User talk:Infrogmation

Authors should decide their own license preferences[edit]

I, Infrogmation, hereby "opt out" of the involuntary "license migration". Notes: The vast majority of my uploads I would happily agree to add cc-by-sa-3.0 to the listed license option (if that license is not one of the listed options already) IF I am ASKED. I do NOT consent to any change license of any of my copyrighted works that I have not personally authorized. I have NOT authorized any party other than myself to change licensing of any of my works without my explicit permission. See here on my talk page for discussion.

This was my stand more than 2 years ago. It has not changed. Months of work and thousands of edits have been required of me for this simple assertion of my basic authorship rights. I consider Wikimedia a noble project, but think Wikimedia should be deeply ashamed of the way they have treated and continue to treat contributors who have been kind enough to share their own media under free licenses. Infrogmation (talk)

I do so agree with you. This license policy of the commons project prevents me from uploading more photos because I do not like my pictures changed by other people and not even knowing about it. --Manuela (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Discussion[edit]

en:User_talk:Infrogmation

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.

File:DollFeetNOLASanFranAnne.jpg[edit]

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

A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olivia Dunne.jpg[edit]

I note that the file is still used in that Wikipedia article, described as Olivia Dunne’s childhood home. Rather than rename the file to reflect that, you dropped the reference to Olivia Dunne completely. Why? Brianjd (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to explain the reasoning for my actions in my comment at the deletion request linked above. The file description still mentions that the house was the childhood home of Dunne. I thought calling the file "Olivia Dunne" was misleading as it not a photo of that person, but rather of a house (where according to the uploader Dunne once lived). (I don't know the details; if you think the file description can be described better, go ahead and edit it accordingly if you wish.) As to en:W - I said "Whether the photo should be used in the en:W article is a question for discussion on en:W, not here." My closing the deletion request and renaming the file to something less misleading was to take care of things here on Commons. 1)Do you object to my actions here on Commons regarding this file, and if so, do you have thoughts on what I should have done instead, and what should be done now forward? 2) Do you think I should take some actions over on en:W, and if so, what are your recommendations? (Note I did nothing about the en:W article. I haven't followed whatever discussion is going on there if any. However I can take a look if you like.) Thanks for your work and feedback. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the file should not be called ‘Olivia Dunne’, as that is not what it depicts. But the file does depict Olivia Dunne’s childhood home, per both the file description and the en:W caption, so I thought that an appropriate name would be something like ‘Olivia Dunne’s childhood home’ or ‘Childhood home of Olivia Dunne’. But instead of using a name like that, you chose a name that doesn’t reference Dunne at all. That is what I was asking about. I have no other objections to your response here on Commons.

Regarding the file’s use in the en:W article, I thought that if that use turned out to be illegitimate, then the file might be out of scope here. It turns out that is not the case, so I agree that further discussion should take place at en:W, not here. I will start a discussion on the article’s talk page. Brianjd (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think I went too far the other way in renaming, feel free to re-rename the file, "House in Hillsdale, New Jersey in 2022, childhood home of Olivia Dunne" or whatever variation you think best. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jacky V.jpg[edit]

I wrote at that deletion request that the file needs to be renamed per the principle of least astonishment. But what name to use? At least the uploader seems to have stopped overwriting the file, but the uploader’s other uploads were deleted without discussion, and I now wonder whether those are in scope too. Could you (as an admin) have a look?

In the meantime, here are my thoughts: ‘Jacky V’ looks like the name of the uploader, who is presumably also the subject. So (assuming that’s not a copyright problem) we can rename it to ‘Jacky V practising scatophilia’. Brianjd (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a good suggestion. Or maybe "Coprophilia - Jacky V". Agree something more descriptive is appropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pardon, I guess I mistakenly assumed you were an admin - Feel free to ask me to take care of renaming proposals you think are needed. I'll rename this one momentarily. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am, of course, not an admin. Hence I cannot see this user’s deleted uploads. That’s why I asked you to check whether they are in scope after all, given this latest DR. Brianjd (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rationale for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Aimee Schweig.jpg[edit]

Hi Infrogmation; though I obviously agree with your decision to delete that file, I think you didn't use a quite fitting rationale, as you wrote "Artist died too recently to make it PD-Art". As it apparently (most likely) is an US work, it isn't the artist's year of death that determines the copyright protection for this work. Maybe modify your closing comments? The fitting reason for deletion, I think, would be that the year of first publication isn't early enough / unclear. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I modified my comment to simply say "Not yet established to be PD". Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to thank you for the advice re RISD images[edit]

The email has been forwarded to COM:VRT as recommended. Thanks! Mabalu (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lamilli deletion request[edit]

Hi! I'm writing since in your comment in the Files uploaded by Lamilli deletion request, as well as in your closure, you mentioned that you would not oppose to a renomination if the scope was narrower. I've thought about opening another request, choosing only pictures with low quality or resolution, and those that are in broad categories. I've also thought that starting one for nudity and other with not nudity could also help. Do you think this is a good criteria and would you be alright with it? Best regards! NoonIcarus (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some things might be matters of opinion, but I'd suggest starting with a few of the very worst - poor quality photos that don't illustrate anything that we don't already have other better photos illustrating. See how it goes from there. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I thought about something similar, but I'll take extra care when making the next nomination in that case. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delreq[edit]

Hello!

Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nihonjoe. Two files seem to have not been deleted along with the rest. Jonteemil (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks pointing that out. Fixed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg[edit]

Hi, the nominator has reopened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg after you closed it as Keep. They have updated the File and File Talk pages but have not readded it to the deletion queue, meaning it is an orphaned discussion that no one can see is open. What is the best way to handle this? Revert the nominator so it is closed as Keep or humour them and relist it as an active discussion? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I reverted the unilateral reopening, which was out of procedure. I alerted the user to this - and noted that they are free to renominate if they think I made a mistake, and I'm happy to let another admin decide the next listing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Art work, I don't think it's graffiti. (6582137565).jpg[edit]

What about File:Brick Lane Graffiti - 7826138576.jpg (uploader was notified) and File:Street sign, Pedley Street E2 - geograph.org.uk - 3337414.jpg (bot maintainer was pinged) which also featured the same artwork? Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much, taken care of. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Felix Leitner (AUT) 2020.jpg[edit]

Smash. In the face of the authors. You show us, how unimportant we are and that we have to give and then to be silent.

If all Admins would act like you, Commons would be dead, because no Author would longer give his work. And why, with earning such a disrespect. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your comment. I take it you disagree with my call to keep an in-use free licensed photo - if you could explain how this is disrespectful to authors, I'm willing to listen to explanation. Good day, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]