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[reply]
    • Note: This was 2009. More than a dozen years later, I have still never been ASKED. I wonder if any else has. If changing license was actually considered of important for the project, I would have thought something like asking might have been attempted. Clearly this is not the case. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 18, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 19, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 20.

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.


Richard Koch, architectural photographer[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation. Do you know of any public domain photographs or caricatures or other images of New Orleans architectural photographer and preservationist Richard Koch? There are a lot of photographs by him in the public domain, but I don't know of any of Koch himself. I'm working on a Wikipedia article about him and would like to have an image. Many thanks for your input on this. Nolabob (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shepherd Brown Mansion[edit]

Do you know of any public domain images of the Shepherd Brown house in New Orleans? I understand it was one of the most striking private residences in the city prior to its demolition in 1930. BTW, I've seen different spellings of the name, including Shepherd and Shepard. Also, I've never seen a definitive discussion of its history, although perhaps one is buried somewhere in the Times-Picayune archives. Thanks! Nolabob (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't know it by name, but striking mansions were a fairly popular topic for photographing. Would you know the street it was on? Maybe address or cross street? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately I do not yet know anything more about the mansion than what I stated in my question. I sent an inquiry to the Preservation Resource Center of NO. Hopefully they'll respond with useful information, and I'll be able to get back to you. Thank you as always for your diligence in documenting the people, history and culture of NOLA. Nolabob (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I found out that the Shepherd Brown mansion was at the corner of St. Charles Ave and Conery Street, but I still do not know the exact street address. Nolabob (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Potentially helpful, thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The address was 2833 St. Charles Avenue. The home was also known as the Madame Chaffraix house. I found one photo of it, through the Tulane University Special Collection, but it is not clear that this photo is in the public domain without copyright restriction. Nolabob (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos in New Orleans[edit]

Hello Infrogmation (talk · contribs). As I know you often take photos in New Orleans, it would be cool if you take photos of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church (new modern building) and Fifth African Baptist Church NOLA (new modern building). Indeed, the social commitments of these churches make them inspiring churches. Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (Wikipedia:WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. The Fifth African Baptist - Robertson St off Louisiana Avenue? Not far out of my way later this month, probably. I don't often get out to Eastern New Orleans where the new "Franklin Avenue" Church is - I'll see if I can start a list with that and a few other things to photograph in Eastern New Orleans when I have a half day free to drive around. peace to you as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Infrogmation (talk · contribs). Thank you very much for the high-quality photos with the sun, it is much appreciated. I like modern buildings (as it demonstrates the vitality of the Christian faith); it is therefore a great discovery for Category:Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church, New Orleans. I also like the File:Louisiana Avenue at Loyola Avenue, Uptown New Orleans, 16 May 2023 - Pilgrim's Rest Baptist Church No 2.jpg name (lol). I will try to put these photos in articles. At the moment, I am finishing an article on Franklin Avenue Baptist Church. As this is far for you, I understand that it could take a few weeks for photos of the new "Franklin Avenue" Church, there's no worries. Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (Wikipedia:WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Spangenberg-designed home[edit]

Do you know if there is a public domain photograph of the home at 984 Topaz Street in NOLA, that is free of copyright restrictions? This home was designed by Leonard Spangenberg, who was a student of Frank Lloyd Wright and who also designed the Plaza Tower and the Unity Temple on St. Charles Avenue. I'm working on a Wikipedia article about Spangenberg and would like to include a photo of one of the homes that he designed. Thank you as always for your dedicated work on photo-documentation. Nolabob (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for letting me know about it. That's not a part of town I get to much any more, but sounds like I should try to get some photos some time. Any suggestions of other likely photo topics for the Lakefront and Lakeview neighborhoods? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick look at a map, I see St. Pius X Church, and the little parks in Lakeshore as other nearby worthy topics. I think I've tended to neglect mid-century modern and newer architecture in the city due to personal affinity for the older styles. I got out to Lake Vista as part of my project photographing remaining Lustron houses 4 years ago, otherwise perhaps neglected that area. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another one that comes to mind is the home at 5525 Marcia Avenue in Lakewood South. I understand that Spangenberg designed this home, which was his personal residence. I further understand that this home later became the residence of John Jay, the well-known hair stylist in the city. This could also be worthwhile. Still another in Lakewood South is the home at 5328 Bellaire Drive. This was the home of another Wright-trained NOLA architect, Albert C. Ledner. I wrote the Wikipedia article about Ledner several years ago. Thanks again! Nolabob (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I expect to mostly be in "the sliver by the river" for the next week or so, but looks like I have a good list for that area. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UDR question[edit]

Could you, please, respond to the doubt concerning your deletion raised in UDR? Thanks, Ankry (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fishing on Bayou LaFourche, Golden Meadow Louisiana 1-25-07 Drake on the dock.jpg[edit]

File:Fishing on Bayou LaFourche, Golden Meadow Louisiana 1-25-07 Drake on the dock.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NOCCA - 2008 - All Smiles.jpg[edit]

File:NOCCA - 2008 - All Smiles.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NOCCA 2008.jpg[edit]

File:NOCCA 2008.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Firenze Settembre 1999 19.jpg[edit]

File:Firenze Settembre 1999 19.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lansing Airport 2.jpg[edit]

File:Lansing Airport 2.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

2600:100C:A217:230B:E4E8:CBB7:30DF:5070 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

taken in/on templates[edit]

FWIW, I was using "United States" instead of "Florida" in the location parameter because the template documentation specifically says to use the country. My assumption would be this is because there are "by month" and "by day" categories for the country (which are categorized by "taken in" and "taken on"), the states are only "by year"... if someone figures out the actual date of this event, and uses it in the template, it'll get tossed into a category tree that doesn't exist (state by month or state by day). Creating those category trees, and then trying to get them cross-referenced to the country "by month" and "by day" categories would be an insane amount of work. Jarnsax (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I just noticed that there was already a "1925 photographs of Florida" category, the "1925 photographs of the United States" seemed redundant, so I moved some to the more specific category. If this damaged some "taken in" categorization project, I apologize. I will stay away from that for the time being. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • (talk page stalker) {{Taken in}} / {{Taken on}} are not supposed to get more specific than country. Also, the resulting categories are considered "non-topical", so OVERCAT with topical categories doesn't/shouldn't apply. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      FWIW, I've been working on (starting at 1925, and working backwards) adding those templates to files that were either manually added to the U.S. by year/month/date categories, or where they were at a higher level because the appropriate day category didn't exist (I'm creating those cats as I go).
      While doing that, I had noticed {{Californiaphotoyear}} and the tree of categories connected to it (see Category:Photographs of California by period) and have been adding missing templates for other states, and the categories for the years, as I run across images that go there. It seems like many of them had never been created, but they are "parallel" to a category structure that's existed for California (and New York, IIRC) for a long time.
      I think it's at least "plausible" to sort any highly populated "state" categories down into shorter time periods, but it seems like a ton of work, with a lot of manual fiddling with crossovers to "1925 in Miami" or whatever. Jarnsax (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • FWIW, by month is probably OK if there are enough photos to merit it. I'd say when we have 40 or 50 photos that we know are the same month in the same place, it's reasonable (but not necessary) to break down to "place by month." Otherwise, I think we really should skip "by month" for anything much smaller than a country for dates before 2000 or so. It's a lot easier to eyeball 100 photos in a "year" category than to split it 12 ways. - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Jmabel Since a lot of the "XXXX photographs of state" categories don't exist yet, and most photographs don't seem to be in the "United States" categories, I don't think any are likely to get that full (at least, not the ones from the time period I've been looking at) until someone sits down and filters the "XXXX in state" categories between photographs and "other stuff". Definitely something not worth (IMO) trying to do on some kind of mass scale, at least not anytime soon. Jarnsax (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll stay away from those "non-topical" in/on things then, and just be concerned about regular categories. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nepal photos[edit]

Hi. In regard to }Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:12gokinmk and User:1govnvl, please note that in many cases the photos are not uploaded by the sockpuppeteer. For example with File:Shiv Chandra Chaudhary (2).jpg, File:Durlav Kumar Thapa after giving a speech at the National Police Training Academy on 'Academy Day'.jpg, File:Former IGP Khadgajeet Baral briefing the press on the book's ("Kasauti ma Nepal Prahari") details during the book release in 2013.jpg etc, the sockpuppeteer uploaded an image to an already existing image. I'd ask that those image not uploaed by the sockpuppeteer be restored, and only those versions he uploaded be deleted. -- Soman (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OnePlus 8T Front View.png[edit]

Hi, in regard to com:Deletion requests/File:OnePlus 8T Front View.png, you should have only deleted the previous version. Thanks. 0x0a (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dzianis Marcinovič.jpg[edit]

Hi, I am contacting you for the file was deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dzianis Marcinovič.jpg. I sent this photo to myself via Facebook messenger, so there could be FBMD there. I personally know Dzianis and took photo. It turns out that you deny COM:AGF and think that I stole the photo from Facebook if you quickly delete it without explanation. -- Maksim L. (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for contacting. The overwhelming majority of images uploaded to Commons taken from Facebook are simple copyright violations; sorry I didn't leave this more time for comments as apparently an exception. The deletion has been done, but it can be undeleted; if listed on Commons:Undeletion requests I will have no objection. Thanks for your work. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am a conscientious user, I took the time to take a photo and uploaded it in good faith. The COM:AGF protect me from such unfounded suspicions and attacks. And now I have to spend more time to do the undeleting? The file was deleted for reasons that should not have arisen. After this, we as a community have been thinking about attracting new users to Wikipedia for many years. In such conditions - no way. -- Maksim L. (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No personal offense meant. AGF is policy, as is other users second guessing even the most experienced users if one thinks there might be a copyright problem. (I have had my own images listed for deletion and sometimes deleted - as is policy within AGF - because everyone can make mistakes.) I apologize to you if I unintentionally offended you, and if I made a mistake in deleting - please also Assume Good Faith on my part as well. Sorry you have to go to time of listing to undelete - such is the procedure. You understand the reason it should be undeleted and can answer any questions, which is why it is better for you to list it than for me to do so. I hope this clarifies the situation. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kyiv Ukraine - September 2012 Cemetery bust.jpg[edit]

File:Kyiv Ukraine - September 2012 Cemetery bust.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You forgot to delete an image[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogukan-Adal.png Kelly The Angel (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ✓ Done - There's been some minor glitch with the admin "delete" buttons on deletion listings lately, that they sometimes don't actually get deleted with a click. Whatever the case, thanks for noticing and bringing it to my attention, taken care of (took 3 tries!). Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Camellia Brand Deletion Nomination[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation. An image that I uploaded of some packages of Camellia beans, File:Camellia brand dried beans.jpg, has been nominated for deletion. I'm curious about your perspective on this nomination, since you are more experienced in these matters than I. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Nolabob (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Artwork on commercial packages can be copyrighted. With a older company like Camellia, the artwork may be old enough to be out of copyright (though still trademarked), so OK for Commons. I'll do a little web search to see if I can find out when the flower artwork began being used (I remember it from my youth). Red beans & ricely, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Погасий, Анатолий Кириллович.jpg[edit]

Hi, you've closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tempus, but this file remained unreviewed. Komarof (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BLOTTA Ramon y Cajal Hosp Cen,.jpg[edit]

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:BLOTTA Ramon y Cajal Hosp Cen,.jpg, but the file is still there (probably a batch job failed). Günther Frager (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humor Risk Marx Brothers.jpg[edit]

No objection to the close based on the information given at that time. However, many websites describe this image as a "production still", which means it was taken for publicity purposes and definitely not just someone randomly snapping a picture of the cast. Is that enough to push a likely "publication" to 1921 to match the film? DMacks (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If there is evidence that it was mass produced in such a way as to constitute publication before 1927 (or later without copyright notice), that would indeed be another matter, and I'd support undeletion. Yes, closing as deleted was under the nominator's assumption that it was a unique photo unpublished until 1981. -- 02:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @DMacks: I note that there's a "Marx Brothers Council" group on facebook that seems to have participants versed in the history of such things - might be a good place to ask if anyone knows history of the photo, eg if it was published in the 1920s. -- 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ConfederateSubmarine SpanishFort Mugnier blocks.jpg[edit]

Hi Infrogmation. I was planning to overwrite this file, which you uploaded back in 2007, with an uncropped, higher-resolution version of the same photograph from the Historic New Orleans Collection (here). It's definitely the same photo, and I don't see much value in preserving the cropped low-res version now that it's available, but I thought I'd ask you first to be sure you don't have any objections. If you prefer that I upload the new version under a different name, I can do that instead. Cheers, Crawdad Blues (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. In order to improve legibility, I was planning to adjust the contrast and lower the saturation when uploading the new version, so maybe that's an argument for using a different name, so that I can upload both the HNOC original and tweaked versions. Crawdad Blues (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd lean towards uploading as a separate file, especially if you plan to upload the uncropped version (uncropped are more archival; cropped generally preferred when using at thumbnail size in articles - nothing inherently wrong with having both). Link the two together in the "other versions" field. Thanks for your work! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense, thanks.
My wife and I spent a few days in New Orleans two weeks ago, for the first time since 2017. It was a wonderful visit. We ate like kings. Crawdad Blues (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuchehr Eghbal 1970s.jpg[edit]

Dear Infrogmation, you closed the discussion above as a delete but the file is still there, please check if it should be deleted. Also about Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Shah.jpg, I wanted to stress that the uploader had falsely claimed 'own work' and {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} is clearly a wrong license for the file. If it is going to be kept, then what is the right license to replace {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}? Though I disagree with your conclusion that Warhol does not hold any rights (the file is digital scan of a screenprint on Curtis Rag paper, and is one from the series of the Shah's portraits by Warhol), I find the argument futile to keep the file (even if true) because we don't know anything about the copyright status of the original photograph either. This is a serious barrier for replacing the defective license. Sincerely yours, HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice. with the first, it seems another example of a known glitch I didn't catch (see other discussion above) - thanks for letting me know, it should be deleted now. As for the Shah photo, I fixed the false claim that Warhol was the photographer. While I don't have details about the original photographer, I'm old enough to remember seeing that photo repeatedly in newspapers in the late 1970s, so certainly published back in the era, if not somewhat before. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I am still wondering how w:Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith can be used to rule that Warhol does not hold the copyright over the painting, do you mind if I raise the question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright? HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a painting, a widely published photo - whether whatever Warhol did to the existing photo generated a fresh copyright I leave to others, but I saw nothing of Warhol in this file, just the photo - although perhaps there are modifications I did not notice, so I have no objection to others looking into the matter further. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned before, this file is a digitalized scan of a screenprint on Curtis Rag paper based on a photograph (sold in 2008 for $157,000 at Christie's because it had Warhol stamp on the reverse, that's what involves him in this). Thanks. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some files of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vespertunes[edit]

Hi Infrogmation, You recently closed this to delete all files except two. However, all the file name with "Wikimedia Strategy Salon Rajshahi 2019 .... .jpg" aren't copyvio. This was an Bengali wikipedia event (Category:Wikimedia Strategy Salon in Rajshahi, 2019). The uploader & many Bengali wikipedian was there. Bengali wikipedia sysop "user:RockyMasum" was there also, who also comfirmed that uploader was there & took those https://w.wiki/89Zq. Is there way we can restore those files? Please advise (also ping @Krd: ). It would be unfortunate if lose our documentations, since we can't go back & recapture the event. Thanks :) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, undeleted those. (Really should have been a separate listing.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biggs photo inquiry[edit]

Because it was plainly not a US-government work, you deleted File:Joe Biggs from DOJ Case Number 1-21-cr-175 Biggs - Affidavit.png as a result of this deletion request. That file was recently uploaded again as File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png. I tagged it for speedy-deletion based on both G4 (the nomination you closed) and the same explanation as before, but instead it was turned into this deletion request. I repeated my explanations on that page, but I can't understand why it wasn't speedily-deleted based on your original closure. Can you take a look and tell me if I missed anything? Thanks, Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Looks like User:Túrelio converted it to a del req; you'd have to ask them why. I'll look on at the deletion request a little later if it's still open. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please do if you have the time, and thanks! Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ted and Helen Claxton's code.pdf[edit]

Hello. Was this "deleted" or "kept"? --Krd 08:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two file deletions[edit]

You deleted two files, File:Saint Benedict the Moor Parish Decree - 6-19-20.pdf and File:Divine Mercy Parish Letter - 6-19-20.pdf, as lacking license information. These files were in use on English Wikisource, however, so there are now problems with the index system there. For that reason, a discussion has been started (here) about whether the remaining pages should be deleted, but we have no information by which we could more conclusively determine the copyright. Could you either undelete these files, so as to facilitate the discussion, or report on the contents of the pages (in terms of copyright and uploader) to the discussion? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infrogmation&oldid=824086498"