User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 10

• Current disucussion: User talk:Infrogmation
• More recent archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 11
• Older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 9

Aztec sun stone

I can't understand very well what are you talking about, this Aztec calendar sun stone is a vectorized version. The Aztec sun calender is a circular stone with pictures representing how the Aztecs measured days, months, and cosmic cycles. --Keepscases (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with it. I am asking about the version you uploaded credited to your authorship and copyrighted as your own work. Have you done some original work modifying this famous Pre-Colombian work? If so, what is it and what are you claiming a copyright on? If not, your description seems to be inaccurate as to source, authorship, and copyright status. If I can be of any help, let me know. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I vectorized this Aztec calendar sun stone myself. As you wrote on the image page with "15 century Aztec Sun Stone sculpture, made into a diagram by the uploader". --Keepscases (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my modifications to the description was based on my best guess; your clarification is welcome. Any relevent intermediate images? Infrogmation (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PD review

Hi Infrogmation. This work of “Azermarka” company is an object of copyright according to the law of Azerbaijan Republic. Please, pay attention that using this image in articles violate the copyright law of Azerbaijan Republic.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't worked with this image nor copyright laws of Azerbaijan. I see the image has a deletion request listing where I hope the issue can be taken care of by people who know more about such things than I do. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation requested

Is there a reason you've followed me after each of my recent edits today? I would like to assume good faith, but that looks weird. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was planning to leave a note on your talk page, but off-line circumstances delayed me. Since you started the discussion here, I'll continue it here.

I noticed you edited a couple of images on my watch list in ways I thought questionable, so I checked to see if you'd made similar edits on either side of those I saw on my watch list. My question or issue regards your use of the {{Rename}} template. My understanding is that the template is generally for images which are clearly misnamed; see Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed.3F. For, example, if someone uploaded a photograph of a library in Topeka Kansas under the title "File:Pic057241.jpg", it would be appropriate to use the template to suggest it be renamed something along the lines of "File:Topeka Library.jpg". It seemed to me, however, that you were using the template to suggest renames adding editorial commentary to the image names, for example adding the phrase "Anti-Japanese sentiment" at the start of the image name for File:Tokio Kid Say.png. I'd say that your editorial evaluation is quite correct, and that the point you make will be seen as painfully obvious to most observers. But it is still editorializing.

See for example File:TheUsualIrishWayofDoingThings.jpg, which like the previous example has been on Commons since 2007 and is in use in multiple Wikimedia projects. I don't think renaming it to add the phrase "Anti-Irish sentiment" before the caption given to it by the author would make the image more useful. I see this image is in a category Category:Anti-Irish propaganda. Perhaps a similar category might be helpful for the "Tokio Kid Say" image; I'd be happy to help with creating and organizaing categories if you wish.

Changing the names of images created by other people and uploaded by other users because you wish to add editorial context into the title seems to me to not be supported by the guidelines of Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed.3F. It also seems to me to have the potential of opening up many problems, as different editors might different opinions as to what is important or relevent regarding given images.

I hope you'll give my thoughts some consideration. If you disagree, perhaps we can bring the relevent questions to some other editors as well and have them share opinions, possibly on Commons_talk:File_renaming or some other Commons talk pages or forums. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to know. It's the name of the article they appear in, was trying to be more descriptive, not editorializing. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just now seen your rename pedantry, that's just ugly. I've done you no grievance and you did not even try to understand the rationale behind my rename request. Now I know your character. Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I seem to have offended you; such was not my intent and I'm not sure what specifically you're objecting to. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other, might you elaborate or explain? I do not wish to promote ugly ideas. I do think that since history is within Wikimedia project scope, and unfortunately there have been many horribly ugly ideas which had shaping influence on history, media illustating such ugliness will be part of Commons since we cannot understand aspects of history without confronting its ugliness. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will explain once and then I will let you go, as I am quite sure you are full aware of my intent and of your overblown point-making. All I want to do when I suggest image renames is to make the image name more descriptive. When new users come here, they don't know about categories nor specifically where to look. Adding a descriptive like World War II poster or anti-xyz sentiment will help searchers find the image they want for their articles. Even big caricature face would be more descriptive than Tokyo Kid Say by itself. You assumed I was pushing POV, I was not, just trying to better the Wiki, as I would hope we all are. Your point pushing by changing the naming request to the long diatribe was akin to making it read gee Kintetsubuffalo is really a noob and I would like to cram down his throat that I really don't want him here on Commons.jpg. You're fully aware of what I was referring to. I have encountered more rudeness and hatefulness from admins at Commons than I have in 4 1/2 years at the en:wiki. If I say more, you're liable to block me. We're done. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. 1)The edit you link to was in no way meant to be any sore of personal insult to you, and was devoid of hateful intention. Rudeness was not intended, but as that seems to have been the inadvertant result, I appologize. My intent was an illustration of that if various descriptive points with editorial points of view are added to an image, the result, while certainly much more descriptive, can also be awkward; it may also appear to be pushing a personal opinion as to what is important about an image. I thought better of the usefulness of my illustration and undid it almost immediately. So if you accuse that edit of mine of being unwise, I'll plead guilty. Again, I'm sorry you felt insulted by it. Know however, that if I have something I think is important to say to you, I'll generally say it. And if I thought you weren't worth the time to try to hold a discussion with you I wouldn't be trying now, okay? :-) Let's both try to assume good will here. 2)Image names should be descriptive, but are not intended to optimize finding the image in all possible search results. Categories, galleries, descriptions and key words help with those things. I contend that "big caricature face" is NOT a better name than "Tokio Kid Say". "Tokio Kid Say" is what the person who created the work wrote in big letters right on their work. The title doesn't come from your interpretation, nor my interpretation, nor any filter of later generations, but rather only from the original work itself. I think that's something to consider. 3)Sorry to hear you've had a bad experience on Commons. No, I hadn't even considered there was any issue you should be blocked for. I'm not familiar with your interaction with any other admin. I haven't encountered great rudeness and hatefulness from admins here at Commons. (Note I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't yet noticed it myself.) Given our own interaction, I wonder if perhaps you should consider if some of it might have just been some admins simply acting curtly, or failing to adiquately explain their actions or policies, rather than deliberate "rudeness and hatefulness"? If not, that sounds like a very serious problem that would deeply upset me, and perhaps you should bring this up in one of the community forums. Infrogmation (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, commenting to mention that I have rejected several proposed filename changes. It appears from the discussion here that the editor objects to anti-Japanese sentiment. It's a laudable motivation; I object to it also. Yet the norms of seventy years ago were quite different from what they are today. Historic media provides valuable context for events such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The proposed filenames were neither more nor less pejorative than the original ones--only longer--and in some instances the proposed renames would have lost filename indicators that signify digital editing (numbers and letters appended to the historic files I upload carry specific meanings). No disrespect is intended on my part, nor does Infrogmation appear to intend any. Here's hoping this straightens things out. Durova (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:PazandakGrader1918.jpg / User talk:Pararinpooh

Hi, on User talk:Pararinpooh I saw you corrected some of the license information that was lost by this user copying files from en: wiki here. I just placed another nsd notification on user's page but was hoping perhaps you can have a look into the history of this deleted en: file (as user possibly doesn't know anything about the file & it's rather a while ago (& user doesn't seem to be very active)). On a related note: wasn't there talk of some admin tool that would allow the likes of me to check information on deleted files on other wikis (without being able to do anything else)? Thanks for your help. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, that Commons description was pretty much junk, wrong license, no real info. Serious sloppiness on both ends; in addition to Pararinpooh's bad upload here, the local copy on en:W should NOT have been deleted before the Commons copy was fixed. I've taken the opportunity to just delete it and re-upload reupload from the LOC source, cropping the photo. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! -- Deadstar (msg) 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Infrogmation

I am writing from Germany. For my personal website I would like to use your photo. File: DublinStreetMoldCeiling.jpg I would be very happy if you will let me use it. Regards --Dellex (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. File:DublinStreetMoldCeiling.jpg is already licensed under Creative Commons for free reuse with attribution. Reuse with a caption "Photo by Infrogmation of New Orleans via Wikimedia Commons" or something similar would be great; if practical a link back to the original here is appreciated but not required. Wikimedia Commons is a great source of free licensed images and media. Note that different images can have different requirements for attribution or reuse; license details are explained on the individual image pages. Check out Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia; follow the details explained there and you'll find lots of content here that can be reused freely without asking for any additional permission. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated License

---

Hello. Thank you for uploading Image:Katrina LB.JPG, however the license that you have uploaded it under has been deprecated. Please could you select a new free license that describes the rights of the image correctly? If you are not able to do this, the image will be be deleted in 7 days.

For more information on licenses that can be used on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing. If you have any questions, please ask at the village pump. Thank you for your patience and consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the transfer. Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Brahmi numeral systems

Hi Infrogmation, please have a look on this File:Numeration-brahmi fr.png and told me if the permission is right, cause I just translate (and modernise the texte) the graphic of Datta & Singh (1935). Thanks. Piero (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi!. Can you explain why this doesn't work,
I have tried to put this File:Kit body BiH Home.svg
on wikipedia:en:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team
Thanks --DzWiki (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what the problem might be. I didn't see any recent edits under your user name on the en:Wikipedia article; if there is an edit I should check let me know. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

What's the use of changing a category into one that isn't in the hierarchy? - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much other than moving it out of a category where the image seemed wildly irrelevent. I knew there was some sort of category that would be related; thanks for reminding me to check more; I think I got it now (or at least nudged it a lot closer to something relevent). Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename criteria

Gday. You requested a {{Rename}} for File:Nude woman on Carnaval 2004.jpg, though your reason cited doesn't meet the criteria set to allow me to rename at this point in time. Can I ask you to review your request and look to address the criteria. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Linda of Montreal.jpg

C'est une photo personnelle. Qui est Linda? La photo est mal classée. Cordialement --gilbertus (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Infrogmation. You have new messages at Category talk:Facing left#Subcategories. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Jordan Protest NOLA.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 05:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Corner Booth and Johnston Streets, Annandale, NSW 1955.jpg

Hello, I have added the flickr address from where I got the photo. Hopefully no 2 on the PD AUS tag covers this as the photo is watermarked with Leichhardt Council Gallery collection. This council is a local government. The tag on the image says 'owned by a government', older than 50 years. Hopefully this is enough to keep the image Adam.J.W.C. 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Filmmaking of 'Black Thursday' on crossway of ulica Świętojańska and Aleja Józefa Piłsudskiego in Gdynia.

I uploaded lately some files in this category in incorrect succesion. Please fast rename, because I must upload more files in correct succesion. Greetings from Poland. --Starscream (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. See Commons:Rename a category and Commons:File renaming or {{Rename}}, maybe that will help? Thanks. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the edit in the nude with headdress category

Please tell me why, on this page, you did it.
Thanks.

Category:Females with hatsCategory:HeaddressesCategory:Nudity, female, partial

205.189.194.208 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean this edit? I thought it consolodate the categories more accurately. Your turn to explain: Why did you do this edit which added what look to me like redundant or less precise categories? Maybe I'm missing something? Thanks. Cheers, 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm missin somethin'.
:-D

I'm a bit of a newbie to WC, so as not to tick people off, I tend to leave stuff in rather than taken them out. I suppose I'd like to see the headdress (I was thinking more niqabs, nun habits, and feathers) as my sub-category mentions it. As for type of nude, I can accept partial nude, nude, or both.
Thanks for your time.
:-)
205.189.194.250 22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

on the subject of penises...

well, technically there are hermaphrodites, pseudo-hermaphrodites, & various, assorted types of "ambiguous" genitalia; also tensgender/transexual @ various stages of transformation. wouldn't want to discriminate here! :P

remember The Crying Game?

D

Lx 121 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alleys in Paris

Hello. I have recently been sorting and developing many of the categories and subcategories related to Paris. One result is that Category:Alleys in Paris, which you had created, is now empty, most of its contents having been transferred to specific categories within Category:Streets in Paris. I now find that Category:Alleys in Paris seems a bit too vague to be really useful and I would like to suggest deleting it. What do you think? I will of course answer any questions you may have about this. - Mu (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection. I created the category because I saw some Paris images described as "alley" and "Alleys in ..." categories have been useful for some other cities. If the category is not useful in categorizing Paris, delete it or redirect or whatever you think best. Thanks for the message, and thank you for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:New Orleans Antedeluvian Canal Street.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Origins of 2 of your uploads : British Vanity Fair magazine 1903 ?

Hi there, I'm sorting out images on Commons that were published in the British Vanity Fair magazine (1868-1914). I found 2 photos uploaded by you : File:AcrobaticsGirls1903.JPG and File:SpankGirls1903.JPG. This doesn't look like typical content in the British magazine which as far as I am aware was the only major magazine using the name Vanity Fair at that time.. also your date of June 6 1903 doesn't match my publishing date info for the British magazine which is 4 June 1903. Can you give more details of the publication these images came from : publisher details and location etc ? Was it some other local US publication ? thanks, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a snapshot of the cover

Yes, it's from a U.S. magazine of 1903 using the "Vanity Fair" name. I don't know that I can shed much light on any publication history; this was a single copy I happened to find in a junk shop years ago. I scanned a few images from it back in the '90s for a weblog I used to have then, and later uploaded the jpgs to Wikimedia. [...Infrogmation goes upstairs and spends a few minutes looking through plastic boxes...] Aha! While I lost much of my paper ephemera collection in Hurricane Katrina, I'm glad to say I still have my 1903 Vanity Fair "Bifucated Girls" issue. On the Cover it says "VOL. XXVII NO. 720 NEW YORK, JUNE 6 1903". On page inside the cover it reads "VANITY FAIR Vol. XXVII. - No 720. SPECIAL NUMBER Price 25 Cents. For the Week ending June 6, 1903. Published by the Commonwealth Publishing Company, Business Office, 110 W. 42nd St., N. Y." Hope this helps! Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: You got me curious. A little Googling turned up an article in the New York Times of 12 April 1904 PDF. According to the relevent passage, "A petition of bankruptcy has been filed against The Commonwealth Publishing Company of 110 West Forty-second Street, which published Vanity Fair, a weekly" [... list of creditors] "The Commonwealth Publishing Company was incorporated in February, 1902". -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So, I've added this info at en:Vanity_Fair_(magazine,_historical). Thanks for raising the question! -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out so thoroughly and setting up the category ! Looks like the title "Vanity Fair" was too good to resist, and every crazy publisher tried to use it... regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pets crossing

Nice find with File:Pet Crossing Sign Pike County Ohio.jpg :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dok1/Don O'Brien I think is one of the treasures of Flickr photographers, an old guy who has been taking good photos since he was a kid and has been scanning and uploading his pix old and new to Flickr, most under a free license. Check out his photos, I bet you'll other good stuff that hasn't been copied to Commons yet but could be put to good use on Wikimedia. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've begun looking through his photostream and already found several good ones; see File:Johnson Road Covered Bridge.jpg and File:Farmhouse in Elizabeth Township.jpg for examples. I think I'm going to concentrate on his rural pictures (they're good for illustrating individual township articles, if I can identify in which townships the pictures are taken) and leave the urban ones for later. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Spanish_Town_Mardi_Gras_-The_vp_even_made_it_into_the_parade.jpg

File:Spanish_Town_Mardi_Gras_-The_vp_even_made_it_into_the_parade.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!

Teofilo (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Between talking with professional photographers as well as float builders and Krewe (parade organization) members and officials, added to what I've observed of how the LOC has dealt with the issue, I decided to be a little bit less paranoid about photos which show Carnival floats. While I didn't upload this pic as a specific test case, I hope this generates some fruitful and considered discussion. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Barefoot and topless subcategories

Hi Infrogmation,
How was your Easter,  :-D

I see you've been creating those subcategories. Makes sense, though I figure I'd keep the "Nude and partially nude" supercategory. I'll read your response on this page.
:-)
Better than Hustler (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since we already have various seperate specific "nude", "topless" etc categories, I'm not sure of the need for additional "Nude and partially nude" categories which seem to me at first look to be less specific than what we already have. However I'll try to take a more detailed look at what you're doing later. I'm sure there are other users than me with some interest in improving categorization; you might wish to start a discussion on on the most visible relevent category talk page if you have ideas and/or wish feedback. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Luke Wadding painting image

Are we safe enough to use this image from here for the Luke Wadding article? TIA Ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. According to the caption, the artist died in 1713. As a photographic or mechanical reproduction of copyright expired or pre-copyright artwork, it qualifies for {{PD-Art}}. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. Ww2censor (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded it as File:Luke Wadding by Carlo Maratta. jpg.jpg but could you please rename it as I missed the second jpg in the file name. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Iceland.jpg

File:Iceland.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!

Teofilo (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Drinking fountain in Munson Valley plaza.jpg

Urg. I offer my very serious apologies. I was having a rough time in my non-wiki life, and I inappropriately let it bleed over into an overly aggressive response to your edit to the Munson Valley file page. That sort of nastiness isn't appropriate for use on anyone here, to say nothing of an established user with a strong track record such as yours. It did not convey my point and only reflected discredit on me. So please accept my apologies.

On the substantive issue, my main objection was to the change of the section header from "Original upload log" to "Transwiki trivia". I felt that the use of the word "trivia" had the effect of disrespecting the work of the people who originally set up that section, who had very earnest intentions for it. The section is automatically created by the "CommonsHelper" tool created and maintained by User:Magnus Manske and is included on many, many files on the Commons; the purpose of the section is to carefully respect certain provisions in the GFDL to maintain a log of where the file was derived from. Since adherence open licensing is the bread-and-butter of the wiki projects, I strongly believe in the merit of such efforts, and object to labeling them as "trivia".

I have once more changed that section header back to "Original upload log", but left your other changes alone (other than a minor spelling correction). For reasons unconnected to this discussion, I am going on an extended wikibreak immediately after finishing this comment. So if you feel strongly about this section header and choose to restore your version, I will not be watching to kick up a fuss. (I probably wouldn't anyhow.) Once more, please accept my apologies for my inappropriate reaction to your original edit. I wish you the best and know you will be improving the Commons on an ongoing basis. —Werewombat (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Detroit Photographic Company pics

Thanks for your help identifying these. I tried my best to read the labels at the bottom, but I couldn't always make them out, so I dropped them in the closest category and hoped someone from the area would do better. It looks like you're that person! - Themightyquill (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Carol M. Highsmith self portrait in Willard Hotel.jpg

In regards to this edit, I went through the entire Carol Highsmith archive at the LOC and was unable to find this image (I browsed through all 1550 thumbnails). There are two sets of the Willard Hotel that are not digitized, but there is no mention of a self-portrait in there. Do you have any proof that this photo was part of the LOC donation? Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, no I don't know that it is isn't part of that collection. Sorry, I thought the "PD-Highsmith" tag applied to all works by Carol M. Highsmith. You might wish to Gary reals (talk · contribs) who uploaded this and seems to have been in contact with Highsmith, or Carolhi (talk · contribs) who seems to be Carol M. Highsmith herself. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Image restoration

Stop restoring images until this discussion is over. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 00:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Images which the most recent discussion has been "keep" should not be unilaterally deleted without additonal discussion! -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might wanna read up a bit User talk:Jimbo Wales and several related pages. TheDJ (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going both sides with this. Nobody should be broadly deleting more images either, or de facto restoring them. I hear the complaints from both sides, and I think we need to maintain a status quo for the time being until we get specific direction from the board. (Note, I'm not saying that about new uploads, I think new questionable uploads, regardless of status, may be deleted on site, now.) Our project is 99.999% useful, non-pornographic images, I don't understand the time we're devoting to maintaining the remaining 0.001%. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask that File:Spanking on Bondage Furniture.png and File:Female masturbation.png be undeleted, and a proper deletion vote held on them instead. Both images seem to fall within scope, and do not meet Com:PORN standards. The first is a straight-forward image which I believe was actually in use, and the second is one of the least-offensive possible images demonstrating the subject...if I recall correctly. It's hard to tell, when they've been unilaterally deleted and I can't view them. But at least restore them so they can be viewed and their merits weighed, by myself the uploader, and the community at large. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 14:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I also notice User:Fran Rogers has unilaterally deleted over a hundred images I have uploaded over the years, which were in use on Wikipedia and other WMF projects over a long period of time. Many of them do not even contain any nudity or implied sexual activity, they simply illustrate a subject such as SuicideGirls.

Clearly these images should be restored pending any actual authorisation to delete a large swath of material in use, and of use, to the larger WMF community.'. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 14:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterising

Good day! I invite you, to write about Stillwaterising's latest strange request at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Taric25. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re

See response on my talkpage. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

9/11 TRUTH IMAGE

The images original copyright owner has changed the license of his work here http://www.flickr.com/photos/10629464@N08/1796451722/ but originally he set it to CC-BY-2.0 I don't have a lot of experience, so my question is this, if the original copyright owner changes the license shouldn't it be changed on Wikimedia Commons?

If you have a help page that would be great, I don't want to make any mistakes, cheers MH1987 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the on the image talk page, if the license was free and accurate at the time the image was copied to Commons, the permission is not revokable. If the Flickr user choses to change licensing of the image on Flickr later, no, the Commons license does not need to and should not be changed. See Commons:Flickr files. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

PD review

Hi!

I write to you because you are listed here Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers.

The Category:PD files for review was flooded some time ago and perhaps therefore PD review seems to have stopped. After some discussion on Commons_talk:PD_files#Has_review_stopped? the category has been cleaned up.

Perhaps you would like to come back and take a look at some of the remaining files?

Thank you!

--MGA73 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Breasts-not-bombs.jpg

Dear friend!

These people are not topless, because it is too hot for them. They are topless, in order to draw attention to himself. In many countries would have been arrested for such a garment. Even the liberal countries. --Pomeranian (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to close Stillwaterising's deletion requests

Hello there, would you please close the Stillwaterising's inactive deletion requests? The AN/U he reported against me has been closed and archived with no action taken, and the last comment made on the discussions was on May 22nd, which is more than the required seven days.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Cum shot.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Innocence.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Chaise ass.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Barn light.jpg

Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've closed the last of those 4, as consensus seems clear and I hadn't expressed my opinion on it earlier. I usually tend to refrain from being the closing admin in deletion discussions I've already voted on. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I'll ask Adam Cuerden if he can help us with the rest. In the mean time, would you please finish the Flickr review for File:Bingo with Miss Foozie in 2009 by TheeErin cropped.png? The automated bot FlickreviewR couldn't do it, since it is an extracted image. Thanks again! Taric25 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Adam Cuerden did not respond, so I asked User:Ilmari Karonen. Taric25 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It would probably be better to ask on COM:AN; that way, you avoid any possible appearance of shopping for a favorable admin. That said, if no-one else feels like doing it, I think I'd be willing to close these DRs (as "keep", or at least "no consensus to delete" for the second one). I did comment on the first one, but only tangentially, and didn't actually vote on it; and you're right that they've been hanging in limbo for more than long enough. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay, I just asked you because you were familiar with the situation. I have no objection to you closing the deletion request, if that is what you choose. I didn´t know Commons:Administrators' noticeboard existed until now, so I left a message there as well. Taric25 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: The 2257 template (my reasoning in tagging that and other images)

That one image you removed the template from (the dancing nude girl) was pretty borderline, so I don't contest it. I was thinking more of the photographer's intent/motives rather than the girl's intent when tagging it (and that is not an appropriate reason to tag). I am done adding the templates for now, but was trying to help finish rolling it out to add applicable images to the tracking category. I am not a lawyer, but the template as presently worded does not fully specify 2257's scope. (specifically item "v." below)

Section 2256 (definitions for chapter 18 - including section 2257) at law.cornell.edu:

"(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means
     actual or simulated—
 (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital,
     or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
 (ii) bestiality;
 (iii) masturbation;
 (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
 (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person; "

Most of the images I did tag with the template were self-pictures taken by Commons users which would fall under item (v) above though. FWIW, I am not some religious person on a crusade to eradicate nude images from Commons, but we do have an overwhelming number of crap-quality images with low educational value, and besides that fact: how 2257 applies to Wikimedia will be something that has to be addressed at some point, which is why the template was created I guess. Wikignome0530 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My Photo

I'm not sure if this is proof that I can use my photo, but there is copyright language at the bottom of my webpage. Drchuckwilliams (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Infrogmation (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Garbage

Hi!

I agree there was a lot of garbage [1]. But why not leave the original upload log? --MGA73 (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

move cat Men facing and looking left

Hi Infrogmation, I added

Rename Category:Men facing and looking left to Category:Men facing left and looking left (2,241 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Men facing and looking left;Men facing left and looking left;r;

to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category move requests. All similar categories are named this way e.g. Category:Women facing right and looking right--Diwas (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have no objection. Thanks for the notice. Infrogmation (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Current disucussion: User talk:Infrogmation
• More recent archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 11
• Older archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 9