rare. It's seems like you rather go off on hypothetical side tangents then listen to what I'm telling you though. I could easily buy most of the artifacts in the images myself if I wanted to and I'm not even that well off. Check out this list of auctions for Song Dynasty ceramics from Christie's. None of them are forgeries, and they are all extremely affordable. The most expensive item is only like $15,000. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
好吧，不要管它的来源了，让我们来对比一下真假鸡缸杯图片的本身。
大都会的图你以及那个找到了[5]，这是北京故宫的图[6]，这是他上传的同一位置的抠图[7]。
1.真品表示鸡羽毛的红色墨点墨色飘逸，而假的墨色凝重；
2.真品的鸡翅膀是上短下长来表示层次感，而假的鸡翅膀完全是用4个四边形画出来的，没有层次；
3.真品鸡胸没有青花勾边，假的鸡胸也用青花勾了边；
4.真品鸡嘴和鸡眼在同一水平线上，假的不在；
5.真品长>高，假的高>长；
6.真品鸡身上都有釉下彩的青花蓝羽毛，假的没有
……
我列出了6点真品和假的的区别，可以说它们在内行人眼里完全没有任何相似之处。所以无论这个东西的来源是什么，无论是1块钱还是1个亿买的，都没有关系。
byw，假的的蓝色我看甚至都不像是釉下彩青花，也就是说这根本就不是斗彩。 Sacha (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)][reply]
You've listed 6 differences between the images of the chicken cup on the metmuseum.org site and the images that were uploaded by Jeromeyuchien. Just because they have differences doesn't prove anything though. That's literally how it works with antique handmade items. Obviously no two are designed exactly the same. Especially when your talking about something that old. So you can't take an image of one cup and claim it's a fake simply because the chicken's tail on another is .0001% of an inch lower. Although you can do a 1/1 comparison between the images Jeromeyuchien upload and the images on the metmuseum.org site IF he's claiming their the same bowl, but he isn't. In the meantime it's not a big conspiracy that different objects look differently. No crap? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
按你这的说法，我们无法证明任何仿品是仿品，因为它们都和真的或多或少有点像😅正如虽然每个动物都长了一个鼻子两个眼，但你能区分人和猴一样；虽然每个杯子上都有一只鸡，我可以区分哪个是真哪个是假。大都会和北京故宫的两件真品长得也不一样，然而我指出的6点，两件真品是一样的，你再找几件真品也是一样的，唯独这假的不一样。Sacha (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can when it's an item that is unique by doing a 1/1 comparison between the "fake" and the "real" one. You can't prove something is an imitation of a handmade item if the person made multiple variations of it simply by comparing your version to only one of the variations though. That's not how things are authenticated. Especially not if your only doing based on low quality images. I don't think it's in Commons peer view to act as a source for verifying if an object is guanine or not either. It's not a notary. Like I could care less if File:45rpm.jpg is 100% un-touched and exactly how it looked when it came off the press to the 100th millimeter or whatever. It's not Commons place to be that accurate and the image still serves an educational purpose either way. It would be ridiculous to delete the image as a fake just because it has a white dot on the left side of the O that isn't on similar records. Who gives a crap? Only people who are going on bad faithed witch hunts. But you can't just be like "Hey, I know there's like 700 variations of this bowl out there, but I looked at an image of one of them and the tail is 1 inch off. So this must be a forgery." That's just dumb. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have no knowledge of cultural relic identification at all, please respect the professional opinions put forward by people with this knowledge shizhao (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
您就是休谟是吧，您要这么抬杠，那我们无法证明任何事。我们也无法证明一只猴子不是人。Sacha (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, I'm totally the reincarnation of Hume because I said people shouldn't use low quality photographs from Commons to authentic rare artifacts. Right. Whatever you guys say. I would think that if you could prove these were fake you'd just do it instead of resorting to all this bloviating about nonsense or resorting to personal attacks. But hey, I'll leave this up to the real pros like you guys. Have at it. I don't see how these images won't be deleted with your absolutely professional opinion that we can't prove that a monkey isn't a human. There's really zero point in continuing this deletion request with you making absolutely professional and convincing arguments like that. What's the phrase in China for people who act powerful but are really weak and ineffectual, paper tigers? "Please respect the opinions of the professionals. We can't prove monkeys aren't humans!" Lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
all right，那让我们停止人身攻击，让我们用亚里士多德的三段论来讨论。
命题:全部的斗彩都有釉下彩青花，这个人上传的图没有釉下彩青花，这个人上传的图不是斗彩。
你是觉得斗彩也可以没有釉下彩青花，还是觉得这个人上传的图有釉下彩青花，还是觉得亚里士多德的三段论有问题？ Sacha (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
我说它是假的，我讲了很多个证据；你说它是真的，你也讲讲它和大都会和北京故宫的两件藏品有什么共通点，讲讲为什么别的鸡缸杯展出都有媒体报道独独这个没有，讲讲你怎么理解他标题里的“采集”，或者讲讲你认为怎样才能证明它是假的 Sacha (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re "you also talked about other chicken cup exhibitions aside from the two collections in Beijing but there is no such thing." Your claim is obviously false on it's face. If you scroll down to the bottom of https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/42515 This page there is a list of public exhibitions of chicken cups under the "Exhibition History" tab. The list exactly matches the dates and places of public exhibitions that I said occurred. It's hilarious how on the one hand your going off that I should respect the opinions of the professionals in the discussion or whatever, but then on the other you don't even know that chicken cups have been exhibited outside of Beijing when I do lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just have two questions:
1. 维基上的这件的到底有没有釉下彩青花？
2. 如果有，在哪？ Sacha (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"you also talked about other chicken cup exhibitions aside from the two collections in Beijing but there is no such thing." I DID NOT SAY THIS. I can read a little English, but I dont know how to explain what I want to say in English. But thEse words are TOTALLY NOT what I wanted to say. I think the translation is not exactly, you have misunderstood my Chinese words. Sacha (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Google translated it wrong. Here the complete sentence "you also talked about what it has in common with the two collections in the Metropolitan City and the Forbidden City in Beijing, and why other chicken pot exhibitions There are media reports on this, but there is no such thing." If my reading of that is correct you were saying that I talked about how there were media reports of two exhibitions in the Metropolitan City and the Forbidden City in Beijing, but was no such thing as other chicken pot exhibitions. I'm willing to chalk it up to Google's convoluted way of translating things though. On the question about blue glazing, the chicken in this imageclearly has a blue glazed outline underneath the red paint, which seems to match other chicken cups that we know are authentic. Whereas, you can compare that image to a known imitation like one on Aliexpress, which doesn't have the blue glazing outline. There's clearly a difference in quality between the two and the image from Jeromeyuchien looks authentic compared to the images on Aliexpress. (FYI, I tried to link to it but apparently Commons blocks links to Aliexpress). --Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Yeah I think Google did translate it wrong. Sacha said on 14:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC):[reply]

I said it is fake, and I said it with much evidence; you said it is genuine, then you can say it with the resemblances among this one and the two collections in the Metropolitan City and the Palace Museum, the reason why there are media reports on exhibitions of other Chicken Cups but none on this one, your comprehension of the "采集" (collect) word in the titles he used, or the way you prefer to prove it false. (The mistranslated sentence is marked in bold.)

It's a complicated sentence and I don't think Google Translate understood it as it pretended to. Also, Grammarly gave my translation a "Hard-to-read text" issue. --魔琴 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@魔琴: Thanks for the elaboration. The whole thing makes way more sense now. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided links to multiple auction houses that are extremely reputable where similarly supposedly "rare artifacts" can be bought for extreme cheap. I don't think we need expectational evidence to prove authorship if the objects in the images are $2,000 dollars or less. Otherwise we could justify deleting every single image in a category like Category:Guitars because there's zero evidence anyone who took those pictures owned the guitars and not everyone has $1,000+ sitting around to spend on musical instruments or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The captions explicitly state those objects are of the time periods, i.e. genuine artifact from 10th century to 17th century. the The minimum from your Christie's lots is 11k USD. The uploader is either lying about the authorship or the authenticity of the artifact. Mys_721tx (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum on the first item is $7,644. So I'm not really sure what your talking about. not that the uploader said they owned any of the artifacts, but it's not like art collectors don't regularly spend 11k or more on rare art pieces anyway. The uploader says on their profile that they have a Phd in religious studies. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that someone who probably makes upwards of $100,000 a year couldn't spend $7,000 on a piece of artwork if they wanted to. More so if this whole thing ends up hinging on it. IMO it would set a ridiculous precedent going forward if images of anything that costs more then $5,000 could be deleted just because a few users don't think the uploader could have bought whatever it's an image of. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you still dont know what the word "采集" in the title means. It means that these things were NOT bought, but were picked up by himself on the ground or somewhere. I'll leave my delete vote, and I wont respone any more. I think we have also well discussed, other people can read the discussion to decide who is right and to vote. The different languages may not be a problem, there are Chinese people dont agree with me, and also English speaker vote to delete. Sacha (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sacha: I know what the word means. I just haven't seen a comment in any of the discussions anyone linked to where he said he picked the items up off the ground. Just you repeatedly making the claim that he did without providing any evidence. I'm more then happy to revise my opinion if your willing to link to a diff where he said such a thing, but I'm not going to just take your word for it at face value. Sorry. Outside of that I agree there isn't really a language problem here. It's more just the bad faith, aggressive, accusatory way you and a few other users approached this. Unfortunately it really undermined your argument and came at the cost of making understandable, coherent points. That's not a language thing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lt2818: What exactly is the miss-leading information that they are supposedly being used for? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fake features of the artifacts will mislead people. Lt2818 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, obviously fake things mislead people. I specifically asked what is misleading about the features of these artifacts though. What about these artifacts and the images is misleading information? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About misleading information，see Sacha comments above shizhao (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Lt2818. They can answer the themselves since their the one who said the images are miss-information. I really don't appreciate the brigading. Please stop playing defense with every comment I make or side discussion I'm involved in. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Details are also in this discussion, which seems somehow reasonable to me. Lt2818 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the that discussion and I don't see anything in it about why these images are miss-information. Just the same snide comments and hperbolic capitulations that have already been made here by Shizhao and others about how it's impossible for someone to buy a $7000 bowl or whatever. None of which is evidence of anything. If anything the discussion just shows that the items are probably authentic. Whatever has been said on other sites by other people though, your the one who voted to have the images deleted because they are misinformation. So you should be able to answer how they are misinformation. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it should be taken into account when their different websites and I'm not blocked from participating in deletion discussions on Commons. I actually spent a lot of time researching this and making sure what I said was supported by outside evidence. I think I've been pretty fair in how I handled the way I was treated by shizhao to. So why not consider the arguments based on their merits instead of trying to make things personal? It's not like you have a great record at ANI either. But this isn't going to be resolved either way by one side mudslinging the other. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: I don't think I have time to go through all the uploaded images, but the chicken cup is definitely fake. There are only ~17 Chenghua chicken cups in the world, 13 of them are hold in 6 different museums. The one uploaded by Jeromeyuchien is clearly not the same one as the one in MET, the one in British museum, the one in V&A, the one in Collections Baur (which was damaged in the Great Hanshin earthquake in 1995), eight in the National Palace Museum in Taipei (six of them were exhibited in 2003's Special Exhibition of Chenghua Porcelain Ware, which can be found in the book 成化瓷器特展圖錄, one of them is shown here), and the one in the Long Museum in Shanghai (which is the one sold for the price of US$36 million to Liu Yiqian in 2014). Besides those, it is debated if the one in the Fitzwilliam Museum and the two in the Palace Museum in Beijing are authentic, but nonetheless they are still very different from the one uploaded by Jeromeyuchien. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The fact that 8 of the authentic cups out of 17 are clearly different from Jeromeyuchien's images is enough IMO to make the judgment that his cups are probably fake. The images of the 2 cups that I had access to previously wasn't enough to make that judgement though. It's to bad the supposed "professionals" in the discussion weren't willing to provide more images when I asked for them, but whatever. That's the way it goes sometimes. No harm, no foul. Props to Stevenliuyi though for writing a concise, evidence based, convincing vote comment that didn't involve accusing anyone of being David Hume or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very happy to see that you vote to delete. If what I said before are impolite, I apologize to you. I just think the real cup and the fake cup are so different just like human and monkey, and I had listed the differences, but you still dont believed, I had lost the patient. Anyway, sorry for the offensive words, and very happy to see you realized the cup is fake finally. BTW, I never say I'm professional, and I'm not a professional, I just have a little knowledge of chinese archaeology, It's other user said.Sacha (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Suggestion: change the captions and filenames to indicate that the items are not authentic if the images still have some educational value. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete --Zhangmoon618 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The fact that the picture is fake is not a reason to delete it, and the fake picture does not mean that it has no value --Yinyue200 (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    base on Commons:Deletion_policy, I don't think there are "educationally useful", and spends spaces to save them. --Cwek (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. The outcome of the lengthy discussion above seems to be that (almost) everyone agrees that these objects are at least highly dubious or even outright fakes and the images are therefore not useful for an educational purpose and out of project scope. Some could perhaps be in scope as examples for fakes, but I wouldn't know which, so I'll delete them all. If someone wants some restored as examples of fakes, please ask at COM:UNDEL. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Jeromeyuchien&oldid=683321720"