User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 21

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


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]

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]

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]
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]
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]


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]

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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[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 ∙ 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) 03:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

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

  • 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]
    • (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]
      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]
      • 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]
        @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]
  • 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]

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]

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]

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]

  • 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]
    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]
    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]

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 ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

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

  • ✓ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

  • 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]

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]

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]
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]
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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Tarjetas electorales en Venezuela son dominio público

[edit]

Buenas,soy nativo en español,una pregunta la imagen (File:Tarjeta Electoral Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD).jpg#mw-jump-to-license) está en el dominio público porque los boletines electorales y tarjetas electorales se crearon en 1944 según las leyes en Venezuela (se creó 1961 o antes) esta imagen esta “OK”? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chequea la imagen

[edit]
@Infrogmation: Buenas, por favor chequea (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Martyrdom_of_St_Stephen_Tobias_Pock_(1640).jpg#mw-jump-to-license) si la imagen es valida porque tiene licencia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logos de los derechos de autor fallecidos

[edit]
@Infrogmation: Buena, que pasa si el logo (Logo de una Alcaldia en Venezuela) creado por el autor fallecido,el logo estará en el “Dominio Publico” (PD-VenezuelaGov)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No estoy seguro. ¿Es obra del gobierno central de Venezuela, o de la Alcaldia? ¿Tiene siglos de antigüedad (OK) o es un diseño bastante nuevo (tal vez no)? Puedo responder preguntas generales sobre Commons y derechos de autor, pero no sé mucho sobre la ley venezolana. Podrías preguntar a los usuarios más experimentados. ¿Quizás User:Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro o algún otro usuario venezolano pueda ayudar? Saludos, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/WellcomeCSAM

[edit]

Hi Infrogmation,

I was waiting for further advice from folks at Wellcome who know better about the specific laws that underpinned the deletion request before replying to those against the nomination but I can see that was a bit too slow and it was closed! I have some further context for the request that I'd like to share, and to ask what next steps you think should be taken - should it be renominated with this additional context in the deletion request to help other editors to understand the motivation? The language here is a bit formal, but here is the context:

Wellcome is a charitable foundation that wants everyone to benefit from science's potential to improve health and save lives. Wellcome Collection, which is part of Wellcome, and whose website the images were originally published on, is a free museum and library that explores health and human experience. Wellcome (including Wellcome Collection) aims to be an inclusive organisation, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or ability. Our request is made in good faith and on Wellcome's assessment that the images in question are deemed to be child sex abuse material (CSAM) under UK legislation.
Under this legislation images that constitute CSAM must not be possessed or distributed. The definition of CSAM includes photographic or non-photographic images, whether recent or historic. The images flagged are assessed by Wellcome to be prohibited as CSAM under Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and Wellcome has therefore removed the images from our open online catalogue.

If you think it's not possible to reconsider deletion, Wellcome would like to remove the attribution to Wellcome, with the following rationale:

If Wikimedians determine that the images will not be removed, we request that the attribution to Wellcome in the 'credit line', 'reference' and 'source/photographer' sections are removed from all three pages. This is permitted under section 3(3) of the Creative Commons licence that has been applied to the images. Below is an extract of the relevant section:
Section 3(3) Creative Commons 4.0 International licence: If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.
Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the licence covers the form of the attribution: If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); a copyright notice; a notice that refers to this Public License; a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

I'm moving on to a new role at a new institution and won't be as available to assist Wellcome with advice on Wiki-matters from next week, so to try and ensure that nothing is missed in the conversation @Neonsevern: will be taking up these discussions and following your suggestions on next steps. What do you think? Remove the attribution and renominate, or just remove the attribution? Thanks so much in advance for any advice you can offer! Zeromonk (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good day. I closed that deletion request per discussion, that the ancient Greek and centuries old Chinese art were not inherently CSAM material requiring prompt deletion. No issues about "Wellcome" were mentioned on the deletion request, so that was not a factor in discussion nor closing the request. I am not familiar with "Wellcome" and have no insights relating to that organization. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (talk page stalker) Certainly Commons will not be deleting the images, so no point to another DR. Seems to me we could rename (without redirect) to remove "Wellcome" from the filenames and remove the credit line to Wellcome which is merely a courtesy in any case, but I wouldn't want to remove the history or suppress the link that gives them as original source. @Zeromonk: do you know whether Wellcome would like an overt statement (next to that link) that they have removed the file from their site because they now consider it CSAM, or would rather just leave the bare broken link? - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Jmabel, that's really helpful. If you can please just remove the reference to Wellcome in the filename, and credit line as you suggest - no need for an overt statement, from Wellcome's position. Very best, Neonsevern (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuevo emblema de Caracas.svg

[edit]

@Infrogmation: Buenas esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

[edit]

Buenas esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (kept)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marigny24Jan15 Healing Center Food CoOp Mural.jpg

[edit]
File:Marigny24Jan15 Healing Center Food CoOp Mural.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) 04:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Infrogmation, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about template removal

[edit]

Hello! I notice you removed the underexposed templates I added to File:Omelette with butter and tomatoes.jpg and File:Egg fried rice.jpg. The images weren't awful, but they were dulled and benefited from correction. I went ahead and fixed them myself, but I wanted to check why you made the changes you did. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I thought those looked clear and unproblematic enough that they didn't need a warning template. Perhaps this was a matter of judgement. If you are planning to make minor changes to improve brightness/balance, I don't think there is a need to put the template on the file page first. See Commons:Overwriting existing files guidelines. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks! —Kittycataclysm (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carretaposterfe2.jpg

[edit]

Please see [1]. It's evident from the age of the paper (white marks from black-ink flaking off, crinkles in paper) this is an old paper poster. The site dates the poster to 1921. The other poster in English for Criterion dates to 2011. The DVD cover is a reproduction of the same original 1921 poster (you see the same age marks). This leaflet which is also obviously old has the same sort of horse and carriage as the original black poster.

I don't log into Commons very often so I missed events at the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thy Soul Shall Bear Witness librivox cover.jpg. If you want to reopen to case so we can discuss this new evidence that would be fine with me. Also, LibriVox is typically precise about copyright and will not use something without clear evidence of PD. I am sure they did research. I can check with them also. -- GreenC (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for the additional information. If this was a US publication, that would determine it to be copyright expired. Unfortunately, not necessarily so for works from Sweden; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden. I added additional comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thy Soul Shall Bear Witness librivox cover.jpg. Thanks again, and best wishes for the New Year. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ming Chongzhen.jpg

[edit]

Hi Infrogmation, is this picture File:Zhu Youjian.jpg the same as the one above? 0x0a (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most recent deleted upload was the same image. I've deleted the new upload accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request cleanup

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for taking care of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steuermann! Laß die Wacht!.ogg; would you mind also deleting the copy File:Republic of Rose Island.ogg, as I mentioned there? Or do I need to open a new deletion request? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would value your input on a deletion nomination I recieved

[edit]

Hello, since you’re a seasoned editor here in Wikimedia, and having learned a lot from you through the different edits you’ve made in my files, I would like to know your perspective on a file of mine that was tagged for deletion: File:Example of oral sex by a Mexican young woman.jpg

I barely uploaded the file and almost within hours it was tagged. One of the reasons is that it isn’t being used in a wiki page. Obviously, because I had just uploaded it. Also, quality was mentioned. Which in that topic I’ve seen worse quality and they’re still up after years. And finally it is said that it can be replaced by another file, but the reason I’ve been uploading these sex education images is because I’m providing example of non-White people engaging in such acts. To the contrary of what was said by the tagger, Wikimedia is overpopulated by sex education images of only White people. And eventhough I’m not woke, I still believe there must be a wide variety of representation of all peoples. It’s supposed to be a library of images. I highly respect your inputs, so what are you thoughts on this issue? I’m just trying to learn more of it all as I delve into the wiki-world. Cheers. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no strong opinion about this particular photo at first look. Diversity of human images available seems a good goal. Some general notes: 1)Human anatomy and sexuality are within project scope, but like any other subject not all images related to the subject are automatically considered useful illustrations. 2)Sexual content can be particularly contentious. Some people upload images for simple exhibitionism or shock value which are not useful - while on the other hand some people on the project generally object to most or all sexual content. 3)Realistically, we should take extra care with sexual images for various social and legal reasons. On this last point, the woman's face in the image might be recognizable - potential personality rights concern? If you have model release or other consent from them to be photographed, sending the info via COM:VRT might be a good idea. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Romano

[edit]

Hello. Could you please help me with this? The image of Fabrizio Romano, which is owned by Fabrizio Romano himself and was uploaded to Commons by his account management Double Tap Content, was deleted due to a lack of proof of ownership. Could you please help me identify the process for getting the image restored that Fabrizio Romano needs to follow? I am in direct contact with both Romano via text and if you could explain to me what to do, I will then pass on the information so that the proper information can be sent to the Commons team to the get the image back.
I await impatiently for your response.
Best,
Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Basically if anything that could likely be copyrighted is uploaded by someone other than the original author/copyright holder, there needs to be proof of free license permission from the author/copyright holder. See COM:VRT for showing permission via email. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) To be a bit clearer: @Paul Vaurie: by default copyright belongs to the photographer. If the photographer transferred copyright to Fabrizio Romano, we'd need evidence of that transfer. (In most countries, transfer of copyright from a living person can only occur in writing; I believe that is the case for Italy.) If the photographer has not transferred copyright, then the email to VRT would have to come from the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Fabrizio Romano affirms that he is the owner of the photograph. Could you please help me with finding the correct template he should use? He asked me to help him and I'm not exactly sure what template he should send to VRT. Thank you for your help. (Infrogmation-- if you know what template to use, I'd appreciate the help too.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie: At COM:VRT, there's a draft of an appropriate email, and also a button to generate the content of such an email interactively. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel and Infrogmation: I don't know if you are members of VRT, but Fabrizio Romano tells me he has sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. We'll see how this goes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alcaldía BMUracoa (2021-2025).jpg

[edit]

@Infrogmation:Buenas, esta foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (keep)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yo no sé. Disculpeme. No entiendo bien la ley de derechos de autor de Venezuela. A veces veo casos fáciles, sé si está bien o no, pero este no me resulta muy fácil. Saludos, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infrogmation:Buenas, por favor cierra el Deletion Request, por que según el Usuario Taivo votó para mantener el Logo dice"The last paragraph of license says: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector or financed through public funds that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition." And this is CoA of local government. License seems plausible." (osea la licencia en Venezuela está OK) AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official-Arizona-State-University-Seal.png

[edit]

Are you saying that you thought the outer part of the seal was above the threshold of originality? Do you think the inner part of the seal isn't actually in the public domain? Deleting it solely because the license was false (that's the reason you gave in your close) doesn't make sense if the license can be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}/{{PD-US-expired}}. Interested to hear your thoughts. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, I simply closed it per nominator and false license claim. I see that your argument that the outer part of the seal is simple and the inner part is PD, which does seem plausible. Unfortunately a quick look to try to confirm license of the inner seal, I see File:Arizona state seal.svg ("Self|CC-0" IMO dubious), File:State Seal of Arizona.svg ("PD-USGov-HHS-CDC" IMO also questionable - that the Center for Disease Control used the seal on a web page doesn't mean they're the author of the Arizona state seal). Both are in wide use, but I find neither helpful in determining underlying source & license of the inner seal. Perhaps you know more about this than me; making the situation with such seals more clear is certainly welcome. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This document outlines the history of the seal: The https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/state_seal_history_2020.pdf. The Motter seal (circa 1911) is shown on page 18 (for some reason the numbering is backwards from 6). There are trivial differences between the state seal found in the Arizona Secretary of State document and the seal currently used by Arizona State University, mostly in the loss of details. The document addresses this, noting that poor copying led to degradation of the Motter seal over time. This shouldn't be interpreted as a new creative work. Even if degradation was not at fault for the differences, ASU has used their cruder version of the seal since at least the 1960s and routinely without copyright notice. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very interesting! A couple of points: 1) The text seems to have a clear statement that commercial use is prohibited by the State of Arizona! For something first published in the United States in 1911 or 1912, that wouldn't be enforceable outside of Arizona... I'm not sure within Arizona? 2)In a few minutes web search, I was unable to find much about the credited artist of the seal "E. E. Moter" - I was hoping to find a death date, to know if the seal was also PD-Old-70. Do you know more about the artist? 3) Taking images from this publication might be a good idea, so we can have actual images of the seal rather than derivative approximations - *IF* we knew that the non commercial clause does not apply! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would not be "commercial use" in the sense we (or Creative Commons) use that phrase. What they are presumably saying is that you can't use the state seal in a way that connects it with your business. - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Use of the Seal - Restrictions under the law
Secretary Hobbs grants and denies permission to use the Great
Seal of the State of Arizona under A.R.S. § 41-130 which states, “41-
130. Use of state seal restricted; violation; classification
A person may use, display or otherwise employ any facsimile,
copy, likeness, imitation or other resemblance of the great seal of this
state only after obtaining the approval of the secretary of state. The
secretary of state may grant a certificate of approval upon application
by any person showing good cause for the use of the great seal of this
state for a proper purpose. The great seal of this state shall in no way
be employed by anyone other than a state agency for the purpose of
advertising or promoting the sale of any article of merchandise what-
ever within this state or for promoting any other commercial purpose.
The secretary of state may promulgate rules for the use of the great
seal of this state or any facsimile, copy, likeness, imitation or other
resemblance of the great seal. Any person who knowingly violates this
section is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.”
Yeah, I saw that. It seemed exactly like en:Seal of the president of the United States#Regulated use, which is a non-copyright restriction. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me more significant than that. From a quick web search (eg [2]) "a class 3 misdemeanor" in Arizona law can result in up to 30 days in jail, $500 fine, and 1 year probation. The State of Arizona seems to take this matter seriously, so I think we should as well. Precautionary principle would seem appropriate. Media can hardly be considered "free licensed" if unauthorized or commercial use can result in jail time. I am not a lawyer, so I strongly suggest that if there is counter-argument we run it by WikiLegal. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any opposition to running it by WikiLegal, but it is analogous. Misuse of the Seal of the President of the United States also carries a 6 month prison sentence (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/713) and we've hosted that image on Commons for years. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request of my flag map

[edit]

The flag map of the Louisiana Purchase it's my own work Can you tell me why did you report my flag map? Pnn2013 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request of deletion

[edit]

Sorry it's the flag map of the Bruneian Sultanate Pnn2013 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jump. Painting by Ben Young, 2023.jpg

[edit]

Hello. I noticed you recently deleted File:Ergo, 2018. Oil, Collage, Marker & Spray Paint on Canvas, 100 x 100 cm.jpg. There is another image by the same artist at File:Jump. Painting by Ben Young, 2023.jpg. - Station1 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, please.

[edit]

I read your closing note here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denny's State Champion Wrestling Team (1976).jpg. Did you think I changed my opinion to "keep?" -- Ooligan (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - it looks like I was too quick to close, sorry, and the wikitable seems to have distracted me from who was saying what. If it was not published until 2000, you seem to be correct that the license would not apply. What would you like to do going forward? I have no objection to relisting, would you like to do that or shall I? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the prompt reply. I'm sorry the table I copy/pasted did was easily understood. Yes, there was no proof that photograph was ever published until posting on the Congressman's website in the year 2000.
    Is it possible to reverse your close? All the information was contained in the original deletion request. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have relisted it. Thanks, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S12notesqueries10londuoft.djvu

[edit]

Upload in error, so G4, G7 deletion. You were the clasing admin on the relevant DR mentioned.

I'm clearly making noob mistakes, I was using IA-Upload to grab a book template for further details, and clicked the wrong button. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

At

You made a judgement that a certain amount of blurring was insufficient for transforming a copyrighted image into public domain. I have some progressively more blurred photos here

Can you assess these to say at which point the blurring is sufficient? I will use the least blurred on that spectrum for illustrating en:Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+.

Thanks. Also @Xeroctic: who advanced the discussion. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I am only pinged, I think the Rolling Stone cover in question should be uploaded to English Wikipedia as a fair use image rather than using a blurred version on Commons, as using the whole cover (which would only be shrunken in compared to other images, as long as the headline in question is still readable) would better represent the headline (which I mentioned in the deletion discussion). Xeroctic (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Xeroctic in this case. As to the wider matter of blurring to avoid COM:DW copyright violations, IMO it generally seems most useful in situations when only a portion of an image is problematic from copyright perspective - for example a photo of an historic theater with a copyrighted poster clearly visible, but the poster could be blurred or blanked and the photo would still be useful as an illustration of the architecture of the theater. It situations where the whole image is a DW problem, it would seem to me that potential copyright worries would disappear at about the same time that the image becomes so blurry as to no longer be realistically useful as an illustration. There may be individual exceptions, but I fear it is generally not a useful strategy. If a short amount of plain text below TOO would be useful in an article, maybe just do a crop to just show that. If a copyrighted magazine cover would significantly add to an en:w cover, maybe see if you can make a fair use argument there - not on Commons - as Xerctic suggests. Just my first thoughts on short consideration. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeroctic: and Infrog
Here is what I am hearing
  • The blurred magazine cover may be a Commons:DW copyvio, so not allowed on Commons
  • The blurred image may be outside of Commons:Project scope even if not a copyvio, and out of scope is not allowed on Commons
  • Regardless of whether an image is in Commons, you suggest that I consider using a fairuse en:Wikipedia:Non-free content upload of the magazine cover to Wikipedia
Here I want to know from you what you think of the other Commons uploads. Linked above and here again I have three other pictures; I would like your opinions on whether any of these are copyvio / in scope. If any of these are copyvio, then I want to take it back to the copyright board explore further options for blurring to avoid copyvio, because my preference is to use a free and open illustration over a non-free image. The image was working on English Wikipedia, and while I am ready to discuss best image choice there, I do want to know more of your thoughts about how an image in-use on English Wikipedia might be out-of-scope on Commons.
The least-blurred one that you think is not a copyvio is the one that I would take back for use on English Wikipedia. When it comes time to discuss on English Wikipedia the choice to use free-blurred versus non-free low res, then I will ping you both there to comment, but that seems like a discussion to have after settling what options Commons can offer.
Does that seem like an actionable plan? Thanks for any comment. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably increasingly unproblematic in copyright terms but (for exactly the same reason) increasingly problematic in scope terms. I'm not sure where we would draw the line, but I suppose if one of them were useful to en-wiki that would settle the scope issue favorably. Still, I'm almost certain that en-wiki would rather have the "fair use" approach. Blurring like this is useful when something copyrighted like this is part of a larger image, but at least bordering on de minimis, but I think it is much less useful when it is the main subject of the photo. Sounds like Infrogmation said more or less the same above. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jmabel. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel and Xeroctic: Fair use works for en:Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+, but deletes the image and offers no options for en:Rolling Stone and en:Bugchasing where the image got much more audience. Your advice makes more sense if the picture was in use only once in a main article; but for multiple uses, then using a mix of fair-use in the main article and blurring in other articles make less sense.
I provided 4 blurred versions here and with AI I can generate distortion across an infinite gradient if someone proposed an appropriate line. Ideally we could identify the least blurred but not copyrightable place, because this issue could recur and I have this set up to be a precedent.
Would any of you be so bold as to agree that the line is between images 1 and 2, of the four that I proposed? Can I bring that consensus to broader discussion?
And it may happen in the end that English Wikipedia says that blurred images are unwelcome, but I do want to propose the best available blurred option where fair use cannot apply. Thanks for further consideration. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) At first look I'd agree that the image you linked is blurred enough to likely not be a DW copyright problem. As to other questions, I'm not particularly issued in taking a deep dive at this time; I suggest discussion somewhere other than my talk page. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Press photo of William Holden and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (back).jpg

[edit]

File:Press photo of William Holden and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (front).jpg has the copyright notice, so strictly speaking there is no need for the back as it's not "no notice", but "not renewed". Though it's unclear who checked the "not renewed" and how it was checked. --Rosenzweig τ 21:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the folder of Haraway Cyborgs created by DALL-E?

[edit]

Hello Infrogmation: I was looking for the collection of Haraway cyborgs created by my students using DALL-E last year. Was Category:DALL-E Haraway Cyborgs moved or modified? I am asking because the banner mentions you deleted the empty category, so maybe you have a better idea of what happened (?). Any help or information is much appreciated. Thanks, Doctorxgc (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:DALL-E Haraway Cyborgs. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

template fixes required

[edit]

Hi. I see you have created Category:2002 in St. Augustine, Florida, which uses on Template:StAugFLyear which relies on Template:US cities by year. There are things broken there as it is showing a flag requirement, yet the documentation for the base template says that a flag is optional, plus what seems like other ugly redlinks. Would you please invest some time to work out what is wrong there. We should also consider that the links should only show only when the pages exist, not ugly red links. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the category is just an example of many that are broken through the use of the base template. Many cats are showing in Category:Category pages with broken file links due to this  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on Commons Categories?

[edit]

Hi! I recently created a Commons Category on the Gilmore's Directory, which was a publication from New Orleans in the 19th and 20th centuries to benefit Louisiana sugarcane growers. Can you suggest some categories for this category? Thank you for the help. Nolabob (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2022-03-04 Rogerio Lobato.png

[edit]

Hello Infrogmation! I do not understand your decision to delete File:2022-03-04 Rogerio Lobato.png. The whole video is clearly tagged with CC B 3.0

It is simpley wrong, there is "No permission". Greetings, JPF (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JPF (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted and del listing fixed. Thank YOU! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infrogmation/Archive_21&oldid=857535800"