User talk:Infrogmation

Discussion

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, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 22, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 23, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 24. .

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.

---

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joe Tommasi.jpg

I'm curious why you closed this as kept. The arguments were for an entirely different image (compare File:Joseph Charles Tommasi (1951-1975) poster.png), which is what they referred to. No one rebutted my assertion that there is no proof this image is PD, because there is no proof it was published without notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I closed it per the information and discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joe Tommasi.jpg. There was no indication on the listing that the "arguments were for an entirely different image" (you might wish to contact RAN and Tvpuppy if you think they mistakenly put comments in the wrong discussion about the wrong image). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  The assertion was that the image had been published without notice, but RAN's proof for this was linking the publication of a completely different image to the information [1], but never rebutted me pointing out that this is not the same one. Is it really allowed in deletion discussions to assert keeping an image based on the copyright of other images? If I was to upload a copyrighted non-free image, could I then save it at DR by pointing to a similar free image? What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  Also, that image itself isn't even free, the source provides no indication that it was published without notice (doing another DR for that one), but that's besides the point. There is no proof this was published without notice, it was never provided. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  I answered your question as to why I closed this as kept; I went with the information on the linked listing. You are now making additional arguments that were not on the request - if there were other considerations or you had evidence that the keep votes were based on incorrect assumptions, you had more than 12 days to add that information to the listing, but you did not. If you think you have enough good arguments not previously covered in the listing to relitigate the case, the place to do so is in another deletion request, not on my talk page. Ciao. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  I said everything I said here, there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Dance Studio Mural Miami.jpg

File:Dance Studio Mural Miami.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mi familia - Zoológico La Aurora.jpg

File:Mi familia - Zoológico La Aurora.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!

Nv8200pa (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

High-rise Building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1974

Hi again Infrogmation,

I just uploaded these files:

• File:High-rise Building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1974 (1).jpg
• File:High-rise Building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1974 (2).jpg

The issue is I didn't commit to memory either the name or function of this building. Based on memory, it was east of the state capitol when facing the front of the state capitol, but researching online, it seems to have been demolished. It has been a very long time since I've been to Downtown Baton Rouge, but I was wondering if you knew the name or function of this building in Baton Rouge. I appreciate any information you can provide. Spatms (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for scanning and uploading your photos. Sorry, I don't know. Most of my time in Baton Rouge has been short visits, and I'm not well familiar with the city. With luck someone else will recognize it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:HO-MADE Eat In - Carry Out - sign in Cotton Valley, Louisiana.jpg

File:HO-MADE Eat In - Carry Out - sign in Cotton Valley, Louisiana.jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

food icons need to be blurred out

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

---

JayCubby (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You may be correct, though I'm not sure this qualifies for speedy (I wouldn't have copied it here if I thought it did). I've listed it as a deletion request for others to take a look at. Thanks for your work and attention! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Geekography DRs

I’d like to ask you to reconsider your closures of these files based on the fact that, if you actually looked at the arguments instead of the headcount, you would see that no applicable rationale is even presented by the keep voters. As an example (and they’re all basically identical) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female cooker emoji (Exey Panteleev).jpg: RodRabelo7 made no comment on the merits of the files and simply attacked me, which resulted in his getting blocked (he also made an invalid “speedy keep” vote but that’s beside the point); Jeff G. also made an invalid appeal to speedy keep, and argued they should be kept because of COM:NOTCENSORED which makes no sense as it wasn’t even relevant to my nomination rationale; Tm had the closest to a valid argument but it was still based on irrelevant points like “files don’t need to be in use to be in scope” and “the creator won some awards” (and like RodRabelo made ad hominem attacks against me). If this was three delete voters saying “!delete: it’s porn and offensive” to one legitimate !keep vote, I highly doubt you would close it as “delete” just because a majority voted “delete”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment and work. I try to consider what seem to me legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue. (I agree that personal attacks are inappropriate, and not relevant to the discussion.) The listings I closed as kept I think my stated reason was clear. Simply, free licensed by the creator and no consensus to delete. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  You already inappropriately closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChatGPT by Exey Panteleev.jpg, which was the catalyst for my nomination of these files in the first place. I really don’t think you should close any more DRs on this subject. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your feedback. I strongly object to your characterization that my closure of that previous request was "inappropriately" done. I already noted at length that I was following precedent. That you disagree with something does not make it "inappropriate". IMO this is a mischaracterization; I suggest you give more contemplation before making such accusations. Going forward, I do not intend to evaluate any arguably borderline cases regarding this series. However I do not see any need for complete recusal in cases where after due time the results are clear, especially considering the substantial backlog in old deletion requests. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  There's some discussion on the matter on r/wikipedia, also. JayCubby (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

WWII cartoon - restored version

Is this an improvement from the original?

JayCubby (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, an improvement. I have hopes that sometime someone will be able to clean up the dirty fingerprints on our copy, or maybe find a less damaged original. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  I took a look in Google Images and TinEye, no luck on anything better than what NARA has. I can clean up the fingerprints fairly easily. All I needed to do was adjust the color balance and hue in PhotoPea, dust removal will only take a few minutes. Glad I could help. JayCubby (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

simple generic structures are not allowed per Azerbaijan law

Regarding recent closures by you of No-FoP/Az. You seem to have based your ruling on the assumption that "simple generic structures are allowed per Azerbaijan law". I don't think that that is the right thing to do. Yo ought to have enquired into the matter more deeply, not just made an assumption. If you must make an assumption, then that should go no further than a plain-English reading of the text. That is, No-FoP means no No-Fop. Only a specific provision in Az law could override such an assumption. As you appear to have not undertaken such a review of Az law, let alone to have discovered such a specific exemption that would have permitted retention, then I think that your rulings are on very shaky ground. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Laurel Lodged: what in Azerbaijani law has you thinking that simple generic structures can be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it is silent on the matter means that no exclusions are to be imputed. If Az wished to confer exclusions on certain buildings, it could easily have been done by inserting the appropriate sub-section. I'm unaware of any such sub-section conferring an exemption on plain, ugly, round, rectangular or pink buildings. It may therefore be taken that no such exemptions exist. A building is a building and is therefore subject to the No-FoP rule. Whether some editors might have a subjective opinion as to the artistic merit or simplicity of the building is immaterial. No latitude for such subjective viewpoints exists in the rules as far as I know. A plain-text reading of the rules is sufficient. Extra layers, that might only exist in the minds of certain editors, need not be adduced nor added. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There needs to be some degree of originality and intent for a work to gain copyright. There is always some threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Seoul Archives Upload question

Sorry for this Act but i am so desperate to upload some images of possible under Wikipedia guidelines. I have received a warning if I upload copyright images I will be blocked on Wikipedia commons for indefinite period. That why I am asking u asking on that page is inappropriate. So i come on your talk page.

some historical images of Seoul Central Mosque found these archives.

In below it states that using Google default translator

Access conditions

Access type: release

Terms of Use

Usage Type: No restrictions

Usage cycle: In order to utilize the original negative film, it is necessary to consult with the current owner, the Seoul Museum of History.

I have doubt that I upload it on commons or not bacause architecture is copyrighted in South Korea.

After Looking on Copyright Rules by Country in found this. Template:PD-South Korea-photo-1977, now I want to ask u which rule will be prevail. 獅眠洞 (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. That's a good question. Sorry, I have no knowledge or experience with South Korea law. Someone who does might be better to ask. Perhaps looking at users in Category:User_ko or those who participated at Category:South Korean law deletion requests, you might find someone who knows something about this. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you senior 獅眠洞 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Half Pagan Rehearsal, Mid-City New Orleans April 2019.jpg

Copyright status: File:Half Pagan Rehearsal, Mid-City New Orleans April 2019.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Half Pagan Rehearsal, Mid-City New Orleans April 2019.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{self|cc-zero}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Lacy Rose Rehearsal Austin TX Feb 2013.jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 00:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Upload Wizard for some reason didn't include the Flickr licenses. I've added them by hand. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Alice with her sign, No Kings protest, Hollywood,, Los Angeles, California, USA.jpg

File:Alice with her sign, No Kings protest, Hollywood,, Los Angeles, California, USA.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:He's Treading Bro!, sign, No Kings protest, Hollywood,, Los Angeles, California, USA.jpg

File:He's Treading Bro!, sign, No Kings protest, Hollywood,, Los Angeles, California, USA.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

COM:UDR#File:EDGE logo test.svg

@Infrogmation:Buenas, esta foto debería ser restaurada o oponerse?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:BLM mural, Exclesior District, San Francisco, CA.jpg

Yours sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Komeito Logo

Could you explain why it was deleted? The request didn't seem satisfactory as to why it should be deleted, as what does "Sun above TOO Japan, see Genki logo." even mean? It isn't very clear. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Could you please link to what you are talking about? Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Yes. Here's the link. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• • • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Komeito Logo (Japan).svg, listed for being over TOO Japan; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan#Threshold of originality. The listing had been open for over 3 months with no counter-arguments, and seemed reasonable to me, so I closed it as deleted. (I presume the "Genki logo" mentioned was the one deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Genki Logo.svg.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• • • • But that's nuts! Their logo has always had the sun in it. Even its predecessor had it. If I knew about the listing, I would've opposed it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• • • • • I don't know anything about "its predecessor". If you think you have a legitimate argument for why it is under COM:TOO Japan or is out of copyright for any other reason, you can list it at Commons:Undeletion requests per procedure stated there. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thanks. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please undo my edits

Hi I can't undo my edits. Please help me! 82.180.237.110 00:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for doing that.. sorry! 82.180.237.110 00:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Admin Infrogmation,

You correctly closed this DR as a delete since it failed flickrreview. However, the uploader had uploaded another image from the source flickr account...and the flickr account owner changed the license to CC BY SA 4.0...after I told me the precise license here. As for this image, I believe the flickr source is here and it is now licensed as CC BY SA 4.0...if you could check: https://www.flickr.com/photos/105925977@N03/52343928438/in/photolist-2nKsjhN

The flickr account owner (Lewis Grant) explained to me that the uploader did not make clear what type of CC license was needed but I showed him an example of my own photos on flickr. If this is the right source, please kindly restore the image and feel free to pass the image or order a new flickrreview. Thanks, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The DR was because at the time that photo was under a NC ND license, which I confirmed by checking the Flickr original before deleting. I'm glad to see the Flickr photographer relicensing under free for Commons license. Let me check the best way to do this case. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've reuploaded it (now under free license by Flickr photographer) as File:N767TA Miami 22-11-1987 TACA.jpg. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for your great help Admin Infrogmation. At least it was a good and very useful image of a plane and not a porn image. I've had to sign into flickr and review quite a few such images sadly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pernorgard.jpg

Thank you for resolving the above issue. Now that the Pernorgard file has been saved from deletion, would it be possible for you to please look at the other deleted images on the uploader's Commons talk page, to see whether they also were deleted in error - in which case, could they now be undeleted? It would be nice to tie up any loose ends on this issue. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• From a quick look, they seem to have been files credited to 3rd parties deleted for lacking proper permission, so seems not inappropriate deletion. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Orleans_Parish,_Louisiana

Orleans Parish, Louisiana 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!

Trade (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Sarah Toscano (June 2025).jpg

I would like to point out that the deletion request was inserted in the file twice. Since the procedure has been closed, the request for deletion from the file should be removed. 2A02:B123:8012:D008:CCFF:F0FD:A95D:3010 14:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Scrim!

Hello! I wrote an article about Scrim last week. I was psyched to find your photo, and even more psyched to add it to the article. It looks great. Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for your work. Note that the photographer who took the photo of Scrim needs to agree to an explicit free license, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party (in case you didn't know that already). Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

And thanks for the caption.

The photographer - Michelle, the keeper of Scrim - licensed the photo via CC 4.0. It was sent to permissions today. I am greatly relieved. The Scrim photo is way too cute to be deleted! JSFarman (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It is 1)Free licensed and 2)In scope, so I see no threat of deletion. (The cuteness is just a bonus for us to enjoy.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverts

Stop abusing the rollback tool. I explained the edits on my talk page and they aren't vandalism. The rollback tool doesn't exist just so that edits you disagree with can be reverted easier. Its an abuse of the admin privilege. The universality principle is a thing. Use a little self control and get over it. I said I'd make the whole thing more understandable when my internet comes back but your not helping with how your handling it in the meantime. You could at least read the explanation on my talk page and have me clarify things if you don't understand the exiting system for some reason instead of screwing with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see my reply on your talk page. If you insist that entire families of categories must be destroyed, please bring it up on Commons:Categories for discussion or at least alert users who have been active in the categories before deciding to unilaterally bring in the wrecking ball. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Its three categories and this has already been discussed multiple times. I'm not doing a CfD just because your not willing to follow the consensus or Unviversality Principle. Answer the question on my talk page about where the postcard I linked to was published though. There's obviously nothing to talk about or reason to keep the categories if you can't even tell me where the postcards were published to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I can and am willing to argue that I am following Universality Principle, but I'll refrain for now, again asking you to show me the discussion I apparently missed which you mention but do not link. As I started discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Postcards published in the United States before your above reply was posted, I'll suggest we make any relevant cases there, where both we and others who might be interested can see it. Thanks, and a sincere wish for you to have a good day. Hurray for Wikimedia Commons, much greater than whatever little points we may disagree about in the moment. Cheers, -- 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I told you'd where to look for it but that I can't do it myself right now because my internets out. Like you couldn't take my word for it. What's the rush? Now the categories can't be deleted when it turns out I'm correct because of the stupid CfD. Plus you lied and said I unilaterally made the edits when I told 5 times it had been discussed multiple times already. Real nice of you. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we both take a break from this to cool down, I don't see any reason to take immediate hurried action, especially while you're waiting for your internet to heal. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If my referring to the matter as "unilateral" is inaccurate &/or offensive to you, I apologize. I meant to draw attention to the fact that some of my uploads and some categories I created were changed drastically with no notice to me, no discussion visible on the files nor categories affected, and without explanation I could see in the edits. That's what I was trying to convey. Hence my surprise and confusion about what was going on. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. No worries. That makes sense now that you explained it. I can understand why you would get that impression. I apologize for my tone in the last mesaage on my talk page. I was just supprized by the CfD and its frustrating that my internet went out right when this whole thing happened lol. Your cool though. Things get dealt with how and when they get dealt with. Just as a friendly aside since it got passed over, I have a problem with postcards being categorized under Category:Publications from the United States because the category seems to be about literature. Ergo why its a subcat of Category:Literature of the United States. I don't think anyone would expect to see an image of a postcard in a top level category for literature either. Although sure posters are in the category yo but I'd argue they shouldn't be. Anyway, I'll drop it there for now. Hopefully my internet comes back on at some point. The mobile editor on here super sucks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Reply

Kindly take a look at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Abdullah Hafid Alanwari. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zorawar385

Hi, I am undeleting files from this DR, which are either PD-textlogo, or PD-India. There is currently a discussion opened on COM:ANB about this user, and I think these files should not be used as proof against this user. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"Commons:Deletion requests/File:(Explicit Violent Content) Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing the Nova music festival area on 7th October.webm"

The tone in the DR is getting a bit heated. Do you mind keeping an eye? Trade (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• OK. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

You were kind enough to grant a deletion request for me for a photograph that dates to a very difficult time in my life when my daughter passed away. I just wanted to reach out and let you know how much that meant to me as a person. Thank you kindly and I wish you the best. Biographilios (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

My name is Chris Kovats-Bernat and you were kind enough to grant my deletion request for a photograph that was on the internet of me during a very difficult time in my life with the loss of my daughter. I just wanted to reach out and tell you how much that meant to me as a person. Thank you so much and I wish the very best for you. - Biographilios

File:OffenauSüdzucker.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OffenauS%25C3%25BCdzucker.jpg FYI. GerritR (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Good as new RM14 VLT14 --- Brooklands 7-4-19 * (40604139593).jpg

You closed this as keep, but deleted the file. Which one did you mean to do? IronGargoyle (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks much, fixed! (I must have clicked the wrong tab.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Yeosu, Jeollanamdo, South Korea - Art Gallery, October 2021.jpg

File:Yeosu, Jeollanamdo, South Korea - Art Gallery, October 2021.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you do undeleted File:Seal of Phnom Penh.svg pls

Can you do undeleted File:Seal of Phnom Penh.svg pls 182.52.45.230 17:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• See Commons:Undeletion requests if you think you can make a good argument it should be undeleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Forza Italia.svg

Hello. The File:Forza Italia.svg has been saved from deletion because it was used in multiple pages. As i described in the request, it is a duplicate and the colors are uncorrect. I have replaced the file on the relevant pages with the most appropriate version (either the 1994 or the 2013 logo). At this point, only a few pages remain, either ones I was unable to edit or user pages. Would it now be appropriate to resubmit the deletion request? Bruce The Deus (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

These deletions are unfair

This editor who is being targeted in these long deletion requests is writing articles for Wikipedia. Some of these articles have not been assessed yet. I believe targeting this editor, or any editor, without proof is unfair. The person who put these large numbers of photos by as specific editor on Wikipedia is engaging in actions that should not be a practice condoned on the Commons. Hollywood Walk of Fame stars, old photographs of actors like Theodore Bikel, E. G. Robinson, etc. is fine and welcomed on the Commons. Krok6kola (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Please be specific. I don't know what actions of mine you are talking about. If you think anything I've deleted was done in an "unfair" manner, please link which ones. Also note that if you think I or any other admin acted mistakenly in deleting something, you can bring up a counter-argument on Commons:Undeletion requests. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

One, for example, is File:Cav sign.jpg, a harmless image of a restaurant sign used in an article not yes assessed on Wikipedia. Also, File:Cr at night.jpg. These are from Cavaretta's, an article that has not been assessed yet but I am sure will pass. There is no reason to delete harmless images alway. This editor, Grand-Duc, has targeted images by a specific editor Caterpillar84 who writes articles on Wikipedia and who has contributed many photos used in enwiki articles. Krok6kola (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You also deleted several images from Category:Casa de Rosas And I can't figure out how to make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. In the past my legitimate requests there were ignored (never addressed) there anyway. Krok6kola (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

And I did spend considerable time yesterday renaming items in that deletion request for Category:Old Trapper's Lodge or they would have been deleted also. Krok6kola (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works. These are core to the Wikimedia Commons projects. Your comments suggest to me that you don't yet fully understand that Commons cannot allow copyright violations, and that in many cases taking a photo of someone else's copyrighted work does not transfer the copyright to the photographer. "There is no reason to delete harmless images". OK. But copyright violations are not harmless - whatever your personal opinion of copyright law may be, Wikimedia Commons must work within the laws to continue to exist as a repository of free licensed material. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe your conscience will allow you to restore the images you mistakenly deleted. File:Cav sign.jpg, File:Cr at night.jpg or at least File:Casa de rosas 2.jpg, you deleted from Category:Casa de Rosas noted above. As you must know, editors here go to a compliant Admin to get deleted images restored, as Commons:Undeletion requests is useless. I just don't have a relationship with a compliant Admin. If restaurant signs are "copyright violations", as you say, then I will nominate for deletion the thousands of restaurant signs on the Commons: e.g File:ARTIC Angels Stadium directional sign.jpg, File:Commercecasino.jpg etc. Cheers, Krok6kola (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Krok6kola All three of those are copyright violations.

• File:Cav sign.jpg, a picture of restaurant sign, is a copyright violation because it is complex/creative/original enough to be eligible for copyright in the US, and we don't have permission from the artist.

Not all restaurant signs are copyright violations (for instance, the ones you stated you may choose to nominate are not). When restaurant signs aren't copyright violations, this is normally because of COM:FOP (not applicable in the US for non-architectural works) or COM:TOO (in the case of those two signs).

• File:Cr at night.jpg is a picture, with a prominent mural on a wall in the bottom third of the picture and a building rising above it. The mural is clearly copyrightable here, and we have no permission from the artist.
• File:Casa de rosas 2.jpg is a picture of a sign containing a few visible paragraphs of text and multiple visible photos. The text is copyrightable, and the pictures may or may not be copyrighted depending on the dates of publication, copyright registration, and/or renewal.

Infrogmation's close on those images was correct. You can take this to Commons:Undeletion requests (which is not at all useless for meritorious requests), but (1) please link this discussion and notify both of us if you do so, and (2) you are unlikely to succeed without a good counter-argument to the points above (e.g. permission from the artists).

Finally, I'm not sure what you're talking about "compliant admins": your lack of a "compliant admin" is not the holdup here, and if "hav[ing] a relationship with a compliant admin" could get these clear copyright violations undeleted, we'd have a problem. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Again, please take some time to learn some basics of copyright. (It's not a question of if we always *like* what the laws and regulations are, it's just that that's what we have to work with.) Commons:De minimis, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Threshold of originality and {{PD-text}} would be relevant to the examples you mention. Yes, some rules and regulations can seem strange or esoteric if you're not familiar with them - if you don't understand what copyright law is a problem in a particular situation, ask and learn! (If you think the images you mention or anything else might be copyright violations, please do nominate them for deletion, but if you do so before learning the basics you will likely wind up wasting your time and the time of others here.) If you think such nominations have anything to do with some sort of personal whim or "fairness", you are very mistaken. It looks to me like you are putting lots of effort into getting upset about things without making any effort to understand why those things are happening. Please inform yourself about working to comply with copyright law and Wikimedia Commons practices. If there is something you can't find an answer to, ask - but I hope you'll try reading a bit on your own first. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Krok6kola: It's not something as simple as "Signs are always ok for copyright" or "Signs are never ok for copyright". It depends. There are factors such as if it is simple text, or significant derivative work of modern artist, if it was taken in a place or situation where the is freedom of panorama, if visible elements are significant focus of the photo or de minimis. Certainly not every one knows about such things, and if someone is new to Commons I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't yet learned about it. You however have been on Commons for over 9 years. That's why it is a bit frustrating to see you acting like you just found out about the existence of copyright today, and are having a fit about it, and taking out hostility at those on Commons trying to take care of the bureaucratic task of complying with it as "unfair" weirdo meanies whose "conscience" should bother them. If you refuse to learn the basics of Wikimedia Commons free license policy, please stop wasting the time of those who have learned. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for being patient with me. I regret sounding so antagonist. But I still wish you would restore the image you deleted from Category:Casa de Rosas. I know I don't know much about things on the Commons. I am just incapable of understanding so much. Krok6kola (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice reply. Sorry if my last reply was harsh in letting my own frustration out. The two most common reasons files are deleted from Commons are for being out of scope or being copyright problems. Scope issues can be matters of opinion, but if something is by law and regulation a copyright problem it *must* be removed from Commons. If something has been deleted for copyright reasons, you need a copyright reason to undelete it. You'd need a good argument that it is ok from a copyright standpoint and show that the stated reason for deletion was determined incorrectly. It doesn't matter if it's a great looking photo, or would be really useful in some Wikipedia article. If it isn't legitimately free licensed, it can't be kept here on Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mossadegh-truman.jpg

Hi. I knew that we host PD file File:President Truman and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran.jpg, but File:Mossadegh-truman.jpg seems to be taken from another angle. Please compare the door in the pictures. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Hm, looking in more detail, I see you're correct! Thanks for your observation. Not the exact same photo, but a very similar one probably taken within seconds of the other. ...OK, I just did a search for "Truman Mossadegh" at the National Archives photos website (in case this one was from an official White House photo too), but didn't find a match. So I'll open a new deletion request for this. Thank you! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @HeminKurdistan: I see that File:Mossadegh-truman.jpg is currently in use in fa:w. Sorry, I am illiterate in that language; if you can read enough to edit could you please replace usage with File:President Truman and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran.jpg? Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

    Thank you for correction. Unfortunately I don't edit on any project but Commons, I'm sure it will be dealt by local users there. HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

    • Glad to see it's resolved. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

File Deletion

I never claimed that I had my own personal satellite. The satellite images are not copyrighted and are for public use. The final image is my own creation and was plotted by me. Thus being my original work. I believe you're forgetting what Wikimedia is used for, "collecting and sharing knowledge freely, such as Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons." MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• See COM:DW. Some satellite images are copyrighted, some are not. Actual sources need to be verifiably identified. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  If I provide my original sources, will you consider reinstating it? MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is a GOES satellite image, NASA GOES = Public Domain MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-USGov-NOAA . They state, "This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made as part of an employee's official duties." MajorHurricaneBlue (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• : Great, good to see public domain source - which was not specified in the original upload, hence the problem. Please be sure include source info in uploads - for example "NASA satellite photo from (url here), which I modified by (short explanation of any modifications you made)" or something similar. As to "reinstating", the procedure is detailed at Commons:Undeletion requests. My suggestion would be to have the correct urls and license tags at the ready for individual files before requesting they be undeleted, and say clearly in the request that you will take care of correcting that information promptly if/when the file is undeleted. If you have any other questions about using Commons you can't find answers to, ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please, stop edit warring. I see that you are not engaging in the talk page, ignoring "the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors" is uncivil. Nebula84912 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree with your characterization. As we had different views on appropriate category, I was trying to avoid edit warring by removing disputed detail rather than making it how you suggested or how I suggested. More on relevant talk page when I have more time to look up previous discussions I was basing my edits on. No incivility intended. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Replied at the link. Please pardon the delay; I had off-line matters needing my attention earlier. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Rubber ducky vessel

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giant Rubber Duck at Harbourfront (35715472825).jpg in 2023. Hmmm. Nominator @User:Wcam justified deletion calling it a "non-permanent exhibition". I think a case can be made it is a recreational vessel. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Interesting. I was going on what I read in the listing and saw in the photo. From the photo it looked like a decorative piece to me [2] but you may be correct that it's a recreational vessel, a possibility that did not occur to me. Perhaps you know more about this duck than was revealed on the Flickr photo page? In any case, if you think there is a good case to list for undeletion, I have no objection. Thanks for your work and attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

CuratorBot

Hello, this CuratorBot is uploading thousand of images to today's "Media needing categories as of 8 September 2025" and maybe needs to be shut off. Could you take a look? Krok6kola (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi. It looks like one of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Mohamed Temam wasn't deleted for some reason. File:Inondations de 1969 - Aide aux sinistrés 0.95 + 0.25 Da.jpg if you can delete it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes a file in a mass deletion doesn't delete. I usually try to do a quick double check, but I missed that one. Taken care of now. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ddjshsus.jpg

How did you know it's Kasteel Staverden? This user had uploaded many files with unusuable filenames, many of these to be found in Category:All media needing categories as of 2019. Some help would be highly appreciated! Luitold (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In this case, it looked familiar, I looked at other pix in on Commons then said "yes, that's it". In other cases, reverse image searches sometimes help. I have been irregularly chipping at the uncategorized images, thanks for the reminder. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Felix

Next time I'll think to ask for a title redirect and save myself the effort of editing a load of pages! Cheers.  — Hex • talk 22:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Cheers and thanks for your work. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright

I have a question, are no images from FaceBook allowed? If the posts don't explicitly state that they are free to use? Wlaak (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Pretty much, same for anything else you didn't make found on the internet. It needs to be free licensed - either by being out of copyright or explicitly free licensed by the original author. Otherwise, assume it is not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Uploading works by a third party. Thanks for asking, and if you have more questions about using Commons you can't find an answer to, ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks Wlaak (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hi again @Infrogmation, sorry to disturb, but I've created a category for structure on images etc, but the category does not seem to function properly Category:Syriac-Aramean people, for example, I cannot link it on Category:Arameans, the link takes me to a "this category does not exist" page Wlaak (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you were trying to do it, but I added Category:Arameans to Category:Syriac-Aramean people (since the latter would seem to be a subcategory of the former). Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  I meant that in Category:Arameans, the opening line stating:

  "English: This category is for ancient Arameans. For modern people that identify as Aramean, see :Category:Aramean people."

  Cannot be changed to Category:Syriac-Aramean people Wlaak (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oh! No wonder you couldn't figure it out - that was a malformed note with a link to a different category not here on Commons but on English Wikipedia - but categories of that name don't exist either place! I removed the note, and started discussion at Category talk:Arameans. Perhaps you can comment there, and give some time if others want to respond to decide on the best way to arrange things. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Aha okay, thanks for the help! Wlaak (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)