Jump to content

User talk:Infrogmation

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository


Discussion

[edit]

en:User_talk:Infrogmation

Older disussion has been moved to User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 1, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 2, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 3, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 4, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 5, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 6, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 7, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 8, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 9, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 10, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 11, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 12, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 13, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 14, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 15, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 16, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 17, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 18, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 19, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 20, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 21, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 21, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 22, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 23, User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 24. .

Please add new discussion to bottom of page.


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 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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