User talk:Infrogmation

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


Authors should decide their own license preferences[edit]

I, Infrogmation, hereby "opt out" of the involuntary "license migration". Notes: The vast majority of my uploads I would happily agree to add cc-by-sa-3.0 to the listed license option (if that license is not one of the listed options already) IF I am ASKED. I do NOT consent to any change license of any of my copyrighted works that I have not personally authorized. I have NOT authorized any party other than myself to change licensing of any of my works without my explicit permission. See here on my talk page for discussion.

This was my stand more than 2 years ago. It has not changed. Months of work and thousands of edits have been required of me for this simple assertion of my basic authorship rights. I consider Wikimedia a noble project, but think Wikimedia should be deeply ashamed of the way they have treated and continue to treat contributors who have been kind enough to share their own media under free licenses. Infrogmation (talk)

I do so agree with you. This license policy of the commons project prevents me from uploading more photos because I do not like my pictures changed by other people and not even knowing about it. --Manuela (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

en:User_talk:Infrogmation

Older disussion has been moved to User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 1, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 2, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 3, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 4, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 5, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 6, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 7, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 8, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 9, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 10, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 11, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 12, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 13, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 14, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 15, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 16, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 17.

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.



Hello[edit]

Could you please explain why the copyright violation deletion request is being refused while our intellectual property continues to be abused? I can provide proof of ownership and a sworn affidavit if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtful and Considerate (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I have located the original post from May 2013 with the photograph captioned "© 2012 The NA Trust. All rights reserved." Since Mr A's death, most of the website is private now due to this very reason, including republishing articles and photographs without permission. You can access the post with the copyrighted photo (the exact same photo posted on this website) here and the pw is Infrogmation ...Please let me know when you have completed your review so I can remove access. Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtful and Considerate (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider and let the full DR run now that this xwiki troll has been locked. Praxidicae ({:{int:Talkpagelinktext}}) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(barging in) There is just one thing that doesn't fit: Both of the images have been loaded up to Commons in 2017. domaintools says that the domain nicholasalahverdian.com has been created in 2018. Well, they might have owned the photographs before, but the whole thing doesn't convince. --Achim (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55: That's because everything that is spoken on Wikipedia about this guy is a lie. Trust nothing that comes from his socks. Praxidicae (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if he died a year ago he cannot sock today. Looks like an authorized advocate Category:Sockpuppets of Thoughtful and Considerate. They blanked or locked archive.org successfully. --Achim (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key statement being "if".... ;) Praxidicae (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Nicholas_Alahverdian_and_Andre_Dubus_III_(cropped).jpg. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bookcases[edit]

Category discussion warning

Bookcases has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


JopkeB (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Infrogmation, thank you for your contributions to this discussion and the closing of it. There is still one problem left: in Category:Bookshelves the Wikidata Infobox still refers to Bookcase and shows a picture of a bookcase, instead of to Bookshelf. I have not enough knowledge of Wikidata to solve this problem. Could you look into this? JopkeB (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles Avenue Streetcar Line[edit]

I just added {{GeoGroup}} to this cat and in the resulting mapplot I noticed these two photos of yours apparently way off track, on the intersection of South Claiborne Av. with Gen. Pershing St., where seemingly there are no tracks (although there were in the past). Can you check the geolocation of these apparent outliers, please? -- Tuválkin 15:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @John Cummings: ditto about this one. -- Tuválkin 15:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I haven't yet been photographing with a geo location camera. In the first case, someone else added geo location to my photo after the fact; the other photos aren't by me. In all cases, the geo location is clearly wrong. Either fixing it or just removing it seems fine to me. Actual location as far as street intersections is in the text description - I've tried to include that info in recent years. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is adding text specifying intersections or block numbers helpful to your GeoGroup project? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for removing the bogus geolocation off these photos; I really should have checked the file history to see who had added them before asking you. As I understand, {{GeoGroup}} simply creates a map on the fly framing all the geolocation info in the wikitext of the file pages in a given category; file pages with no geolocation are ignored. It’s a good way to spot geolocation errors, besides its main use. -- Tuválkin 04:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons![edit]

Dear Infrogmation

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC[edit]

Hello Infrogmation,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Availability of photographs[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation, Do you know of any photographs in the public domain that are free of copyright restrictions of the following notable people from New Orleans? Their Wikipedia articles are sorely lacking photographs of them: Father Jerome LeDoux, Edith Rosenwald Stern, and Albert C. Ledner. Thank you! Nolabob (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not off hand, but I'll keep an eye out! Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another one I'd like to add to the list: Sara Mayo Hospital of New Orleans or else Dr. Sara Mayo herself. I'm writing a Wikipedia article about Sara Mayo, expecting to move it from my sandbox to article space in another couple weeks. The article would much benefit from having a suitable photo. Many thanks as always for all you do to document the people, history, and culture of New Orleans! Nolabob (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a couple of snapshots of the derelict building in 2008 while passing down Jackson Avenue. I've started Category:Sara_Mayo_Hospital. I'll add that to my list of thinks to keep an eye out for more photos. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you. I appreciate this. Nolabob (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help![edit]

You’re a great admin! Rumblerumble33 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon trams[edit]

I don’t understand these two edits of yours: As of the relevant dates (1902-1906), both Stephenson and St Louis were Brill subsidiaries, assembling licensed models for export. -- Tuválkin 06:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; it looked to me like something was being attributed to two competing companies. I reverted myself. (Any thoughts on how to make that clearer - perhaps a note on categories, or subcategories? Would something like "Brill trams manufactured by St. Louis Streetcar Co" be useful?) Thanks, cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that’s a good idea. Their respective Wikipedia articles explain how each of those two companies did business with Brill. I.i.r.c., they were eventually absorbed, but when these models were built the distinction was marked enough for the St. Louis cars to bear, to this day, a separate nickname (carros de São Luís vs. carros de Filadélfia). As I understand, the basic models were identical in their engines and wiring, with varying coach design details. -- Tuválkin 04:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo april 2009 9029.jpg[edit]

Hi, today, checking what had happened to buildings I took pictures of in Aleppo before the war, I had just concluded from Google Maps satellite view that the building of the picture was almost totally destroyed, when I found you put it in a category 2019 in Aleppo . May I urge you to be careful: the picture may have been uploaded in 2019, but was definitely from 10 years ago. In particular with towns where lots of destruction have been taken place the year a picture was taken is much more important than that of the upload, and will suggest conditions that no longer are valid. I uploaded lots of pictures in 2021 (will be thousands), none of them are from after the war. Maybe the mistake was the result of some algorithm, they should be handled with particular care. I have taken the picture out of the category. Dosseman (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much. Looking I see that was my typo - I mistakenly put in "2019" instead of "2009". Fixed. Thanks again for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find copyright-free images?[edit]

Yesterday, I got a message from you threatening to delete my account if I kept using copyrighted images. I wasn't aware the images were copyrighted, and I'm not sure how to tell if an image is copyrighted. I am new to this site, can you tell me what is considered a copyrighted image? Are there certain sites we can use to find images that aren't copyrighted? I don't want my account to get blocked because I didn't know that an image was copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtLemonade (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, take care to be accurate and honest. You uploaded lots of photos by a variety of other people taken from websites, and claimed that you were the author/photographer and copyright holder. If you didn't take the photo, don't say you did. With other people's photos online, assume they're under copyright unless there is some specific reason to think a particular photo is free licensed. (Many of the photos you yoinked and pretended were your own work were on websites with very clear copyright notices.) As to finding free licensed images, google images allows one to search by image rights. A good number of individual Flick users share some or all of their photos under free licenses; that info is on each photo page, and Flickr also allows searching according to license right. See Commons:Licensing for an overview of what can and can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Most of the images were from 3 main sites: Roadside America, Presidents USA, and VanderKrogt. Is there some check thing that says "This picture belongs to someone else, and I do not hold the copyright on it?" And how would I go about searching for free licensed images on google? I see two categories, "Creative Commons license," and "Commercial and other license." Is there a specific search engine or certain websites I can use to find non-copyright images?

Sorry if I'm asking a lot of questions, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing, and I don't wanna get blocked because I didn't know the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtLemonade (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DR[edit]

Hi Infrogmation, in regards to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buddy Roemer tweet 01.png - Ummm I !voted Keep and the file not being a tweet isn't a reason to delete is it?, I'm slightly confused?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah never mind I've just twigged there's no evidence this was released under a CC licence. How I never twigged at the DR I have absolutely no idea!. Glad someone's on the ball today! :), Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly. You're right; I wasn't as clear as I might have been there. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 of Copyright images[edit]

I asked you this before, but I didn't get an answer. I'm not sure if you didn't see it, but I wanted to ask: Most of the images were from 3 main sites: Roadside America, Presidents USA, and VanderKrogt. Is there some check thing that says "This picture belongs to someone else, and I do not hold the copyright on it?" And how would I go about searching for free licensed images on google? I see two categories, "Creative Commons license," and "Commercial and other license." Is there a specific search engine or certain websites I can use to find non-copyright images?

Sorry if I'm asking a lot of questions, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing, and I don't wanna get blocked because I didn't know the rules. I also found some images on Flickr. Some of them stated that I could use the images as long as I gave credit to the person who took the picture, and provided a link to it. Would I be able to do this, where I put the link to the Flickr image in the description of the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtLemonade (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short answer: Assume other people's photos on the web are copyrighted unless you see some specific statement that they are free licensed. More details: Look at the web pages &/or front pages of websites. Roadside America, for example, has a very clear notice "© Copyright 1996-2021 Doug Kirby, Ken Smith, Mike Wilkins. All rights reserved. No portion of this document may be reproduced, copied or revised without written permission of the authors." The front page of Presidents USA website states "Copyright ©2021, by Baaron's Hill, LLC". Again, you claimed that YOU were the photographer and the copyright holder of photos you copied from those websites. Again, start out by being accurate and honest, and read the links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page, they should answer many questions. On google image search, once you do a search there are options including "tools". Click that and there will be a selection "usage rights", including Creative Commons. Again, the links provided you earlier detail what Creative Commons licenses are acceptable. For Flickr, see Commons:Flickr_files regarding licenses; Special:UploadWizard has the option "Share images from Flickr" which automates the whole process of copying photos from Flickr with proper license and attribution (as long as the original Flickr photo is free licensed). Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

There is a user called Luis Fernando Delgado Trejo who keeps uploading images and he claims that is his own work. And I wanna know if this image that he uploaded can be deleted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Univision_Deportes_TDN.jpg . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want to make sure this is good for an image[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10cd_o.jpg#/media/File:10cd_o.jpg. The caption says "Image is from Flickr, user edwarddallas." Would this be a good way to credit the original photographer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtLemonade (talk • contribs) 04:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)LtLemonade (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing on Flickr is just fine for use on Commons. Unfortunately with things like modern statues in places like the United States, there can be another consideration: the artist who created the statue still holds the copyright for the statue, making someone else's photo of it "derivative work". Seems like that's the problem you ran into on this one. See Commons:Licensing, Commons:Derivative_works. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean I'm unable to use it?LtLemonade (talk)

File:My Parliament.svg[edit]

Hi there,

I see you moved File:My Parliament.svg to File:Concejo de Bucaramanga.svg. That file is a test diagram that is used by the parliament diagram generator script to avoid people unnecessarily creating new files to test out the direct upload function, so it should keep that name. Please don't move it again :-) --Slashme (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a file that was in use to illustrate a specific article on es:W. No objection to having a "test diagram", but relevant version in use should be spun off so it doesn't keep being replaced with irrelevant illustrations. Thanks, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like all taken care of to me. OK now? Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fine now, thank you! If someone uploads a diagram to that name, My_Parliament.svg shouldn't be made a redirect to the new file, because then the script can't upload test diagrams anymore, and people start creating unnecessary test files with other names. --Slashme (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report[edit]

Hello, please take a look at this report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason) as these are serious everyday violations of the Commons rules and protection of meaningless names (in this case, Kalumny which translates as Columns). User Kazimier Lachnovič with filemover rights constantly performs violations of the Commons rules, creates instability issues and protects meaningless names, thus creates confusion. His Commons admin rights previously were lifted, but it is clear that it is not enough. -- Pofka (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


File:Fishing at Cocodrie LA Christian.jpg[edit]


File:Fishing at Cocodrie LA Christian.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. Wikimedia Commons doesn't permit uploading personal files unless you are using them for personal use or an educational purpose.

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now ! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images and best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishing at Cocodrie LA Christian.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Fishing at Cocodrie LA Christian.jpg 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!

Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dad, getting ready to leave the camp Cocodrie Louisiana.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Dad, getting ready to leave the camp Cocodrie Louisiana.jpg 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!

Davey2010Talk 20:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove my old photo, but a guy named minorax ended up keeping it. Can you do the removal? Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickynorum85 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete photo[edit]

I would like to remove my old photo, but a guy named minorax ended up keeping it. Can you do the removal? Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg Vickynorum85 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Chitimacha-Indians F Bernard and Mardi Gras Day 2019 in New Orleans - On Royal Street, French Quarter 50 Images[edit]

Dear Infrogmation,

Smithsonian Folkways Recordings are currently in the process of developing a new series of curriculum materials (called Smithsonian Folkways Learning Pathways) for educators (mostly music and social studies educators). These unique resources place recordings from the Smithsonian Folkways collection at the center of the learning experience. These will be FREE resources for all educators, everywhere. Each learning pathway is a curated musical journey through a historical, cultural, or musical theme (e.g. Music of the Chicano Movement; Sounds of the Civil Rights Movement; Cajun & Zydeco Music; etc...).

As part of these learning pathways, we are creating interactive student slideshows that will help teachers facilitate learning experiences in any educational environment both in-person or online. We wanted to let you know that we will be using the 'Two-Chitimacha-Indians F Bernard and Mardi Gras Day 2019 in New Orleans - On Royal Street, French Quarter 50' images seen on your Wikimedia Commons webpage. We are planning to use the image for our 'Cajun and Zydeco' learning pathway. We know that the Two-Chitimacha-Indians image needs to be cited with a public domain tag and the Mardi Gras image is under Creative Commons. We will make sure to give you the credit for the image.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two-Chitimacha-Indians_F_Bernard.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mardi_Gras_Day_2019_in_New_Orleans_-_On_Royal_Street,_French_Quarter_50.jpg

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about any of the information.

King Regards, Gisele, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings --Giseh (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Giseh (talk)[reply]

Sounds good! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian pictures[edit]

Hi Infrogmation. The four files are categorized under Český Krumlov, but described as "Cesky Budejovice" (probably České Budějovice). Can't remember which of these two cities is in the pictures? --ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Those 4 are all Český Krumlov. I have edited accordingly. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

Canal Street photograph[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation, regarding the photograph that you uploaded, File:Canal Street From Clay Monument WM Jackson Cropped.jpg, am I correct that Werlein's for Music is on the right hand side of the image? I've been working on some projects related to Philip Werlein and to Werlein's for Music, and this photograph could be useful for those, if in fact that is Werlein's for Music. Thanks! Nolabob (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know off hand. Looks like lettering that may read "P. We[rlein]" painted on building at top right. If researching, I suggest checking to see what address Werlein's was at in the 1890s - note that street addresses in the city were renumbered in 1896 to the current "block number" system. Thanks for your work! Red beans & ricely, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my research on the Werlein topics, it appears that Werlein's for Music was at 135 Canal Street in the early 1890s. Also, there's a sign for "Steinway Pianos" in that photograph, and Werlein's for Music sold lots of pianos in that time period. What do you think we can conclude about that photograph? Does it include Werlein's for Music? Thanks for weighing in on this (and for posting the photograph in the first place). Nolabob (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after a few minutes looking, my best guess is that the photo shows Werlein's leading competitor, Gruenwald's. Compare File:Grunewald Music Store Canal Street New Orleans 1894.jpg. Remember the city was an important regional music center with competing music stores and publishers. (Were Werlein and Grunewald on the same block for a time?) I'll let you sort out more. A good research tool if you're not familiar with it: WPA list of street name and number changes on nutrias org: [1]. It's generally pretty good but not always perfect; eg per that it looks like 135 old system would be the 800 block... but Robinson's Atlas puts 135 in the Touro Row, now the 700 block. File:RobinsonAtlasVieuxCarre83.jpg (Touro Row burned in 1892.) Happy researching! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts on this. All best, Nolabob (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


File:Christopher and Mary-Therese - Happy Pool.jpg[edit]


File:Christopher and Mary-Therese - Happy Pool.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. Wikimedia Commons doesn't permit uploading personal files unless you are using them for personal use or an educational purpose.

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now ! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images and best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Malcolma.

And also:

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Dear Infrogmation,

Please check this user uploads. Some of the uploads need to be deleted.

Yours sincerely,
Anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.125.232.164 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The user seems to already be blocked. If you are aware of problems with particular files you can tag them for deletion discussion. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. After seeing some of your DR comments/closures, I am puzzled why you believe it is appropriate to delete images which are below COM:TOO but have an incorrect license. Isn't it much simpler to just correct the license to {{PD-textlogo}} instead of deleting it? (By the way, no objections to this specific deletion, as G7 applies.) -- King of ♥ 23:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few considerations: 1) If they are valuable images that can have their information fixed, I encourage them to be fixed. 2) Note that such "incorrect licenses" are unfortunately often not just incorrect by detail, but whether ignorantly or deliberately when the uploader falsely claims authorship and copyright licensing rights as their own, they are committing copyright fraud. Like blatant copyright violations, these should be purged from Commons with due haste. Yes, I consider a fraudulent copyright claim in itself to be sufficient reason in itself to warrant deletion from Commons. I think that is a key part of the project. That doesn't mean that useful in-scope images that may be free licensed for some other reason shouldn't be fixed when they can be. 3) As to TOO, note that regulations vary from country to country. Sometimes it is not apparent what countries laws are relevant. Anyone user who wishes to research, make determination, and correct the information is certainly very welcome. With unused images with blatant false claims, questionable TOO status, and and no obvious in scope usefulness, I may not see value in spending extra time trying to research. If I err on the side of caution in defending Commons, I expect that any logo which is legitimately TOO and of significant in-scope usefulness will eventually make it's way on to Commons with proper information and license. Does that answer your question? Thanks for your work! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jazz Brunch at Buffa's, New Orleans - Biscuits and Gravy with Megan and Ingrid.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Jazz Brunch at Buffa's, New Orleans - Biscuits and Gravy with Megan and Ingrid.jpg 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!

Missvain (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/File:ThrustMe Logo.png[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the logo of ThrustMe used on their wikipedia page has been removed. Can I ask you why? In my opinion, it follow the Non-free content criteria but I may be wrong. Antoinebore (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your help at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schema Citybus.jpg - I was torn between speedying and DRing but sort of thought DR would be best due to the length of time it's been here and I was unsure as to whether the website it was hosted at belonged to the author so thought DR was best,
Anyway thanks for your help it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Agree that being cautious about media that's been here a long time and checking for other input/opinions is often a good idea. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Harsh7777[edit]

Hello. I just want to bring your attention to user Harshv7777. Hope you can take action against this.

Recently he has uploaded this file:

File:Neeraj Chopra Gold Tokyo.jpg

I tried reverse-searching it and can't find the image on any website. However, I made some close analysis of the picture. From my analysis, it seems to be a screenshot from a television or streaming service on the sports event, which is a clear violation of Commons rule which strictly prohibits uploading of screenshots from television, movies, DVDs and software. He has warned been numerous times on copyright violations.

Hope you can make your analysis and come to your conclusion, and then decide what action needs to be taken against the user who has been warned last and final time on copyright violation. Vaishakh1234 (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it already appropriately is listed for deletion. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, -sasha- (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:VKGhai Italy GothicLine.jpg[edit]

Hello - Could you please explain how you have categorized this as a false license ? I am the owner of this photo and provided license under CC at the time of uploading. An explanation and basis would be appreciated, thank you. --WikiCpa (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:VKGhai Italy GothicLine.jpg. Pardon, you are the actual photographer who took the photo more than 75 years ago? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your answer to my postcard question on WikiCommons. Much appreciated! Busypencil (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Louis Parish Church New Orleans plans 1724.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Saint Louis Parish Church New Orleans plans 1724.jpg 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!

Tcr25 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Hello. I just want to bring your attention to user Septem9th. Hope you can take action against this.

Recently he has uploaded this file:

File:Lê Duẩn.jpg

He has uploaded the file claiming that he is the author of it and published it in a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. However, a quick reverse search of the image, shows that this image is present in numerous Vietnamese websites indicating that this user is enagaging in copyright violation.

I removed the image from the English and Vietnamese Wikipedia pages of Le Duan that it was used under, but ther user has reverted my edits and has again added the image back to the Wikipedia pages despite the image being a copyright violation.

Hope you can take action against the user and the file. Vaishakh1234 (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2021 (PST)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for pointing out my sunglasses/glasses mistake and also for rescuing the Arizona copper sample from deletion. Krok6kola (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, cheers! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27 August 2021 photo uploads[edit]

Note, I'm currently uploading some batches of photos without usual attention to individual descriptions and specific categories. This is because of threat of Hurricane Ida; electricity/internet may be effected for a while. I'm getting some photos up to Wikimedia, planning to adjust descriptions and move to more specific categories later when I have more online time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HP Officejet Pro L7500 uploads[edit]

Hello, the photos described as "Photo by deceased parent of Infrogmation, inherited by Infrogmation with rights." - have you considered posting a request at Commons:Graphic Lab to remove the textures using Fast Fourier Transform in photoshop? It would improve their quality significantly.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't, good idea. I'm very limited in photoshop skills. Restoration would be great. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ny files nominated for deletion[edit]

Feel free to treat all of them as speedy/skip the discussion. No need to wait/waste time. Orizan (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambassador Betty E. King at Steve Jobs Exhibit Opening.jpg[edit]

You speedy kept this image at this diff.

You pointed to the image being free at the LOC https://www.loc.gov/item/2020731396/ . That page claims:

No known restrictions on publication. For information see "Bernard Gotfryd," https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/res.592.gotf

However, following the link says fair use is OK, but it has the following seemingly nonsensical statement:

There are no known copyright restrictions on Bernard Gotfryd's photographs in Library of Congress collections. Mr. Gotfryd's photographs were restricted during his lifetime. Mr. Gotfryd died in 2016. Privacy and publicity rights may apply.

If he died in 2016, his copyrights run for another 70 years.

Furthermore, looking at the LOC meaning of no known restrictions at https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html gives "the situations where this phrase is used" but those situations do not clearly apply to this image (e.g., "The image is from a late 19th or early 20th century collection for which there is no evidence of any rights holder"). More importantly, the section ends with the statement "These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply."

I think the DR should continue to run because there is no clear evidence.

Given the statements on the LOC website, I would vote to delete. The Macintosh came out in 1984, so a corporate copyright would run to 2079 and a personal copyright would run until 2086.

I do not see FoP because the image is about Steve Jobs.

Glrx (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I note that we have a Category:PD-Gotfryd, so if there is a problem it is wider than this one photo; perhaps discuss if {{PD-Gotfryd}} is valid. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the copyrights are now free. I saw your comment about Gotfryd's after death release. Glrx (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Good! Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture Nomination[edit]

FPCandiateicon.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Steve Jobs and Macintosh computer, January 1984, by Bernard Gotfryd- border cropped.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- DS (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

License "update" - don't withdraw licence[edit]

Commons:License revocation is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. The discussion about the subject did not seem to reach a consensus. Removing a license tag from a file description page does not revoke the relevant license and the revision history is available if there is any question that the image was licensed a particular way at a particular time. Regards, Nv8200p (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Interesting nuance. I note however that there seems general agreement that the licenses cannot be revoked. Removing a license which is still valid from the image description page seems problematic to me - rather like there are "secret" valid license options for a photo that can only be discovered by those who search the image edit history. Whether not actually prohibited, this seems to me against the spirit of irrevocable free license. Perhaps this merits more discussion some time elsewhere. I contacted you under the impression (misunderstanding?) that this was not allowed. Thanks for you work and attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:ReagansSinatraWhitehouseDance.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:ReagansSinatraWhitehouseDance.jpg 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!

Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry moore, Forma squadrata con taglio, 1974, 02.jpg [edit]

This file had a temporary authorizazion for uploading images during WikiLovesMonuments Italy, there should be also a tag on it saying not to delete it as we have obtained a specific authorizaztion, so you cannot just speedydelete the file. Please restore it. Also File:Henry moore, Forma squadrata con taglio, 1974, 01.jpg and othere related files. Thank you --Sailko (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "temporary authorization", but I note that the image was not individually tagged for inclusion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prato-01,02,2012-Monumento di Henry Moore con neve.jpg, so on your request I restored it. (Question as to if this is DW problem of Moore's work seems to remain; but I'll leave it for those who understand the nuances of the "authorization" tag.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "authorization" from the heirs of the artist Henry Moore? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I placed the WLM tag in the category too, so it would be more obvious for the next users and administrators. You should revert all the deleted images which were not in the list, and also revert the Commonsdeliker log. After a normal discussion we can see what to keep and what to delete. --Sailko (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • :: The images should have been tagged by the nominator per standard procedure - but if an image is a copyright violation, it may be deleted immediately, notice given or not. Again - is there authorization from the heirs of the artist? I don't see how anyone else can make authorization regarding the copyright status of a work of Henry Moore. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my reply to you on the closed deletion request linked above: I suggest taking it up on Undeletion requests or some other forum you think appropriate. I deleted images that were proposed for deletion because I agreed with the nomination, as the photos seemed to be derivative work copyright violations. My underestanding it that Commons does not allow copyright violations. I am unclear as to what sort of authorization (other than something like the actual heirs of Moore releasing their rights into the public domain) can take precedence. I hope you can find some other admin who understands your objections better. Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it' a WLM file... lack of FOP does not imply that the author has solely and preferentially the choice regarding the rightz of reproduction, for example such rights can be given to the owner (or shared). Artists can sell them. It depends on the contract. So... If the owner says it has them, you trust them exactly as you do if the author say so. So if you want to be legally covered, statement by one of two parties involved is enough. Of course if you want to be pedantic or very accurate you should always ask both, which is not what we do here on Commons.
The reason why some Commons users think that it is more or enough accurate if they check only one aspect and give it a bigger leverage on the matter is something that looks sometimes odd in the real world. As people living in a country with strict copyright laws we might know something about these nuances... checking a birth date with a number of years in a table is easy, understanding this concept a little bit less.
So the presence of the file is (was, in this case) legally covered on Commons. If you prefer you can read this comment in a similar case Authorization was regularly provided. We have no right to ask anything more, as a declaration from the owner acts as a waiver ("manleva" in Italian). This is a very basic law principle. I consider this meaningless topic a sad example on how our community may lose its time in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Centro_per_l'Arte_Contemporanea_Luigi_Pecci. This person is one the current GLAM manager at Wikimedia Italy and a architect, if you want to check his public profile... do you think he might be sufficiently expert on the topic?--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation and time. I had not encountered this before. Is there some page on Commons explaining this? If not, I strongly suggest that one be set up, rather than having to see a few individual deletion request discussions. Perhaps a page explaining how WLM effects copyright/deletion issues should be linked from the main Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments page? You ask "do you think he might be sufficiently expert on the topic?" Sure! Have no expertise at all in the subject of "manleva". I have just been part time trying to gradually learn more about copyrights and how they effect Commons over the last 18 years. I haven't paid much attention to "Wiki Loves Monuments", assuming it was an outreach program and contest, and not that it had any effect on copyright law! So pardon, that's new to me, thanks for helping me in my never ending learning. Again, it sounds like there needs to be a page explaining this; I'd be happy to help with questions if we can get some experts to answer. I have some questions I'm wondering about now: Is everything tagged with "Wiki Loves Monuments" exempt from deletion for copyright violation, or just Italian, or just if it has particular waivers (and if the last, what is the best way for a novice to recognize when something has a legitimate waiver)? What is the best way of dealing with Commons Deletion Requests? Thanks much! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization "Sepia photographs" of File:Lewis Hine, Archie Love, mill worker, 14 years old, Chester, South Carolina, 1908.jpg[edit]

Hello Infrogmation, as the entire category "Photographs of child laborers by Lewis Hine" is member of "Sepia photographs of people", which is member of "Sepia photographs by subject", beeing member of "Sepia photographs" itself, your category "Sepia photographs" in the picture is redundant. Got it? If not, please read: Overcategorization --11:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not true (see File:"Radishes^ Penny a bunch" Boys and girls sell all day until 11 P.M. Cincinnati, OH - NARA - 523071.jpg)
OVERCAT is widely misunderstood and misapplied. It's only useful if the implicit category membership is both clear and implied, i.e. if being a member of some subcategory implies that it must also be a member of the other. This does not. Although most of Lewis Hine's child laborer photos are sepia, not all of them are. That category's membership of sepia photographs is thus useful in a navigational sense (I'd keep it, some would go so far as to remove it), but it's far from a defining membership on either that Lewis Hine category or implicitly onto this image. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the catergory's hierarchy I explained above? It shows that ALL pictures of "Photographs of child laborers by Lewis Hine" are categorized as "sepia pictures". If you tell me that not all images of "Photographs of child laborers by Lewis Hine" are in sepia, you will have to uncategorize this category from "Sepia photographs of people" first. And feel free to manually undo all my corrections from yesterday. Have fun. --PtrQs (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've long noticed a problem with some users on Commons having a some sort of inherent hostility towards sepia photos, and redoing them as black & white, sometimes even claiming that is a "fix" and that they are "supposed to be in black & white" (having worked with archival materials including many original sepia photographs I know better). If all "Photographs of child laborers by Lewis Hine" on Commons are sepia, fine, have it as a subcat. If not, we have a problem, and something less blunt is needed to restore accuracy. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pasties[edit]

Category discussion warning

Pasties has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TOO logos[edit]

I am wondering why you speedily closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nickelodeon logo (old).png. Note that COM:CSD#F1 "does not apply whenever there is ... a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality." The current license claim is unimportant; F1 does not say that images that currently have the wrong license can be speedily deleted. Your personal opinion on TOO is also unimportant; it just needs to be sufficiently borderline that someone could plausibly argue that it is below TOO. -- King of ♥ 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Apollovvv[edit]

I wanted to bring your attention to User:Apollovvv.

Recently, this user has uploaded these files:

These are the files he uploaded to Commons, via Flickr under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. However, the examination of Chinese copyright laws states that official photographs of politicians of the Chinese Communist Party (with blue background) are not in public domain. Hence, this user is engaging in license laundering.

Hope you can take action against the user because he was warned if he engages in copyright violations, he would be blocked. - Vaishakh1234 (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notice. I'm sorry, I am not well informed about Chinese copyright law. I see they are already listed on Deletion requests, which is what I was going to recommend. Thank you, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

Yours sincerely, Rosenzweig τ 21:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, that Mandel apparently died decades later than generally thought is news to me as well! Thanks for the info and attention! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, — Rhododendrites talk |  13:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained category removal[edit]

Talk consolidated at User_talk:Allforrous#Unexplained_category_removal

File:NELSONTANURE_JCC15041.jpg[edit]

Hello, Infrogmation.

I would like to know why this photo (File:NELSONTANURE_JCC15041.jpg) was removed from the Wikimedia Commons. It was uploaded by the photographer, its autor.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NELSONTANURE_JCC15041.jpg

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Ribeiro (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. It was deleted per the request for deletion, notice of which had been on the photo page for more than a month: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:NELSONTANURE_JCC15041.jpg. If you think the deletion was in error, you can list at Commons:Undeletion requests. However I would suggest that since there was an apparent discrepancy between stated author and the metadata, having the copyright holder submit permission as detailed COM:VRT might be a better first step. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Lobods123 continues to upload files with false permissions[edit]

Thanks for deleting 2 files that Lobods123 uploaded with, to quote you, "false permissions."[2] He has now uploaded 2 more, which I have just nominated for deletion:

Files uploaded by Lobods123 create a cleanup problem at en-wiki, because 2 IPs based in Cardiff immediately add them to articles about Judy Garland:

I am not very experienced at Wikimedia, so I hope you have a suggestion on how to deal with this recurring problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's being taken care of on en:w. Is there any indication that the ip address edits are from a previously blocked user there? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked on en-wiki for similar past edits related to Judy Garland, but did not find any. It appears to be a new effort launched at en-wiki about the same time that Lobods123 turned up here. Thanks for deleting the 2 most recent files, and for your helpful explanation on their talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now another badly presented image with bad perms from Lobods123 which was already added to en-wiki to replace the lead image of "Judy Garland." ( File:Garland_looking_at_James_Mason.png ) Lobods123 is not a good-faith editor and should be blocked from uploading to Wikimedia. Can you let me know where to propose that? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now another new trick from the same user. He is uploading new images of unknown provenance to replace existing images used in many articles. File:Judy_Garland_in_The_Wizard_of_Oz_trailer.jpg is one and File:Judy Garland in A Star is Born trailer.jpg (which I tried to revert) is another. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given short term block (2 weeks) with notice that further copyviols may result in indef block. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help with this problem. If you get a chance, can you please revert one image where he replaced a file widely in use with his own less-good version? I put current version into this talk page section, feel free to remove. (I reverted the other file where he did the same thing but I am not confident that I did it correctly.) HouseOfChange (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done For future reference, you can make a link to a file without displaying the image by including a colon : before the File, eg [[:File:Picture name.jpg]]. So, File:Judy_Garland_in_The_Wizard_of_Oz_trailer.jpg. Cheers, - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And I saved that method to my WikiTools page.[5] HouseOfChange (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lobods123 is still blocked but I think Xobrooklyne is a sock based on this bad-perm upload and its insertion into "Judy Garland" at en-wiki. I went to CheckUser but I am not an admin so I could not file a request. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that an earlier photo uploaded by Xobrooklyne File:Jefferson_Lobo.png was taken in Cardiff, which is also the location of troublesome IPs inserting mess at en-Wiki.[6][7] HouseOfChange (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Deletion Request[edit]

Hello,

I hope you are well.

I have responded to your question that you asked me the other day regarding a photo that I requested for deletion. I’m new here so I’m not sure if I’ve responded correctly so I apologise in advance!! This is the link below:-

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pride_in_London_2016_-_KTC_(164).jpg

Thank you for your time. Illipsis (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I'm aware of it, and have the discussion on my watch list. I have asked the photographer/uploader to comment - they have been active here on Commons since the request was made, but have not yet commented on the deletion request. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Infrogmation,

I note on your reply to my image deletion request that I’ve made, that you would possibly be willing to be persuaded to change your vote to allow for its deletion? I’d be grateful for the opportunity for this to happen but I can’t really give my full reasons on a public forum unfortunately. Do you have an email address that I could contact you on from my work email address so that we could discuss this further?

Thank you. Illipsis. Illipsis (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of pre-1978 US works[edit]

Hi, I think your speedy closures of 1 2 3 are contrary to the newly amended text of COM:CSD#F1, which states: "Content is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder. This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality" (emphasis mine). Note that the source site is not required to contain the information necessary to determine copyright status; that's why it says "further research". You cite COM:PCP, which should never be uttered in the same breath as speedy deletion; PCP is meant to be a last-resort assumption when all avenues of investigation have been exhausted. -- King of ♥ 20:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. In the future I shall let such cases play out in case someone cares to do copyright research and turns up a favorable finding. (The items were under unsupported license claims, with no evidence of free license at given source, hence my deletions. Any you feel strongly enough that they should be undeleted?) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case what's done is done; if someone comes around with the evidence they can file an undeletion request. Just wanted to let you know for the future, since premature deletion causes an image to get delinked which can be a pain to restore, which is why for uncertain cases we always give people a chance to answer the deletion proposal first. -- King of ♥ 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Choosen images[edit]

Hi Infrogmation,
I've taken the liberty to restore a few images, which you had deleted after an IP had them wrongly copyvio-tagged. The CC license is indeed well hidden. It's shown when you click on the source-link and then click ESC to end full-screen mode. File:The Chosen - Simon and Andrew on Galilee.jpg, File:The Chosen - A toast at the wedding banquet.jpg, File:The Chosen - Disciples at the wedding banquet.jpg, File:The Chosen - Jesus at wedding with kids.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. Wow, yes unusually well hidden! Well done (you, not whoever designed the website that hides information!) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Hi, I see you are active, could you please block on this one: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Нікк_лузер,_шавка,_шваль? Thanks — NickK (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this was promptly taken care of. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help in license[edit]

In starting I did not select the license but in the edit section, I added under {{Cc-by-4.0}} please check is correct or not https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corpseed_Logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycruise01 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't add a Cc-by license to anything you are not the copyright holder of unless you see such at the source page. The source for this corpseed.com states "© 2021 Corpseed ITES Pvt Ltd" Simple logos of text and geometric figures can be judged to be below threshold of originality and therefore non-copyrightable. The licenses seem correct to me. Note however that "threshold of originality for copyright is different for different country's laws. Here's what Commons has about it regarding India. Lines as to what is too much seem a bit vaguely defined. (Some other countries, for example the UK, are very strict, and a logo like this might not be allowed. No mater what country, a logo that is very complex with original artwork is generally not allowed on Commons as it will be under copyright.) Yes,such things can get a bit complex. Just try to be accurate and honest, and if you have questions you can't find answers to, ask. Cheers -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fattening up the kids - Campeche.jpg[edit]

I was looking through the category Obesity (and subcategories) for compliance with Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and I think we have a problem there. For now, I will focus on the image linked in the heading. It is particularly disturbing, not because of the image itself, but because of its title and description. What do you (as uploader) think? Brianjd (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the title and comment by the Flickr photographer is the most problematic part. I tend to leave photographer's original descriptions, even if they are rather personal POV, but in retrospect I think I should not have left the photographer's comments remain when I uploaded this example, since the Flickr user was being rude and snarky. My description was "Women and children on park bench, Campeche", which is what is shown. I shall change description/name to more neutral language accordingly. Thanks for your input. Cheers! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murals_in_Guadalajara,_Mexico[edit]

Category discussion warning

Murals in Guadalajara, Mexico has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Another Believer (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures[edit]

I have now seen two recent cases (Special:Diff/611095161, Special:Diff/611102805) where you signed with a timestamp only. Be careful how many tildes you type! Brianjd (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! Typo, 5 rather than 4 tildes! Thanks for catching that! Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]