User talk:Infrogmation

Discussion

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)[reply]

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

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!

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) 01:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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!

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） ∙ +/−

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

High-rise Building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1974

Hi again Infrogmation,

I just uploaded these files:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

WWII cartoon - restored version

Is this an improvement from the original?

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]