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

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]

Richard Koch, architectural photographer[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation. Do you know of any public domain photographs or caricatures or other images of New Orleans architectural? There are a lot of photographs by him in the public domain, but I don't know of any of Koch himself. I'm working on a Wikipedia article about him and would like to have an image. Many thanks for your input on this. Nolabob (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not aware of any off hand, but will add that to my list of things to keep an eye out for. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shepherd Brown Mansion[edit]

Do you know of any public domain images of the Shepherd Brown house in New Orleans? I understand it was one of the most striking private residences in the city prior to its demolition in 1930. BTW, I've seen different spellings of the name, including Shepherd and Shepard. Also, I've never seen a definitive discussion of its history, although perhaps one is buried somewhere in the Times-Picayune archives. Thanks! Nolabob (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know it by name, but striking mansions were a fairly popular topic for photographing. Would you know the street it was on? Maybe address or cross street? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately I do not yet know anything more about the mansion than what I stated in my question. I sent an inquiry to the Preservation Resource Center of NO. Hopefully they'll respond with useful information, and I'll be able to get back to you. Thank you as always for your diligence in documenting the people, history and culture of NOLA. Nolabob (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found out that the Shepherd Brown mansion was at the corner of St. Charles Ave and Conery Street, but I still do not know the exact street address. Nolabob (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Potentially helpful, thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The address was 2833 St. Charles Avenue. The home was also known as the Madame Chaffraix house. I found one photo of it, through the Tulane University Special Collection, but it is not clear that this photo is in the public domain without copyright restriction. Nolabob (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objection to Deletion --> About:16 March 2023 diffhist b 藤原朋子‎ 23:29 −26‎ ‎CommonsDelinker talk contribs‎ (Infrogmation によってCommonsから削除された Tomoko_Fujiwara_1965-.jpg を除去。理由: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5).)[edit]

この写真は「厚生労働省公開画像（2020年）」。行政の人事広報資料として公開された顔写真は原則として自由に転載できるものであるから削除は間違いと思う。 This photo is a "Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare public image (2020)." In principle, mugshots published as administrative personnel publicity materials can be freely reproduced. I think the deletion is a mistake. IyataYada (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I do not know how to read Japanese. I deleted because the file had no license, and had been tagged on it's image page as missing a license since January. If you think my action was mistaken, please either list at Commons:Undeletion requests, or perhaps contact one of the Commons:Administrators who knows Japanese (list with languages is at that page). Hope this helps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lotta Svärd.svg[edit]

How do you do? Could you please explain why this file got deleted? Sincerely, Kwasura (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lotta_Svärd.svg, not yet public domain -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you talking about? I created the .svg file, it is my drawing. --Kwasura (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might wish to ask User:Abzeronow. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you already have. See Commons:Derivative works - even if you make a new version, the copyright of the original version can remain. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Corrado Giustozzi e Ron Rivest 1999.jpg[edit]

Hi, Is there a chance you might please leave Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corrado Giustozzi e Ron Rivest 1999.jpg open for a few days instead of speedy closing it? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. The image is in use in more than a dozen projects, and there was no suggestion of challenge to the free licensed status. It seemed to fit the criteria for a speedy keep to me. Perhaps I'm missing something - are there other factors that would warrant longer discussion? Thanks, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have preferred to keep the discussion on the DR page, although the file would probably have been kept anyway. Ok, nevermind, thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted my comment on the page User talk:Ronald L. Rivest#File:Corrado Giustozzi e Ron Rivest 1999.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:History of Turkmenistan by century[edit]

Just checking but isn't Category:History of Turkmenistan by century the same as Category:Turkmenistan by century? All the categories seem like they would be the same. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like they should be combined/redirected into Turkmenistan by century. (If I had any reason to use the "History of" at the time, I don't remember it, and I don't see any reason for it to be separate now.) Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:It's Just the Sun by Don McLean US vinyl.png[edit]

I wonder whether you can adjust your rationale. The copyright notice with a ℗ is intended for the sound recording. Unsure whether it applies to the whole image itself as I don't see © anywhere within it. George Ho (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the input. I said deleted per nom. It is clearly not a simple text logo. I added the info that it had a copyright notice in case someone would try to argue that PD-US-no notice would apply - I agree that it is unclear if the notice refers to the recording, label, or both. At this point, I'm not sure what modifying my deletion comment would do. Do you have thoughts on what defects the current text has that needs addressing, and what specifically should be said to improve the deletion notice? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm... Well.... You can leave the rationale as-is if you like. Oh, for further guidance, here's one discussion about one image that has all text and plain elements. It contains a copyright notice, but that's intended for a sound recording. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pud Kent in 1911.jpg[edit]

I think you might have made a mistake - you closed the discussion as "keep" ("Kept: Listing withdrawn by nominator") but then it seems you deleted the file? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much, fixed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos in New Orleans[edit]

Hello Infrogmation (talk · contribs). As I know you often take photos in New Orleans, it would be cool if you take photos of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church (new modern building) and Fifth African Baptist Church NOLA (new modern building). Indeed, the social commitments of these churches make them inspiring churches. Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (Wikipedia:WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The Fifth African Baptist - Robertson St off Louisiana Avenue? Not far out of my way later this month, probably. I don't often get out to Eastern New Orleans where the new "Franklin Avenue" Church is - I'll see if I can start a list with that and a few other things to photograph in Eastern New Orleans when I have a half day free to drive around. peace to you as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nathan B2: Yesterday I got some photos of the Fifth African Baptist Church - both buildings, the new one on Louisiana Avenue doesn't have signage up yet. Category:Fifth African Baptist Church, New Orleans. I also took photos of some other nearby buildings, including a couple more Baptist churches, Category:Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church, New Orleans, File:Louisiana Avenue at Loyola Avenue, Uptown New Orleans, 16 May 2023 - Pilgrim's Rest Baptist Church No 2.jpg. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Infrogmation (talk · contribs). Thank you very much for the high-quality photos with the sun, it is much appreciated. I like modern buildings (as it demonstrates the vitality of the Christian faith); it is therefore a great discovery for Category:Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church, New Orleans. I also like the File:Louisiana Avenue at Loyola Avenue, Uptown New Orleans, 16 May 2023 - Pilgrim's Rest Baptist Church No 2.jpg name (lol). I will try to put these photos in articles. At the moment, I am finishing an article on Franklin Avenue Baptist Church. As this is far for you, I understand that it could take a few weeks for photos of the new "Franklin Avenue" Church, there's no worries. Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (Wikipedia:WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure at Cohn & Lowerline Streets[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation, Do you know if there is a photograph of the structure at the corner of Cohn Street and Lowerline Street in New Orleans, which supposedly is "Sewer Lift Station No. 1" and is a very unusual structure. It was featured in a January 24, 2023, article in nola.com. I can't find a picture of this structure, and it seems like something worth documenting for posterity. Thanks again for all your efforts! Nolabob (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you're talking about the little thing with steps behind the automobile seen in File:MoldMobileAwning.jpg? Something I sort of noticed but didn't pay attention to. Not far away from a part of town I expect to be in within the next week or so, so I'll try to get a better photo. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's it! I look forward to there being a better photograph on the Commons. Nolabob (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done @Nolabob: Category:Sewer Lift Station No 1, Cohn Street, New Orleans -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Terrific set of photos! Thanks for photo-documenting this unusual structure. Nolabob (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Frances Cabrini Church[edit]

Hi, Infrogmation, I don't mean to sound like I am piling work on you, but I have another request of you. I'm currently working on improving the Wikipedia article on St. Frances Cabrini Church in New Orleans, which needs a good bit of TLC. There is a Wikimedia Commons category on this church, but it only contains photos of the church after Hurricane Katrina. So my question is: Do you know of any photos in the public domain of this unique structure taken before the hurricane? Many thanks. Nolabob (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alas, I don't, sorry. (So many things I wish I could send a message back in time for me to photograph back then!) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you keep some of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:20210324 181230 HDR.jpg?[edit]

Why did you keep some of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:20210324 181230 HDR.jpg? I think I have mentioned valid reasons why all files should be deleted and did not get a counter reaction. The arguments of Mdd are not valid as I explained in Reactions to remarks by Mdd. JopkeB (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, thanks for your feedback. I was rather just closing a request without recent comments according to how comments voted. Looking again with your comments in mind, I've deleted 3 more. I've left the 2 collages at top and File:Anti-Natopostzegel van PSP in Nieuwspoort gepresenteerd Bram van de Lek met ant, Bestanddeelnr 927-1925.jpg which I think have a fair argument that the DW portion is de minimis. I have no objection to having those 3 relisted if you think I was mistaken. Perhaps someone more familiar with relevant Netherlands/EU than I can help make judgement. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reaction. Yes indeed, I would like that someone more familiar with relevant Netherlands/EU copyright law would look into this. I'll make a new Deletion request.

And I thought that judging deletion requests because of copyright violation is not about voting, but about true application of the law (I experienced on Commons that there are too many people who do not know the law well, but give their opinion anyway and vote in their favor). Is that not true? Regards, JopkeB (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is indeed about copyrights, not about number of votes. However sometimes a closing admin is steered by comments by people who seem more familiar with the issues than they are. In this case, perhaps I assumed Mdd knew what they were talking about more than I should have. Perhaps I should have left the discussion open in hopes that eventually someone else more familiar with the details would come along. I am generally confident and proud of my work with deletion requests, but in dealing with thousands of listings I make no claim that there are no instances when I might have done better - so thank you for feedback and work helping make improvements. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, thanks for your reaction. You do many good things here, you indeed may be proud of your work. It's OK, I made the DR for the other three and I'll see what happens. JopkeB (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Traffic cone hats[edit]

Hiya, I see that you might not be aware of Category:Traffic cone hats, as you haven't tagged some of your images with this category. I removed Repurposed traffic cones to add the cone hats category as the Repurposed traffic cones part is normally for uncategorized uses of traffic cones, but these ones contain hats. Thanks, 多多 123 18:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip, and thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]