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]
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]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
Thanks for closing this. Would you mind also closing the following related deletion requests? They were all started by Jeff G. on behalf of Vinuka2002 (like the one you closed) and I think the same principles apply, but they seem to have gotten sidetracked by some strange accusations between an IP editor and Contributers2020.
They say the deletion is because the emblem is fictional and only used by Serbian parallel structures, but last I checked, fictional emblems exist on Wikicommons. As do fictional flags.
Also, if it's used by Serbian parallel structures, technically, that should somewhat mean it's not fictional. Not technically official, but it can still exist.
If you really wanted to make it so people KNEW that it was either unofficial, then you could simply rename it to something like "Serbian_North_Mitrovica_emblem.svg".
A̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶y̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶d̶u̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶[̶[̶:̶e̶n̶:̶W̶i̶k̶i̶p̶e̶d̶i̶a̶:̶B̶e̶_̶b̶o̶l̶d̶|̶W̶P̶:̶B̶E̶B̶O̶L̶D̶]̶]̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶e̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶v̶a̶l̶ ̶F̶I̶R̶S̶T̶. Oops. WP:BEBOLD is for Wikipedia and Wikipedia only. I'm dumb sometimes. Kxeon (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:SCOPE - anything on Commons "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", which goes for "fictional emblems" as it does anything else. I'm not familiar with the details about that emblem's history and use - I closed the request as deleted mostly because the rationale seemed plausible and the listing had gone more than a month without anyone making any counter-argument. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a little Google Images search, plugging the coat of arms into it, it seems that the only thing I find that actually uses the coat of arms with a not-exact image search is the Serbian institution that claims to be the government of Kosovska Mitrovica. (North Mitrovica) (http://kosmitrovica.rs/)
And even that only uses the coat of arms. Not the flag seemingly. I can't seem to find people actually using the flag of North Mitrovica there. There are also seemingly multiple Serbian sources using said coat of arms. (Another google images search for it, exact matches this time) The source this place got the CoA of North Mitrovica from was kosmitrovica.rs. Yeah. Remember when I mentioned that at the start of this reply?
If this image in the DR above was a papyrus, then it should be kept because it is a more than 1500 year old 2 Dimensional Art work where the author died more than 100 years ago. In this case, the author would have died more than 1500 years ago. This would explain why this other image of king Senebkay from 1500 BCE was kept by Admin James Woodward since it was a painting or 2D art. So the license for the image under DR should be {{PD-old-100}}This is a painting and not a carved relief which would make it 3D art and inadmissible for Commons. The NC license at the source is not relevant for 2D works which are clearly Public Domain. What do you think? Maybe you or Merytat3n did not know about Commons policies on 2D works such as Public Domain paintings and papyri like this? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted file claimed to be 2022 artwork created by user Stefanantonius, which seems dubious. I don't know if was actually from ancient papyrus. Legitimately sourced PD art is fine; garbage claims are not. (So if you wish to upload something PD properly sourced, fine, but that particular deleted file does not fall in that category.) Cheers, -- 22:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Leoboudv - the file was one of many, many images with bogus attribution, many of which were legit copyvio, uploaded by this user and socks. Unsure if I knew of the PD license at the time but if I did, this was collateral damage, oops. Merytat3n (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank You for your straightforward and fair reply Admin Infrogmation and Merytat3n. I agree that Commons cannot use images with false attribution uploaded by a user and his socks. In this case, I suppose it was safer to delete then obviously. If I upload a 2D image that is obviously PD, I will give it a clear attribution. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following your suggestion, I wrote an article about Solari's gourmet food store. Your comments and upgrades are welcome. In particular, suggestions about other articles that could link to the Solari's article would be most helpful. Thanks again for suggesting this topic to me. Nolabob (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Headdresses has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
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!
@Mazbel: See file history; eg [1]; it was Public Domain Mark when uploaded. The Flickr user since changed the license. Should I tag it as {{Flickr-change-of-license}} or just delete it? IMO not a particularly important photo so I don't care either way, but I'm open to suggestions for the best way to handle this. Thanks for your attention, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see...the user on Flickr updated all image licenses as "all rights reserved" a few days ago. Clearly, you can leave the template {{Flickr-change-of-license}} although, I don't know if it's worth it (unless you want to keep the image) since it's not in use on wiki projects. --Mazbel(Talk)04:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete it. (Not a bad pic but IMO not important - we have a fair number of other photos of bands busking in this square, and I didn't notice any notable musicians in the band.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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!
