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]
    • 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]

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, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 21, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 21.

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deer & Buffaloas.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for closing this. Would you mind also closing the following related deletion requests? They were all started by Jeff G. on behalf of Vinuka2002 (like the one you closed) and I think the same principles apply, but they seem to have gotten sidetracked by some strange accusations between an IP editor and Contributers2020.

Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I assume you meant to keep File:Two White Waterbirds.jpg and not delete it though? IronGargoyle (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this deletion

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stema e Komunës Mitrovicë e Veriut.svg

They say the deletion is because the emblem is fictional and only used by Serbian parallel structures, but last I checked, fictional emblems exist on Wikicommons. As do fictional flags.

Also, if it's used by Serbian parallel structures, technically, that should somewhat mean it's not fictional. Not technically official, but it can still exist.

If you really wanted to make it so people KNEW that it was either unofficial, then you could simply rename it to something like "Serbian_North_Mitrovica_emblem.svg".

A̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶y̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶d̶u̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶[̶[̶:̶e̶n̶:̶W̶i̶k̶i̶p̶e̶d̶i̶a̶:̶B̶e̶_̶b̶o̶l̶d̶|̶W̶P̶:̶B̶E̶B̶O̶L̶D̶]̶]̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶e̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶v̶a̶l̶ ̶F̶I̶R̶S̶T̶. Oops. WP:BEBOLD is for Wikipedia and Wikipedia only. I'm dumb sometimes. Kxeon (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • See COM:SCOPE - anything on Commons "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", which goes for "fictional emblems" as it does anything else. I'm not familiar with the details about that emblem's history and use - I closed the request as deleted mostly because the rationale seemed plausible and the listing had gone more than a month without anyone making any counter-argument. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing a little Google Images search, plugging the coat of arms into it, it seems that the only thing I find that actually uses the coat of arms with a not-exact image search is the Serbian institution that claims to be the government of Kosovska Mitrovica. (North Mitrovica) (http://kosmitrovica.rs/)
    And even that only uses the coat of arms. Not the flag seemingly. I can't seem to find people actually using the flag of North Mitrovica there. There are also seemingly multiple Serbian sources using said coat of arms. (Another google images search for it, exact matches this time) The source this place got the CoA of North Mitrovica from was kosmitrovica.rs. Yeah. Remember when I mentioned that at the start of this reply?
    It seems that it is mostly accepted by North Mitrovica as the coat of arms of the city. Kxeon (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly know more about this image than I do. If you think there is good argument that it is in project scope, you can make it at Commons:Undeletion requests. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LOGO SEAMAT.png

[edit]

@Infrogmation:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? (Notas:El Usuario Taivo votó por keep por que el Logo forma parte del {{PD-textlogo}} porque ese logo forma parte del "too simple") AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question about this DR

[edit]

Dear Admin Infrogmation,

If this image in the DR above was a papyrus, then it should be kept because it is a more than 1500 year old 2 Dimensional Art work where the author died more than 100 years ago. In this case, the author would have died more than 1500 years ago. This would explain why this other image of king Senebkay from 1500 BCE was kept by Admin James Woodward since it was a painting or 2D art. So the license for the image under DR should be {{PD-old-100}} This is a painting and not a carved relief which would make it 3D art and inadmissible for Commons. The NC license at the source is not relevant for 2D works which are clearly Public Domain. What do you think? Maybe you or Merytat3n did not know about Commons policies on 2D works such as Public Domain paintings and papyri like this? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2D art works which are PD are OK for Commons as long as this {{PD-old-100}} license is clearly given Admin Infrogmation and Merytat3n Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deleted file claimed to be 2022 artwork created by user Stefanantonius, which seems dubious. I don't know if was actually from ancient papyrus. Legitimately sourced PD art is fine; garbage claims are not. (So if you wish to upload something PD properly sourced, fine, but that particular deleted file does not fall in that category.) Cheers, -- 22:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Leoboudv - the file was one of many, many images with bogus attribution, many of which were legit copyvio, uploaded by this user and socks. Unsure if I knew of the PD license at the time but if I did, this was collateral damage, oops. Merytat3n (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Thank You for your straightforward and fair reply Admin Infrogmation and Merytat3n. I agree that Commons cannot use images with false attribution uploaded by a user and his socks. In this case, I suppose it was safer to delete then obviously. If I upload a 2D image that is obviously PD, I will give it a clear attribution. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solari's

[edit]

Following your suggestion, I wrote an article about Solari's gourmet food store. Your comments and upgrades are welcome. In particular, suggestions about other articles that could link to the Solari's article would be most helpful. Thanks again for suggesting this topic to me. Nolabob (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women looking left

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Women looking left 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--125.230.81.224 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Headdresses

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Headdresses 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Sinigh (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buc-ees in Luling, Texas, 2008 - 03.jpg

[edit]
File:Buc-ees in Luling, Texas, 2008 - 03.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Nv8200p (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Money from Mexico

[edit]

So you can upload images of Mexican money while the coins and bills are out of focus? Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation It's an identical photo Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it identical; the other is a hand holding coins. You might wish to ask other opinions about the "Coins of Mexico" photo. Saludos, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation Thank you. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question re 2022 DR kept

[edit]

Hello, back in 2022 you added {{Kept}} to File talk:HK Wan Chai North 中環廣場 Central Plaza lift interior October 2018 SSG 01.jpg, File talk:HK Wan Chai North 中環廣場 Central Plaza lift interior October 2018 SSG 02.jpg, File talk:HK Wan Chai North 中環廣場 Central Plaza office 光華新聞文化中心 KHICC Nov 2017 IX1 sign.jpg and File talk:HK Wan Chai 中環廣場 Central Plaza interior art decor wall picture world map fire colour May 2016 DSC.jpg. I can't find a corresponding DR, so do you know why that is? Is it perhaps a DR that's been deleted? Special:Whatlinkshere doesn't find any DR either. Jonteemil (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Around the French Quarter - Brass Band in Jackson Square.jpg

[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Around the French Quarter - Brass Band in Jackson Square.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC BY), BY SA (CC BY-SA), CC0 (CC0) and PDM (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Mazbel (Talk) 03:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazbel: See file history; eg [1]; it was Public Domain Mark when uploaded. The Flickr user since changed the license. Should I tag it as {{Flickr-change-of-license}} or just delete it? IMO not a particularly important photo so I don't care either way, but I'm open to suggestions for the best way to handle this. Thanks for your attention, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see...the user on Flickr updated all image licenses as "all rights reserved" a few days ago. Clearly, you can leave the template {{Flickr-change-of-license}} although, I don't know if it's worth it (unless you want to keep the image) since it's not in use on wiki projects. --Mazbel (Talk) 04:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete it. (Not a bad pic but IMO not important - we have a fair number of other photos of bands busking in this square, and I didn't notice any notable musicians in the band.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casablanca, Morocco Samsung Building November 2023.jpg

[edit]
File:Casablanca, Morocco Samsung Building November 2023.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Categories for Discussion

[edit]

Hi. Do you happen to know why pages like Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02 aren't just being automatically archived? It's been empty for almost a month. So I don't know it wouldn't have been archived at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

As an experienced user you should wait before reverting to avoid wars. You interrupted me before I could collect all images of pieces now in the National Museum of Anthropology. None of the items now displayed there were there when they were discovered. The way is to create a category of "Historical images of the Statue of Coatlicue (NMA)", like I did for several other pieces. When it's all done, we can create another like "Historical images of pieces housed on NMA" to make the (correct) distinction you pointed out. But there is HUGE amount of pictures there (almost all uncategorized photo dumps before I started working on this) and I'm still underway. Be patient, be kind and presume good faith (I think you know the drill). In this case I'll wait to collect this one after. Perhaps I'll forget it, perhaps not.

Have a nice day.

José Luiz disc 03:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry if I interrupted an in-process recategorization. (I thought it was just a mistake from not knowing the museum didn't yet exist then.) Thanks for your work. I look forward to the improved categorization. (Do you know the correct name for the old museum where the Sun Stone etc were displayed before the 1960s?) Cheers, -- 03:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
No. As you are so eager reverting (1, 2, 3), I do believe you have a plan. I moved on to nicer things. Nice meeting you. José Luiz disc 06:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huaxteca stela

[edit]

Hi there! Congrats for the great family pictures you scanned and uploaded. Those are invaluable. This one is giving me trouble to identify. I found this one, that I think represents the same artefact (a stele, I guess), but I've never seen this one and I have over 1000 uploaded pics of MNA. Perhaps it's not being exhibited anymore. Any thoughts? José Luiz disc 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you succeeded in finding another photo of the same stela. I don't remember much, other than that it was in the Huaxteca exhibit and it was unusual in being curved. (I only visited the MNA 3 days, 1974 and 1976. I think my first visit with my family in 1974 was the only time photos were taken). I guess the stela on display then is no longer on exhibit there. Interesting! I wonder if it was moved somewhere else. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search, it looks like it was still on display at MNA as recently as 2010. Non-free Flickr photo: [2] -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbribeiro1: INAH article [3] stela from Castillo de Teayo, Veracruz, currently on loan to museum in Rome. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!! José Luiz disc 21:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:H Zimmerman Chicago Cubs Card.jpg

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

RAN (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adela Breton Mesoamerican murals, Paintings vs Murals vs Frescoes, and Wikiproject Mesoamerica

[edit]

Hello,

I saw you had been uploading some of Adela Breton's Mesoamerican works, and I wanted to talk to you about that further, since I was also wanting to potentially try to get some of their work uploaded at the highest quality possible and potentially have some ideas or leads on where/how we could get more of Breton's work. By extension, me and some other friends of mine who do online posts on Mesoamerica were thinking about reviving the Wikiproject Mesoamerica group and coordinating on edits. So I was wondering if you were interested in taking part of that, and if so, had a Discord or some other contact method for us to coordinate on things (Beyond the Wikiproject pages, which we'd obviously want to use an update as well, but starting out a real time chat service like Discord might be easier)?

Secondly, and this is a larger conversation all of us (again, if you're interested) should probably have, perhaps with other regularly Wikimedia contributors, but since you put Breton's mural reproductions in the Category:Paintings of war and the Category:Paintings of battles categories, it had me thinking: How SHOULD paintings, murals, frescoes etc from Mesoamerica be categorized?

There are both those Painting categories, as well as Category:Murals and Category:Frescos and their subcategories. Currently it seems like most Mesoamerican examples are in Murals, but technically many Mesoamerican murals are Frescoes. My assumption is "Painting" categories are generally reserved for painted art on canvases and paper and the like, but Breton's work is an iffy case since she is reproducing what was murals or frescoes, but as new works, and I'm not sure if she did so on walls or canvas or some other medium.

If we really wanna be technical, should codices be in Paintings, Books, Writing, etc categories? Maya writing is obviously true writing, but Codices from Central Mexico, Oaxaca, etc are arguably not. It'd certainly be weird though if the Maya codices were in one group of categories, and all the others different ones!

Anyways, i'm tentatively not modifying any of your Breton uploads, but again, let me know if you're interested in coordinating with us on Mesoamerican related stuff here on Wikimedia and Wikipedia, and what you think about all thisǃ

MajoraZ (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, thanks for contacting me. First thoughts, yes, I'm interested in working to improve Mesoamerica media coverage. I'll take a more detailed look at categories later. I've not used Discord - I'm not opposed in principle to using it in the future, but I'd like to know what advantages there would be to doing so as opposed to communicating on wikimedia talk pages? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to Mesoamerican codices, I notice Category:Mesoamerican codices looks to be in some arguably redundant categories, but most seem appropriate, eg "Illuminated manuscripts" and "Codices"; perhaps discussion on that category talk page can improve. I've read some recent work has suggested that Nahuatl glyphs had a full syllabary making it more of a full language capable system than long assumed (I've not read the recent book "Deciphering Aztec Hieroglyphs A Guide to Nahuatl Writing" by Gordon Whittaker but saw some articles about the work). Even if this is not case throughout Mesoamerica, I don't think we need to separate out codices by degree of ability to record full spoken language - they all stored information in a form useful to their intended users, so I think just categorizing by culture is ok -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Adela Breton I've tended to categorize by what is depicted. eg File:Breton Maya Mural Chichen Itza.jpg is in "Category:Chichén Itzá murals" - should we make a separate category for copies that are not photographs of the original? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veterinary_hospitals

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Veterinary hospitals 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hitchhiking

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Hitchhiking 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

125.230.72.36 11:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infrogmation, I'm sorry to say that, but I have been online for over 17' hours without rest, so I probably won't join the discussion in the next few days. In addition, I know you are an administrator and have the right to block me from editing to Commons Wikimedia. I come here to spend time and energy just to help which files are for categorizing, and when necessary, I will add categories for the category they are linked to, so that they are organized by category in the way content is categorized. I'm pretty sure that I haven't done things like vandalism, so my edit isn't no malicious to you at all. However, you reverted my edits for no reasons, it may lead to misunderstandings and disputes. If this way is your silent protest, I personally would be at a loss for things to do and I'll be impressed by you as an administrator. Hopefully, you can to provide a reason when reverting anyone's edit in the future, so that we can better improve the current issue whilst avoiding misunderstandings and disputes, which will also bring benefits to Commons Wikimedia. Because I'm afraid you'll block me for what I don't know about.--125.230.72.36 14:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've seen no reason to block you. I simply disagreed with your edit that hitchhiking should be a subcategory beckoning, and reverted it. If you have an argument to make for an edit, talk pages for the category or file are often good places to start - though I see you rather jumped ahead of that and listed in category for discussion. I put my counter-argument there. We'll see if we get input from others. If you plan to stick around on Wikimedia, I suggest you start an account. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to do a good job for Commons Wikimedia. But for me, it was sort of a bit of a double-edged sword because I'm afraid of being blocked for a misunderstanding.--125.230.72.36 15:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOCUMERICA duplicates

[edit]

Re this DR, I don't understand your closure. The keep arguments were based on the fact that a handful of images were actually color corrected or otherwise modified versions, however, I removed all such images 5 minutes after creating the DR without being prompted to do so, and I also removed all instances where files were in use and copied better categorisazion to the original. So these are invalid keep arguments.

What is gained by nominations of "individual or carefully selected subgroups of files"? Is creating 700 DRs with the same rationale somehow more efficient, are 7 DRs with each 100 files easier to deal with for !voters? Sounds like it will only waste much, much, much more volunteer time than it did already.

Also, aren't DRs supposed to be closed by an uninvolved/neutral third person, not by a participant? ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and asking. My previous involvement in the discussion was a comment regarding some files in the listing which I think you promptly removed on the first day, so I didn't think of myself as an active participant in the ongoing discussion over the next 10 days the listing was open. In addition to my closing explanation on that page, I'll note that no one (other than you) voted in favor of deletion, so that there was no consensus for bulk deletion IMO was self evident. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothed women with bare nipples

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Clothed women with bare nipples 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--125.230.84.57 07:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Third-party images published by the National Weather Service

[edit]

I've recently reviewed ~1,500 images uploaded under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template and requested deletion of several.

The arguments for deletion, and to keep, are now following repetitive, predictable patterns and it would greatly help all involved if we could centralise discussion and obtain some wider community input.

Therefore, I have opened an RfC to gather opinions. Apologies in advance: it's long and detailed, but is frankly nothing compared to the words and time expended by all parties up to this point. Probably the most crucial issue revolves around how we interpret a general disclaimer published at weather.gov (Q.1 in the RfC).

Your reasoning around a DR you recently closed is likely to be helpful to the discussion there, and your advice is greatly appreciated! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting that discussion. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg

[edit]

I saw your close of this, and I would like to ask if you've seen the discussions (such as the one Rlandmann pointed out above) regarding the fact that the NWS has admitted that their disclaimer is not guaranteed by any means, and has been shown to be wrong on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, there is a group of editors who are participating in many of these discussions not based on the precautionary principle but instead based on their own desire for images to be public domain. No evidence was provided in the discussion that the disclaimer actually applied to this image, and the nomination showed clear evidence that the default for the creator/copyright holder is that it is not public domain. I would appreciate if you would reconsider the decision to close as keep given the above - either allowing the discussion to proceed further or reclosing as delete under precautionary principle. Berchanhimez (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, if they closed it as “Keep”, then the nomination did not show “clear evidence” that it was not public domain. I wanted to just point that out. If it was “clear evidence” that it wasn’t allowed, then they would have deleted the photo. It was kept, so there was not “clear evidence”, as you claim it was. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Infrogmation hasn't explained their decision in any detail yet. I would prefer them to speak for themselves on this point rather than try to guess for myself what they meant or make claims about why they closed the way they did. ;)
That said, when I opened this nomination, we all knew a lot less about the big picture of the NWS's captioning practices. So I'm certainly willing to accept your point that the evidence was not as clear as it would be now with the benefit of an extra month and another 1,400+ reviews behind me. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rlandmann: @WeatherWriter: @Berchanhimez: I closed that request considering the discussion and the 3 to 1 "Keep" votes there only. If there are other factors &/or you think my closure was wrong, I have no objection to reopening discussion. I have no special insight into the workings of the US National Weather Service website. If there are some fundamental issues about multiple files, I suggest perhaps making a discussion page outlining the issues, which could be linked to in individual deletion requests. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I take immense issue with !vote counting being used to determine the outcome of a discussion without considering the merits. If you're unwilling to re-close it based on the actual discussion rather than just counting the votes, then yes, I would appreciate reopening it to either allow discussion to draw in more users (hopefully) or be reclosed by someone who will. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renominated, per your request. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg Feel free to take discussion wherever you think relevant and useful. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. I appreciate your understanding and willingness to reopen a new discussion. I hope it did not come across as if I was unhappy with your attempt to close it, because generally speaking a 3:1 ratio of keep to delete should be evidence that it should be kept. But given the connection to the ongoing RfC and debates/discussions that have been happening across Commons for weeks now this case was special. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involved admin?

[edit]

Hi Infrogmation. As I continue with licensing reviews of third-party images sourced from weather.gov, I came across this image uploaded by you. As @Berchanhimez: points out above, these DRs have already been fraught with people making keep arguments based on how much they value the image, rather than on legal analysis of the arguments. I also note a concern above by @TheImaCow: about your level of involvement in a DR you closed. I don't think that anything untoward has necessarily happened here, but under these circumstances, I do think more strongly than ever that it's important for you to share your reasoning. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that file is up for review now. I certainly tried to do reasonable diligence in that upload in stating correct license status. Apparently there's a general problem with US National Weather Service images? I have no intention of using admin powers to intervene in my own uploads. If media is not free licensed, it should be deleted from Commons. If either of you think I (or any other admin) used being an admin inappropriately I very strongly suggest you bring up the problems at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. IMO, I think my own long record on Commons is on the whole rather good, though I certainly do not pretend that I haven't made occasional mistakes in my hundreds of thousands of uploads and edits. If you have any specific suggestions about how I can do better, I am always eager to learn. Thanks for contacting me. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infrogmation&oldid=920391751"