User talk:Jerimee

File:Tattoo0001.JPG

File:Tattoo0001.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!

Jerimee (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

File:James Baldwin detail.jpg

File:James Baldwin detail.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!

Jerimee (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

File:V and Kay Mural.jpg

File:V and Kay Mural.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) 03:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Shivingpal.jpg

File:Shivingpal.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!

In addition, I noticed that you've made a malformed deletion request: not including year, month, or day; not creating the subpage; not notifying; and not transcluding. Here, {{Delete}} is not for speedy deletion, please see COM:DP. When you want to delete a page by manually using the {{Delete}} template (rather than the automatic Nominate for deletion or Nominate category for discussion tool in the Tools menu on the sidebar provided by the AjaxQuickDelete gadget per subpolicy procedures COM:DR#Starting requests and COM:CFD#Starting requests), you MUST follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually policy or the "By hand" portion of subpolicy procedure COM:CFD#Starting requests, normally collapsed), otherwise you will create a lot of work for other people. Warning: such edits are not tolerated and have led to account blocks, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

oh my gosh! I apologize. Clearly I did not do this correctly. Jerimee (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jeff G.: I agree that Jerimee’s edit was not acceptable. It was good of you to fix the deletion request and add a warning here. But your warning was overly harsh: it was not necessary to compare this reasonable user to one who was allegedly aggressively reverting and blanking deletion requests.

Jerimee: It is common courtesy, as well as a requirement in certain cases, to notify relevant users of important discussions on their talk pages. This includes uploaders of files nominated for deletion. This requirement does not apply to speedy deletion, although speedy deletion would not have been appropriate for this situation. Brianjd (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i just did it wrong - thanks Jerimee (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Vagabonds craig.png

File:Vagabonds craig.png 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!

Abzeronow (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Line art

The header of Category:Line art says "Line art is any image that consists of distinct straight and curved lines placed against a (usually plain) background, without gradations in shade (darkness) or hue (color) to represent two-dimensional or three-dimensional objects."

Do you think that, for example, File:Lines family sketchbook - Disc1 015 - Hawthorne at Wall, Lichfield.jpg meets that definition? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes! Most certainly. And I would love to coordinate with others to tag line art. You can do a lot of things with line art that isnt possible (or as easy) with other types of images. Line art can be converted to svg and effectively upscaled without uncanny AI. LMK what you're into and maybe I can help. Jerimee (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"without gradations in shade"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, the image is an instance of line art for practical purposes.

The only perfect taxonomy is one that accounts for every detail of the things it categorizes, matching the complexity of what it seeks to organize. This leads to a paradox: if the taxonomy is as intricate and expansive as the dataset itself, it becomes utterly useless. A perfect categorization is as impractical as it is unattainable.

I'm interested in organizing the images to make them easier to find and use. Jerimee (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you (and probably others who have applied such categories) are mistaken, so I have posted a neutrally-worded question at Commons:Village pump#Line art. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Szczypawka - Humorystyczne listy z terenu wojny (page 3 crop3).jpg

It isn't a typographic ornament: this is a company sign. Wieralee (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a union "bug" - a symbol of the trade union. I dont know the proper way to structure a company logo (maybe just "logo?"). I wasnt sure so I simply removed the structured statements. Thanks Wieralee. Jerimee (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Jerimee (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"Rose" wikidata statement in Cathedral of Palma

Hi. I'd like to know why have you applied this wikidata statement (rose, Q34687, that's the flower) in some pictures about the Cathedral of Palma, Majorca, uploaded by me some time ago. These are the images: 355 Catedral de Palma, el Portal Major, Sant Jeroni i Sant Gregori.jpg, 356 Catedral de Palma, el Portal Major, decoració del mainell.jpg, 357 Catedral de Palma, el Portal Major, timpà i arquivoltes.jpg, 042 Catedral de Palma, façana oest, el Portal Major.jpg and 043 Catedral de Palma, timpà del Portal Major, la Immaculada i la Lletania Lauretana.jpg. Enric (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this is the category structure:

• Roses in art
  • Rosa Mystica
    • Cathedral of Mallorca - Portal Major

Jerimee (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh! And while I agree it isn't particularly prominent, there is actually a rose in those photos. As you likely know, structured data on Commons improves access, searchability, exploration and provides new ways to use the content. Jerimee (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi again! The commons category Rosa Mystica has its own wikidata statement, called also Rosa Mystica (Q10337552). It would be better to change it, because Q34687 is related only to the flower, not to this Marian devotion form. Enric (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

depicts (P180) refers to what is visible in the file. If the form of worship is visible it should be added. They aren't exclusive; it is fine for them to have dozens of depicts statements. The "main subject" property can be used if the file is about an item that isnt directly portrayed. Jerimee (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

And where are the roses in Katharina Leipelt - Mannesallee 20 (Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg).Stolperstein.nnw.jpg and Margaretha Rothe - Heidberg 64 (Hamburg-Winterhude).Stolperstein.nnw.jpg? The White Rose wasn't a flower. NNW 12:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Jerimee (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trosor-bakifrån.png#File:Trosor-bakifrån.png 2

I suspect I will continue to be confused by procedural DRs. I clearly explained in that DR’s rationale why that issue required further discussion and therefore why I created that DR. What part of that was confusing? Brianjd (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused by plenty of things. It's not so much the particular is confusing as it is an admission that I'm likely to assume that the person making a DR believes the media ought to be removed. But I think I get what you were saying; for my part I tend to want the images I've nominated due to COM:DIGNITY concerns removed on those grounds and not something else unrelated. I appreciate your work. Jerimee (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

On my request - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Children playing four square with a utility ball.jpg - I kind want to reopen it because I don't like the OOS reason. I mention it because, in a way, that would be the inverse of what I found confusing above Jerimee (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:ChatGPT pirate parrot 20250505.svg

And also:

• File:ChatGPT punk parrot 20250505.svg
• File:ChatGPT punk lamb 20250505.svg
• File:ChatGPT cave lamb 20250505.svg
• File:ChatGPT cave frog 20250505.svg
• File:ChatGPT cave duck 20250505.svg
• File:ChatGPT-anthropo-duck 20250505.svg

Yours sincerely, Belbury (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

Affected:

• File:Atheist at the machine 1925.svg

Yours sincerely, Quick1984 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Careful

This is a man in a frog costume. It is not an anthropomorphic animal, a fictional vertebrate, or an anthropomorphic amphibian. DS (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ok Jerimee (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

File:OAK Butterfly Butt.jpg

Good day. I don't know why you think File:OAK Butterfly Butt.jpg needs a "consent query" template. Perhaps discuss on the talk page of that file. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's simply to ask: Did you get consent of the depicted to license their likenesses online? Ideally, the question gets answered with one of the following: Template:Consent#Examples

Happy Halloween Jerimee (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and the link. As to putting "likeness online", no. I don't recall even discussing the matter of with others before 1997. So I'd go so far that in general, I guess you could add that template to every photo I've taken from 1996 or before? As to this particular photo (and I think the talk page of the photo might have been a better place to discuss matters regarding this particular photo as opposed to photos in general, as I'd already suggested) the link mentions "identifiable people". I think "identifiable people" does not apply to the primary subject of the photo, whose face is not seen at all. The face of another person in the background is seen - is that of concern? Perhaps most other photos in Category:Krewe of OAK (and subcategories and at many other events) need similar addressing? Would "appearspublic" version of the template be best? What do you suggest, both with this photo, as well as other photos of similar circumstances? How do you think I should handle this - is there something about this particular photo that needs clarification? Or do you think the template need to be added by default to most photos where a person is visible? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh lol, yeah, I'm sure I didn't either: User:Jerimee/photos_I_have_licensed_without_informed_consent

Thanks for your thoughtful questions, I've tried to answer them below.

is there something about this particular photo that needs clarification?

No, not especially or at least uniquely. There are plenty of cheesecake photos on Commons and plenty of rationales for why that makes sense. (I think I was looking at "anthropomorphic insects" or "fairies" or something and came across it.)

Would "appearspublic" version of the template be best?

I don't know. Is a Kinko's public? Does participation in Mardi Gra nullify expectations of privacy? I honestly don't know. Some of my thoughts are here: USA Privacy Expectations & Rights.

The face of another person in the background is seen - is that of concern?

I think that makes it slightly more of a concern

Do you think the template need to be added by default to most photos where a person is visible?

Yes. Despite it not being an enviable position to defend, I think I do. Some of my thoughts are here: USA Privacy Expectations & Rights. That said, I recognize that our resolutions and COM:DIGNITY policy aren't typically enforced.

Thanks again, Jerimee (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered reply, some points for me to think on. As to the Kinko's, I'd say not usually, but in this case a small neighborhood parade with band and costumers took a short detour off the street into the Kinko's - so I'd think what the paraders did for the minute or two they were in the Kinko's was part of the event. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• What would be the template for more recent public events where there is assumption that photos will be on social media - for example the event organized on social media with encouragement of photographers to post the photos including on the groups? And any difference for say general photos snapped on the event and photos of a specific person when the photographer says "may I take your photo" and they state consent and actively pose? Thanks for your feedback. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Consent to take a photo is not consent for the photographer to do what they like with the photo. - from COM:PHOTOCONSENT

  Social media posts - say a post on Flickr or Twitter or Facebook - are not claims to license the image globally for anyone in the world to do whatever they want with. An upload to Commons is not simply displaying the image but rather licensing it for the world.

  To briefly answer the other questions, I really don't know. I did a "request for comment" proposal here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/02#h-Consent_query-20250225224100 - but only four people responded (and that might include me). There is some discussion here: Template_talk:Consent I've got some messy notes here: User:Jerimee/consent

  A good case against Category:Consent tracking is that nobody does it. I suspect that is because it is uncomfortable to discuss and seems accusatory. Deletion requests around consent issues often - I think more often than not - get resolved on the basis of unrelated criteria. Closing admins rarely address the issue directly as is typical for copyright concerns. But this is my own anecdotal experience; I don't have data to support this. I did one just a moment ago: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eropolis_Toulouse_2009_21.jpg

  I appreciate the questions. Jerimee (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)