User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 12

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


Categories[edit]

Thanks for your help with categories; that one was a mistake. I am not used to single buildings having so many pictures. I am done uploading pictures; that's all I took and am back home in Denver now. I want to continue adding appropriate pictures (and categories) to the Orleans Parish NRHP category, though. Please let me know if you see any other slips. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

File:Folsom_Street_Fair_more_is_more.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Folsom_Street_Fair_more_is_more.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helen Cowie Photo.jpg[edit]

Sorry to make additional work for you, but I consolidated this into Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of User:Ajsinclair and deleted it, including deleting your comment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Infrogmation (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

heyy[edit]

if you understand this, good: HEY, tranquilo. No tienes porque molestarte. He hecho buenas acciones en Wikipedia (inglesa y española, a veces de Wikipedias de otros idiomas), pero no he hecho vandalismo. Asumo mi responsabilidad de mantener Wikipedia un orden. Ya se que fue un error inapropiado hacer vandalismo en esa página, pero también es serlo si bloqueas a un user solo por haber hecho vandalismo erróneo

Sincerely

Pollito con Papas (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DOCUMERICA photos[edit]

Take a look at the latest DOCUMERICA uploads. There is now a "place" field with the location, and even the coordinates. :-) Dominic (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Looks great, thanks! Infrogmation (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Permission[edit]

Hello Infrogmation

Thank you for your interest. That images doesn't have EXIF data and has low resolution so it will makes people think that image is a copyvio. So if the uploader is the real author, he or she must confirm it by sending the permission to OTRS (OTRS not only applies for images come from another person but also the uploader's own work. You may know this set of images by JJ Georges who always sends OTRS permission for his own work. I think you shouldn't remove the tag, please let the uploader see it and send the permission to confirm it. Best Regards,--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Crachoir en cave.JPG, File:Crachoir by JM Rosier.JPG[edit]

Hi! Did you know that Category:Spittoons is already in Category:Expectoration so we don't need to duplicate those files' presence in that category? Or I don't know about some rules that determine when we have to leave such duplication? Vinne2 (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The image not only shows the spittoon, but also the specific verb, hence my edit. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cat Yronwode[edit]

The fact that her name is a proper noun, and therefore, is properly capitalized. Most of the sources in her Wikipedia article give her name as the capitalized form, as does the article title itself. Since that's how he is mostly known, that's how her category page should be written. In addition, Commons links in Wikipedia articles are properly linked to the category page as "commonscategory". Nightscream

The article states that she prefers the uncapitalized form and uses it herself. Infrogmation


Nude image[edit]

The reason why its marked for deletion because the picture violates the community guidelines. I just needed deleted so that no body here can see them anymore. Thats why they have to be reported to the site so that it can take it down. Cataloni was the one who uploaded. For that one. Cataloni is gonna get in trouble with Wikimedia for posting that content. Sexual content is not allowed in the site ever so you may have to put that rule on the image policies accordingly.--71.94.172.52

I think you are mistaken in your misunderstanding of guidelines and practices on Commons. In any case, current discussion about the image is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:At the nudist beach.jpg; please relevant discussion there, thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"People with beer bottles"[edit]

RE [1]: I can see why File:Rainier Beer - filling bottles - 1900.jpg would go in Category:People with beer bottles, in that the image contains both people and beer bottles, but it sees to me to be a rather different sort of thing than the other images in the category. Every other image in the category seems to relate to the consumption of beer; this one relates to its production.Is the category simply meant to intersect all pictures that contain both a person and a beer bottle? That seems an odd concept for a category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There was already a "beer bottles" category, and I noticed a "people with bottles" category was recently being populated, so I thought a category for the intersection of the two would be reasonable. That's as much thought as I gave it. Looking at what is in it, you're right, almost but not quite all is related to beer consumption. There's already a "beer drinking" category. I'm open to suggestions for reworking, renaming, subcategorizing, whatever seems reasonable. Cheers indeed, Infrogmation (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the "people with beer bottles" is mostly fine as it is; I think it is harmless to have this one in that category but it also needs to be in a category where it will be found. We should probably add this (and some other old images of the Rainier brewery around that time) to Category:Beer-brewing; possibly we should also have a Category:Bottling, which doesn't currently exist. Your thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Beer brewing and bottling both seem to me to be reasonable categories. I can't think of any reason off hand not to go ahead and add them to the image and create the second -- as a subcategory of bottles and what else, "manufacturing"? Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your family photo[edit]

Greetings. You may comment on a rather unusual situation with your family photo. There is a retouched duplicate of the file on the Commons with a fake atribution, so it is up to you what to do with this. --Mitrius (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. A rather unusual case of fraudulent misuse of images on Commons! I wonder what my grandmother would think of people mistaking her for a famous Belarusian poet... Infrogmation (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Flickrwashing[edit]

Hi there. I thought you might want to take a look at this discussion that we're hoping to gather some interest in that was recently brought up on a deletion page: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Painted_Girls2.jpg. Ciao! Missvain (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting will not help[edit]

Hi! Reverting the bot will not help. You have to read the instructions and fix the problem. If you think bot makes a mistake informing the owner may help :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. Solution was far from evident from the edits. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Coatzacoalcos[edit]

I was at first reluctant to place File:Escolleras Coatzacoalcos.jpg into the new Category:Coatzacoalcos River, until I took a closer look and realized that the mouth of the river occupies most of the right hand side of the frame, that the lighthouse at the end of both the Coatzacoalcos and Allende jetties are visible, and most of the jetty on the Allende (or right) bank is visible. Curiously, there are green patches visible in the river. The river is used for commercial navigation at its mouth and it is strange to see those green patches there in the river. The patches are not visible in the adjacent Bay of Campeche (even if they are exposed weeds at low tide, navigation looks dicey). I think the photo makes for an interesting shot of the mouth of the Coatzacoalcos River, hence I placed it into that category. 69.115.42.244 01:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. Fine by me. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

source for dating this photo to 1859 [1][edit]

Sorry. Obvioulsly mistake.Palamède (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I just wanted to make sure. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk)

Category:Color photographs of people[edit]

Hi Infrogmation, what was your intention with that category? Eventually meant as an equal to b/w photographs of people ;-). Likely 80 percent of photographs of people are in color. --Túrelio (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wyland whales in Apple Valley[edit]

"Copyright violation"? Explain, please. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Derivative works. Photo of a mural; the copyright belongs to the artist, not the photographer. I could find no evidence on the artist's website that they release their work under a free license; to the contrary I found copyright notices. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Did I move it to Commons, or did someone else move it? And I was surprised to see "copyright". This might have more to do with "(non-)freedom of panorama". Unless they're effectively the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate an answer to my question, please. I think it was moved from wikipedia to commons by another user, but I'm not totally sure. And since you've zapped it, I can't tell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to check, but I'm sorry, I don't know the actual name of the deleted image. Commons doesn't seem to have ever had a "File:Wyland whales in Apple Valley.jpg". On the point of fop/derivative work problems, yes, those are aspects of copyright. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact you deleted it yourself, and now can't even find it, does not speak well for your approach to things. Regardless, I found the user that moved it yesterday and have asked him about it. FYI, the entry reads as follows: (Deletion log); 01:07 . . Infrogmation (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Wyland Whales Apple Valley MN.JPG" (Copyright violation)
So you don't need to do anything more. Except to keep better track of your own activities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I found how to see a listing of files I've deleted. In my more than a decade on Wikimedia, this is the first time I recall this issue coming up. ( I've deleted thousands, likely tens of thousands, of copyright violations over the years. ) I'm not sure what you think I need to keep better track of, but am open to suggestions. What do you suggest I do in the future? Thanks for your feedback. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If you've figure out how to find your deleted files, then you're good. The file is now un-deleted in wikipedia. I've asked an admin I've known for awhile, to give an opinion on whether it's valid to retain in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Unike Commons, en:Wikipedia allows "fair use", so it should be okay there, but may need a "fair use rationale" on it explaining the educational value in the context of illustrating the article. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Abraham Lincoln aged 27.jpg[edit]

I'm sorry, I focus on women's fashion changes much more than men's. User:PKM does both sides. I don't think that's a photograph of Lincoln, but I don't have a "smoking gun" proof (other than the fact that the first undisputed Lincoln photograph in 1848 looks so different, and significant photography in Illinois is unlikely to predate the 1840s, as mentioned). Churchh (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be much better for the name of the file to be changed. Over in Austen-world, we have our own very dubious youthful portrait, File:RicePortrait.jpg / File:Jane Austen4.jpg. It would be better to change the name of File:Jane Austen4.jpg also. Churchh (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not Lincoln, no way, nohow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Reasons for reaching it would be very welcome on the image talk page. Thanks again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Adolescence...[edit]

Hi. Since "we" have created categories by age, we have to guess the age of people. We never or amost never have any proof of people's age only by looking at their face and body but we have to do with that on Commons (at least if we continue to accept the cats by age). So yes, those girls look clearly younger than 18 and older than 12 to me. Since I think that, I can't accept that they could be categorized as women. But you (and some other user) apparently don't accept them as teenagers. So what do we do ? We remove all categories ? We invent a "Undefined age" cat ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposition : if we try to have "females" and "males" categories in the whole category tree, we can decide to leave the undefined pics in those mother-cats each time there's a possible doubt. Here, for instance, we'd create a category:Nudist females, which would be added to the undecided-aged files. What do you think ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've thought more about that and my idea might not be the best solution. For instance, if we have a picture with a woman and another female person for which we cannot determine the age, we (if we apply my idea) should categorize the file in both "Females" and its subcat "Women"... which is somehow contrary to the logic of category trees (and even if it's logical, someone could eventually remove the surcat even if it's not a "pure" surcat ! Do you still follow me ?). So we're back to no solution !... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of issues, I think. 1)"Adolescent" and "Teenager" have overlap but are not interchangeable terms. 2) To me, in short, a "girl" is a female child, an "adolescent" is in a transitional stage, after which a female person becomes a "woman" post-puberty at full growth. I claim no unusual expertise at judging people's age in photos, but I can say that the people in the photo look to me to be "women" rather than "girls". -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy[edit]

Hi,

About this image, I'm wondering if the licensing is sufficient, and if not what kind of permission I'd have to get? Thanks (: Becritical (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That is licensed for non-commercial reuse only, not acceptable for Commons. See Commons:Licensing. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, though I don't understand how Wikipedia is commercial use. Thanks Becritical (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The Licensing page explains in detail why "non-Commercial" isn't considered a "free license" for the purposes of Wikimedia. There's even a little cartoon summarizing the point: File:BD-propagande-2_(en).jpg. Thanks. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Didn't mean to get snappish with you, I actually thought I was doing the right thing. I've learned a bit since then; not a lot, just a tiny bit... :) Dreadstar (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the note. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

deletion of 1995 stamp as copyright violation: my fault[edit]

I uploaded File:Stamp-US-Constitution-19th-Amendment-1920-1995-plate-single.png and you deleted it 10-3-11 08:30a as a copyright violation. I see you were right and I should have caught the conflict on (non)commercialism of use with the U.S. Postal Service's position (as accessed 10-29-11). Nick Levinson (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, pre-1978 US postage stamps are PD, but more recent ones are not; that may not be obvious. It's also mentioned at Commons:Licensing#United_States. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

DOCUMERICA images, duplicates[edit]

Hi there. As you may have noticed, I have an interest in resolving the redundancies being created by the NARA mass upload, both because new, higher quality image can be created from the master files now, and because we went to so much trouble to import and standardize the full metadata using a common naming convention. Commons policy isn't really cooperating with my efforts in many of these cases (e.g. [2]), because there have been incidental changes, like cropping and color correction, that make the scaled-down versions not exact copies of the new ones. I wonder if you might be willing to help edit the new images so that they can replace old ones. There are, of course a couple dozen DOCUMERICA photos, but there are also hundreds more if you are interested (i.e., find anything in Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration that's not using the standard naming convention so you know it's old, especially ones from w:Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Global file uses). Thanks. Dominic (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and comments. It's splendid to have higher resolution versions (and many other images Wikimedia didn't have in any version previously)! The older versions here were often taken from gifs and other lower resolution web versions. However note that in many cases, Wikimedians have added additional information in the caption or categories, and sometimes cropped, straightened, and color corrected or otherwise manipulated the images to improve appearance. I think until/unless users make similar improvements from the new high-res uploads, the older versions be left. I think categorizing the new uploads and identifying the alternative versions is at present of more importance than deleting alternative versions. Certainly there is no point in keeping alternative versions that are nothing more than lower resolution duplicates, and such should eventually be replaced and deleted -- but I don't see any need to rush in doing so, and when in doubt I suggest erring on the side of caution. (I'd been thinking this issue, and of bringing up discussion of this issue somewhere else on Commons. Any other forums or users who you think might have potentially useful input, let me know if I can help facilitate discussion.) Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am uploading the original, quite old, scans. And I wouldn't expect them to be rescanned by NARA any time soon, with billions more documents yet to be scanned at all. It's obvious that there is kind of a mess, since these TIFFs were downsized by NARA and ended up in JPG, or sometimes GIF for no apparent reason, ending up in the catalog and sometimes also on other pages on the website, often with some sort of editing done (sometimes with multiple versions created between the different places displayed), and then they were taken to Commons often with yet more editing done. My observation is that most of the changes are slight, though, like small cropping. I wish there were some kind of duplicate cleanup tag (rather than what is essentially a duplicate speedy deletion tag), which says asks people to do the needed slight editing to make the low-res versions replaceable. Of course, categorizing the images is important, but I see that as a long-term project which will go on almost indefinitely, whereas duplicates are a one-time cleanup project. I also think it is important that we bring the high-res images to the users of the projects as soon as possible (which is what replacing them is all about), which is one reason I think this is worthwhile, and possible higher priority than categorizing, which just makes them findable for some searchers while we're still presenting the inferior versions to our readers.

The other byproduct of this sort of cleanup is that it will bring exposure to the NARA collection. Right now, even being featured on the main page of Commons (and I don't know how much longer we'll be up there), there is no user base actively working on the images, and, consequently, they are not used much on the projects or viewed much by readers. Just imagine the increased visibility they'd get just from replacing the 45 existing NARA images that are used between 100 and 2500+ times in articles. Relatedly, though obviously the goal here is to be useful for the project, it is nice to be able to show progress we've made to NARA with various metrics like "X number of images from the contribution are used in articles". Dominic (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. One small point to note: The new high res images can be added to articles or can replace smaller versions in article whether or not the other version is deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

just curious[edit]

Where is the educational benefit of the Abu-Ghraib-Abuse in nude men? --82.113.121.226 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Photographs showing nude men are usually categorized in Category:Nude men or a relevant subcategory. Whether you consider it "educational" or not, such is standard practice on Commons. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hallo Infrogmation,
could you understand my intention or should I try it one more time? Maybe my "speach" is a little bit odd ;)
I have no intention to go into an edit-war, but it still does not feel good to me to show pics of a crime, of torture in this very universal category. Even less as this nakedness was a main part of this torture alone. This pics are not of nude men (as in art), these pics are showing naked victims. That is a difference between nude and naked. You may know this, too.
1) Nude: an unclothed human body shown in an especially beautiful, artistic, or idealized mannerUrbanD, see also OED
2) Naked: unprotected; unclothed; bare UrbanD, see also OED
Sincerely, 82.113.121.193 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Commons doesn't make a distinction between nudity and nakedness. It would be fine to put the Abu-Grahib abuse photos in a separate subcategory under "Nude Men", but I wouldn't put them directly in that category. Powers (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper Clipping of Suzanne King Bradshaw[edit]

I'll intend to get letter of release from the Richmond Times Dispatch. Where should I post this letter to avoid further deletion challenges ?

User : Turnerh

Commons:OTRS. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Women war workers.jpg[edit]

Hi you added this file to the category Douglas Aircraft Plant in Long Beach, October 1942,although the description nor the source support this, as far as I can see. Where did you get this info? Kind regards, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Adjacent images at LOC, looked to be part of same series. However on second thought, I think you're right, not enough evidence; I removed the cat. (I've sometimes been able to identify locations in LOC photos by adjacent images which are clearly from same roll of film taken at same time/place, but this group of color images seem to jump around; the numbers here don't seem to be sequential matching photos on film rolls.) Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, just asked because when I made this page I did some research and came to the conclusion that it belonged to rubber manufacturing in Ohio or Kentucky , although if you ask me now I can't recall my sources anymore. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice page! Palmer certainly took some amazing sets of images! Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Grier[edit]

Yes, the picture of Bobby Grier is from the Sugar Bowl. The original source is here. Crazypaco (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Great. I've grabbed a few more images of old Tulane Stadium from the same source. Thanks! Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ashoka2[edit]

photo of David Jackson from Flickr[edit]

Thank you for joining the discussion about the publishing terms for the photo of David Jackson that I uploaded: File:David_Jackson_(rock_musician).jpg. The photographer Luca Fiaccavento did give me permission to use this photo, and I forwarded the email he sent me to Commons:OTRS. I hope the photo can be kept now. Please let me know if I can do anything else. I am a regular user in the English Wikipedia but I do not know much about the Wikimedia Commons. Greetings. Mark in wiki (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pardon the red tape, I hope you understand why it's necessary when people upload copyrighted work that is not their own to be sure Wikimedia doesn't violate copyright. A member of Wikimedia's OTRS review will check that, and unless there are further questions that should be sufficient. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ticket booth/box office[edit]

[3]: seems to me this is both. It's freestanding, so it's a booth, but it's for a theater, so it's a box office. No? - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO if it looks like a booth and is used for selling tickets, it's a "ticket booth". We have older categories "box offices" and "ticket counters", I'd say "ticket booths" would be a subset of at least one of those. Recommendations? Cheers. Infrogmation (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I have no objection to your categorizing this as both if you think that's appropriate. Infrogmation (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

I believe this image is a copyvio but I'm not sure how to tag it. Dreadstar (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You could add {{copyviol}} and notify the uploader. In this case, it also has no license, so you could alternatively tag it with {{nld}}. For images you suspect but aren't fully sure are copyviols, list at Commons:Deletion requests. This one seems a pretty obvious case, so I'll take care of this one. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Dreadstar (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback?[edit]

Really? You disagree with my edits on this image? Evrik (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't rollback, I modified the categories with the intention of making them more accurate. If you claim a woman wearing a brassiere is "topless", I would indeed disagree. How about something along the lines of "women wearing brassieres"? Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that what the bra isn't covering is more telling. Evrik (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:New_Orleans_landlocked_fish.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:New_Orleans_landlocked_fish.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 17:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol[edit]

Why did you delete File:Alcohol cropped.png? From what I see in caches, it is {{PD-chem}}. And if you feel that there is something wrong with the attribution, would not it be better to complete the file description page instead of just deleting it? The file was in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It was listed as GFDL, but used without attribution, hence license violation. If you think it is PD or otherwise salvageable, I have no objection to your restoring and fixing it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Undeleting is beyond my powers. But was not almost all GFDL converted to CC? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


File:Speak American WWII.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Speak American WWII.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Afiler (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Black and white photographs[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to ask you about this edit. While admittedly most B&W categories are not limited to contemporary images, I do think that most B&W categories are as a result among the most useless categories on the Commons (if not actually the most useless/pointless). They just end up being dumping grounds for an indiscriminate collection of old photos, and really just end up replicating 19th and 20th century history categories (but in a far less helpful manner). So, if there are some B&W categories that try to cogently organize the B&W photos into some sort of logical manner, I'm not sure why we would undo that simply because the rest of the category tree is an unholy mess. Having said that, I don't feel particularly strongly about this issue, so if you do feel strongly about it, I am happy to defer to you. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited to fit in the category scheme. There seems to be a push to categorize black and white photos into cats noting they are black and white -- which I personally don't see as a crucial distinction but some other users apparently do. The description that it the Chicago cat was for "Contemporary" didn't fit in how most other "black and white photographs of ..." categories were used. If you think there is a need or use for a subcategory, go ahead and create one. I suggest a descriptive category name. "Contemporary" seems a bit vague; you might wish to specify what you intend (eg, "Black and white photographs of Chicago since 2000" or whatever. (Also, I disagree that time categories are inherently the same as b&w categories; Commons has many color photos from before the late 20th century, as well as paintings, drawings, maps, etc and other media which are not b&w photos.) Thanks for your input. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Carolina Gynning portrait.jpg[edit]

I didn't notice the original description. I just saw that the original version had a magazine watermark and the Flickr user had been deleted from Flickr, so I assumed it was a Flickrwashing. What's your opinion on it? Do you think I should undelete and do a normal deletion nomination? Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice Katrina photos, BTW. I shot a few of the 2010 Tennessee floods (mine are near the bottom). Kaldari (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and kudos to you as a fellow citizen documenting disaster. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If I thought there was some serious problem with it I would have listed it for deletion rather than doing a speedy, because the description, Flickr user name, and being in Category:Café Magazine (see description there) all at least suggest it may have been free licensed by "Cafe Magazine". I also note the person shown is apparently notable, with articles about them in several languages; see Category:Carolina Gynning. Since you said you didn't notice the first point, I agree with your suggestion of restoring and doing a deletion request so others can comment. (Do you remember if the image was in use when deleted)? Thanks for your attention. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I restored the photo. I also noticed there are several other photos in the same boat. Rather than nominating them all for deletion, I'm just going to email Cafe Magazine and see if they can confirm the licensing or not. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI: Commons:Deletion_requests/Café Magazine Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

People on benches[edit]

Just in case if you didn't know it already, there is yet another nudity discussion, featuring porn-stars on benches, toothbrushes, cucumbers, and other oddities; and your user page suggests that you might be interested. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I commented on one specific point; I'm giving the larger issues some further thought. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Negro_boy_near_Cincinnati,_Ohio_by_John_Vachon[edit]

79.221.104.135 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:PP-PSI (aircraft)[edit]

Hello there! I made a spelling mistake in creating this category. Can you please rename it to Category:CCCP-65854 (aircraft) so I can fill it with data from another aircraft? Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Since the category is empty, why don't you just copy the info to the right name, then request the old name be deleted (or you can rewrite it to use for something else if appropriate). If there is an unneeded empty cat, I'd be happy to delete it for you. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you'd need an admin for. For future reference, for moving categories that actually have images in them, we have a bot User:CommonsDelinker. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You can go ahead and delete it. Thanks!--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Carnival07MCheney.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Carnival07MCheney.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saibo (Δ) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I think there are at least three more which need to be deleted. Do you have any information to the contrary? Please comment in the DR. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I replied there. Thanks for the notice. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rotation[edit]

When requesting rotation of an image, please also specify the number of degrees you want it to be rotated: {{rotate|α}}. The image will then be rotated α degrees clockwise by a bot. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ergh. Sorry. I thought I was giving a small hand to help fix what I didn't break. I'll just go back to making sure my own uploads are right side up when I upload them (although obviously no Wikimedia contributor can count on them staying that way). -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, mentioned you[edit]

FYI, mentioned you at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Noynoy Aray Ko. And thanks for the vandalism help! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the vandalist's crap from my talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Infrogmation. I'd like to thank you for removing vandalism from my user page. Appreciated. Best regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

USA[edit]

All federated states of the USA now, I think, have their own template for the years. J 1982 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We also have for many major towns, and also one for every country on the Earth. J 1982 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Postcards_of_Moscow[edit]

NVO (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Do you know any way to set the template for US federated state inside the templates? J 1982 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. I have no expertise with templates. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I've made it now. J 1982 (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. Well done. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
And now I've added the template to all US federated states. J 1982 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

File:TaftShermanTheNationsChoice.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:TaftShermanTheNationsChoice.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Closeapple (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Globe_Cinema_NOLA_1921_A_Trip_to_Paradise.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Globe_Cinema_NOLA_1921_A_Trip_to_Paradise.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rotoflex (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:GlobeTheaterNOLA1917IdleWives.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:GlobeTheaterNOLA1917IdleWives.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rotoflex (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:TrianonNOLAEntrance1912.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:TrianonNOLAEntrance1912.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rotoflex (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:StrandNOLAGreatestLove1918.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:StrandNOLAGreatestLove1918.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rotoflex (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Footer[edit]