User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward


De-adminship warning (Feb 2019)

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Jameslwoodward. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

UDR

Hi Jim, It is nice that you are back. ;o) There are several old undeletion requests which would benefit from some inputs. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann. I looked over all the UnDRs and decided that I could not be useful on some of the older ones. However, since you ask, I will look again. Best, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Friedrich Distelbarth, Briefkonkordanz.pdf

Hi Jim. The file was/is actually in use (see de:Spezial:Linkliste/Datei:Friedrich Distelbarth, Briefkonkordanz.pdf). --Leyo 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

PDFs should never be in use on WP. Policy requires that text from them be set in Wikimarkup and images appear as images and not part of a PDF. The reason fro deletion stands -- it is essentially unusable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Jim, I think you are wrong. Your postulation that PDF content has to be converted into wiki text is actually an argument against deletion, because the PDF is then needed as reference source, also, if the PDF were converted into a JPEG or PNG. Also, I am interested what policy you refer to. Next, a quick search showed me that there are over 2000 embeddings of PDF in dewiki and over 3000 in enwiki, all wrong? Also, why is there the page parameter for file embeddings? For PDF and DJVu files! In other words embedding of them is not at all forbidden. — Speravir – 19:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats where one of the types of PDFs that is not permitted is those where:
"The content is essentially raw text; such files are not considered media files. Note that scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance are not excluded on this ground, even if they contain no images."
This fits that prohibition exactly, as it is simply a short paragraph of description and a table, all of which should be set in Wiki Markup.
As for the existence of other PDF embeddings, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the policy link. I had the impression your answer was very general, so my reaction was it, too. I cannot refer to the image because I cannot check this. And in general your “PDFs should never be in use on WP” is not correct. But let’s close it here. — Speravir – 00:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Mozaïekwand stukje voor stukje verwijderd.webm

Can you please verify in the DR that it was published under a cc-by license Vera (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The YouTube license for the video was indeed CC-BY, but that is irrelevant. The reason for deletion is that the video is a derivative work of the copyrighted tile and there was no evidence of permission from the tile's creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mercedes-Benz Vision Tokyo, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1904).jpg

Hello Jim, glad to see you. I think that the car shown in the photo deleted has an engine. See this article, section "Drivetrain". Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That article also discusses the holographic projectors 80.90.193.161 11:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The press release included in the article (from which the drivetrain comment is made states: "The bodyshell of the Vision Tokyo has been designed to allow the crash-protected integration of a fuel cell-powered electric drive system. This is based on the trailblazing F-CELL PLUG-IN HYBRID of the F 015 Luxury in Motion and combines the on-board generation of electricity with a particularly powerful and compact high-voltage battery that can be charged contactlessly via induction. The use of pressure tanks made from CFRP is envisaged for the storage of hydrogen in the concept car" (my emphasis) I suggest that this concept car does not actually have an engine (or fuel tanks) 80.90.193.161 11:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Although there is some ambiguity in the article and press release, we have:

" Like other concepts such as the Nissan IDS Concept and Nissan Leaf Autonomous Concept, the Mercedes Vision Tokyo Concept is moved by electric motors and is capable of fully autonomous driving."

in the present tense. I think we can safely keep the image. Christian, what do you think? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, though the sentence is indeed a bit ambigous, the general meaning tends rather to let us believe that there is this engine, rather that there is not yet an engine, in my opinion. And this "ambigus way" is even maybe a chosen communication technique from Mercedes-Benz, who know? not to reveal too much can be a commercial strategy.
The fact that they have specifically designed the car to be able to use an already existing teknology, does not mean that there is not yet a propulsion system inside it. This may be an information that mean exactly of what is written, not more not less, namely the vehicule "has been designed to allow".....
The F-CELL PLUG-IN HYBRID, which is supposed to be used on this car, is indeed using hydrogen. A concept car, like all other vehicles, can be modified and improved, and in some sense this is maybe even more true for a concept car. I guess they have the right to envisage alternative and better solutions to store the hydrogen. And I guess too that Mercedes-Benz envisage also to make improvements and changes to their entire range of vehicles, it's logic. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Images took down

The licences for each of the photographs has been changed to creative commons so can now be re-instated.Moylesy98 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:TN Governor BillLee.jpg

Hi. You recently deleted this file. The claim was that TN doesn't release their photos into the Public Domain. I couldn't find any mention of copyright on the tn.gov website and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States doesn't mention TN. Could you tell me where I can find confirmation that this file wasn't PD, so I don't make the same mistake again? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

With your experience here, I'm surprised at your question, Gbawden. Fundamentally, everything is copyrighted from the moment of creation until the copyright expires. There are exceptions, particularly for certain government works, but in order for an image to stay on Commons, the uploader must prove that the copyright has expired, there is a valid exception, or that the copyright holder has freely licensed the file. Therefore, as a general rule, nothing modern that you find on the Web can be uploaded unless the site has a license on it or a specific exception applies.

It is true that the Federal Government and several states, notably California and Florida, do not claim copyright in any of their works. Even in those cases you must be careful with portrait images -- many portraits appearing on government Web sites were taken by private photographers who hold the copyright.

Note that the USA had different rules before the 1976 Copyright Act came into effect -- notice was required and copyright did not begin until publication -- but none of that can affect anything created post 1989.

Commons firm statement of all this is at COM:NETCOPYRIGHT:

"The vast majority of images found on the internet are copyright-protected and may ✘ not be uploaded. The fact that an image has been posted to a publicly-available website does not give you implied permission to re-use it nor to upload it here. Many websites are silent on copyright issues, but images on those sites are just as off-limits as those on sites which explicitly say "Copyright, all rights reserved". Works are copyrighted by default; a copyright notice or a © sign is not needed."

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is File:Nordica lend Varssav- Riia.png really not a copyright violation?

You recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nordica lend Varssav- Riia.png Kept claiming "no valid reason for deletion". Would you mind expanding on that, given that the picture consists mostly of imagery from Google Maps, with a photo and an advert that have no indication of being freely licensed? I would simply have renominated it, but the "Nominate for deletion" link says I should contact you first. --bjh21 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: The same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tallinna lennujaama tõestus Helsingi- Malmi lennujaam.png. --bjh21 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I went a little too fast through the 35+ DRs posted by the user who wanted all of his work deleted. As you say, these should have been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

en:File:Installationcasparini.JPG

Hallo Jim, I wanted to transfer en:File:Installationcasparaini.JPG to Wikimedia Commons. Could you help me? I' m first trying this and I don't no how to do this exactly. Many thanks --Passauer Andreas (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I know there is a one step way to do this, but I do it so rarely that I have always downloaded the file to my computer and then uploaded it from there, using the Upload Wizard. If you want to learn the one step way, ask at Commons:Help desk .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnqyu's image

Hi Jim, you delete my picture(Ydzhu.jpg). Why? please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnqyu (talk • contribs) 2019-02-19T19:01:13‎ (UTC)

You claim that the image is "own work", that is to say that you were the photographer in 1931. While that is certainly not impossible, that was 87 years ago. Are you really over 100 years old? If not, then please do not make incorrect claims of "own work".
More likely someone else was the photographer and he, or his heirs, owns the copyright. It is also possible that the copyright has expired, but in order to determine that we would have to know where the photograph was taken and if and when it was first published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Because this is my grandfather's picture. He was my mother's father. It was taken by my mother's oldest brother. So please undelete it. Thanks. Johnqyu (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnqyu (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This was handled at Undeletion Requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with copyright issues

There was a picture File:Aethelthryth-Head.jpg that was deleted, and you said that in order for an image to be kept on Commons, it must be free for any use, anywhere, by anyone, including commercial use. When someone publishes his photo of himself, he has the copyright of the picture. But what if he want it to be published in some blog or page or Wikipedia page? How his own copyright interfere with his wish to be in some Wikipedia page for example. What I have to do to publish a photograph of a man that is published on his own Facebook profile, which is in the public space and nobody except than him holds the copyright of that picture, and I have the permission to publish his pictures. What I have to do to make this happen? Thank you, have a great day! -BeckMega (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

First, please understand that in almost every case, the subject of the image does not hold the copyright or the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer. This is true even if the subject paid the photographer for the image. It is also usually true even in the case when the subject is a public figure and has paid the photographer for a written license to use the image for his own marketing -- such a license does not usually allow the subject to freely license the image as required by Commons.
Second, please understand that many images on the Web are published without any regard for the rights of the photographer. Many Facebook images are photos taken by friends or even professionals, and posted by the subject without permission of the photographer. Commons, though, has a strict standard. We try to ensure that all images here are, as you quoted above, free for any use, anywhere, by anyone, including commercial use.
Therefore, in every case where the image is under copyright and the uploader is not the photographer, as I said at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Graffiti

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banksy 28 October installment from "Better Out Than In" New York City residency.jpg: First off, Banksy is not known. He/she is infamously pseudonymous. By your logic, most everything in Category:Better Out Than In, Category:Banksy in New York City, Category:Banksy in New Orleans, etc., should be deleted too, no? I'm not going to throw a fit or anything, I'm just frustrated that I keep being told that these are okay, and then others say they're not, and meanwhile the policy pages leave it all very vague. I won't be uploading graffiti anymore, that's for sure :) Thanks for helping me understand. I'm trying to do the right thing. Kind regards, — MusikAnimal talk 05:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Including File:Banksy Corner Grey Ghost B Clio.jpg which was uploaded by an admin. Sorry if I seem upset; I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are, as it seems there aren't any that I can rely on. — MusikAnimal talk 05:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright law is complex and varies from country to country and the humans who administer it here have different understandings of the law. Much of the time there is no case law, so we are doing our best to figure out what would happen if the case did come to trial. None of this should be surprising -- how many US Supreme Court decisions are unanimous?
There are several areas where our most experienced editors often disagree -- FOP is one of them and the question of whether a copyrighted object is de minimis in a particular image is another. Graffiti is a third.
I am uneasy with the rationale at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Graffiti (RSM). It seems to directly violate our Precautionary Principal (PRP):
PRP (1) "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to."
RSM:"the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright"
PRP(4) "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."
RSM:"in many cases the artist is unknown"
It also assumes that an illegal work does not have a copyright. That is not my understanding of the copyright law -- none of the lists of copyrightable works in any of the laws that I have read mention illegality as a disqualifying feature.
Note also that both RSM and {{Non-free graffiti}} reflect this unease. Neither of them say that graffiti is clearly free for upload.
So, the bottom line for me is that I am just barely OK with keeping anonymous works of graffiti, but in cases like Banksy where the artist is well known and whose works are valued highly, I will move for deletion. Note that I fully understand that "Banksy" is a pseudonym. There is a long history of pseudonymous works having copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough reply. My apologies, "pseudonymous" is probably the wrong word. Banksy is anonymous, they just have a pseudonym they go by, as their real identity is intentionally kept secret. It would be an alarming twist of events for them to come out and seek legal action, in any regard, as their entire career revolves around an illegal act.

I do not mean to give you a hard time, but what about the hundreds of other imagery of Banksy's works in the United States here on Commons (see categories I linked to above)? Do they need to be nominated for deletion one by one in order to come to the same conclusion you did with my upload? This doesn't seem to be analogous to nominating articles for deletion on content wikis, where the text and subject matter varies greatly. Here it is the same scenario -- high-resolution documentation of Banksy's work where there is no FOP. Surely you understand the frustration... especially since the image you deleted was explicitly kept by another admin at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Better Out Than In.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sticker art in New York City. These images (or at least mine) were of a completely unknown artist who doesn't even have a nickname. The subject was w:Toynbee tiles, and every image you see in that article also lives here on Commons, along with entire categories of similar images.

Everyone has a different opinion. The question is... what do I do? I've already committed to no longer uploading graffiti, so I am asking hypothetically. What would be your recommendation? And what would you expect me to do if other admins tell me it's okay (which they have, repeatedly)? Who am I supposed to trust? I have no interest in nominating the other images for deletion, nor do I have any animosity against you or your beliefs, nor am I pleading for you to restore the image you deleted. It just seems to me that if we, as a project, can't agree on graffiti where there is no FOP, then I think we should err on the side of caution and disallow it entirely. Right? At the very least, be consistent. Thank you again, and apologies for my tone. — MusikAnimal talk 23:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No apology at all is needed -- you are perfectly polite, even though frustrated. I can offer you little more in the way of help. Note the ambiguity of the two pages I cited above. Neither says that it is OK, simply that if you upload a graffiti file, you should put the ambiguous template on it and see what happens. I don't go hunting for FOP or graffiti files to delete, although I will use my judgement if they come across my screen. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg

Sorry my doubt, but i dont understand your rationale. If, as you write, "Commons follows Bridgeman and therefore there is no reason to delete this", and this is image of a 2d painting with almost 500 years, then why did you deleted this image? Tm (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Working too fast and pushed the wrong button -- thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Ok, no problem. We all make mistakes from time to time. Thanks for your undeletion and quick answer. Tm (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Dalbergia cultrata

Why did you delete the category Dalbergia cultrata? It's an important IUCN near-threatened species over-exploited for its wood, subject to CITES import/export regulations: https://www.cites.org/eng/new_CITES_trade_rules_come_into_effect_as_2017_starts_02012017 I uploaded this file to start the category, but you deleted the category before it could be recognized: File:Dalbergia_Cultrata_Seeds_and_Seed_Pods.jpg. This category is exactly analogous to Category:Dalbergia_nigra , which also has only one image but is important in the fight against over-exploitation of tropical hardwoods. I intend to upload further photos of Dalbergia cultrata as they become available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJLudemann (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't. I deleted the single image gallery page titled Dalbergia cultrata. You forgot the prefix "Category:". Since I now know that you intended to create a category rather than a gallery page, I have restored your work and moved it to Category:Dalbergia cultrata. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

NOAA technical report

Hello Jim, is a NOAA technical report, whose author is not a goverment employee, in Public Domain? The report is there, and the author is John H. Day, a South African scientist. I ask because the article countains scientific drawings about species of which we have no or few illustrations. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say not. He starts the report by saying that he did the research while working for Duke University and is, as you say, named as RSA scientist, so, despite the NOAA imprint, I don't think it's PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok thank you very much for your observation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

New Version

Hello Mr. Jameslwoodward, I am writing to ask you for a favor of overloading a new version of an 18th century portrait. look at the current uploaded file, it's too small. I had found this old file deleted in the past, and I was thinking about asking you if you could kindly take this old file and override it on what exists now???--87.14.89.224 20:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Although that might be a good idea, I was not the Admin who deleted the image, so I cannot restore it by myself. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

could you ask then to restore it?

and if you compare the two source links the news describing the portrait is identical.--87.14.89.224 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


Reaction to the deletion of Files_uploaded_by_Juudjethailand

Dear Jim, This feels like unfairnessː someone asked for deletion of some Files uploaded by Juudjetailand for reason A, on which I responded, and after a while they are deleted for reason B. If I would have known that a lack of categories would have been a deletion reason (there are many thousands of files needing categories), I would have added categories to all of these files. And I know for sure that at least one of them did have them (File:Overlevingskansen geslacht leeftijd 31102018 103619.png), because I did so. Would it be possible to undelete them and give them categories yet? JopkeB (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that my closing comment was "Per nomination" and the lack of description and categories. I note that you added Category:Demographics of the Netherlands to one of them, but even that is perhaps too general a category to be useful. As a general rule, I and most administrators, will look at the entirety of a file and keep or delete based on that. Certainly I do not propose going through and deleting all files that do not have useful categories, even though they are lost and useless among our 52+ million files, but when I see them for other reasons, I delete them. There is no reason why you or editors other than the uploader should be taking valuable time fixing mistakes in files that may or may not be useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The first part was enlightening. I am still learning about WMC, day by day. The second part, about files of other uploaders, puzzled me. The Welcome page of WMC invites people to participate, not only in donating files, but also to give time to categorizing files and thus fixing mistakes in files that may be useful. And in most cases I care about files that I have categorized because I find them worthwile. So in spite of your opinion I'll conintue spending my time to fixing mistakes in files of others that I think to be useful. I thought that was the whole idea of WMCː storing useful files and information about them, and everyone can contribute in one way or another. JopkeB (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. Certainly if you come across a file that would be valuable if it were properly categorized, by all means do it. What I would discourage is using time to categorize files of uploaders who have given us hundreds, or in some cases, thousands, of files with no cats and no description other than the file name. That simply encourages them to upload more and files without categories are useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Delation of Relaga.jpg

There is a misunderstanding .

I am French 82 old , and not so fluent in English. I am completely lost with your abbreviations.

I did not know that when you delete some graph you seem to have no knowledge of the written text where the graph refers .

I renounce ! Perhaps take a look at my discussion page in french wikipedia. Chessfan (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SO? I am 75 years old and not as fluent in French as you are in English, Chessfan, but what part of my closing comment:

"Hand drawn graph with no caption, no useful description, and no categories. Out of Scope".

don't you understand. We have more than 50 million images on Commons. Images without categories and descriptions cannot be found, so they are useless. Works such as this should be machine generated, not hand drawn. The page on Commons Scope, which I linked, is available in French. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This hand drawn graph is uniquely associated with my text "Relativité et algèbre géométrique". You deprive my very few readers of useful graph. That's all ... Chessfan (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no article with that title on WP:FR. As I said above, images without categories or descriptions are not useful and we do not generally keep crude, hand drawn graphs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
See : Discussion utilisateur:Chessfan Chessfan (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I see where the image was. That is not an article, it is a talk page. Using it for an article is inappropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I have the right to add a graph to my talk page ... ?! Chessfan (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC) That was part of a discussion I had concerning the article "la dilatation du temps". Chessfan (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the rules at WP:FR -- it would not be allowed on Commons or WP:EN. However, the question is moot -- Commons does not keep crude, hand drawn graphs with no categories and no useful description. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I feel "no hand drawn graphs" is too restrictive. Chessfan (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pizza+Pasta (Tübingen)

Hi Jim, sorry, I didn't upload the pictures for the new category immediately and I understand why you deleted it in the first place. Now they are there: Category:Pizza+Pasta (Tübingen). --Dktue (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dktue, I deleted Pizza+Pasta (Tübingen) because it was an empty Gallery, not a category. You forgot "Category:", twice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I didn't realize that! --Dktue (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of my uploaded files

Hi Jim,
I have asked for the undeletion of the following files owned and uploaded by me:

I contacted https://elliniko-greek-rock.blogspot.com where one of my files appeared without a free license, and they took it down.
Can you restore the deleted files now or I could upload them again with the proper license?
Thank you!

--Badelitsis (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, to both questions.
I cannot restore files deleted by another Admin. You could ask User:1989 if they will do it.
You may not upload files a second time. It is both a violation of rules and a waste of resources.
If 1989 is unwilling, as they probably will be, you should file a request at Commons:undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
They made a request already. It was declined with you advising to them to have the copyright holders email COM:OTRS. -- 1989 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. --Badelitsis (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Christian Science Monitor

As a followup (actually, I just forgot to copy a comment from VP to that DR) Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/01 has specific positive evidence of their renewing copyrights on that type of material in that era. Though as you say, we don't know the actual original that was used for the Maparium and it's pretty hard to search the records of that era. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

500px

Commons:500px licensing data, so this is an absurd comment Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "From81" and decision. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

First, let me suggest that you tone it down a bit. The fact that I am unfamiliar with the peculiar license situation at 500px is nowhere near "absurd". Such remarks are not helpful on Commons.

Second, I went to Commons:500px licensing data and tried the method described there on the first of the deleted images with no success. I then tried it on the example given there, File:Cereal Field At Sunrise (199200911).jpeg, searching in the 500px source code on "href="https://creativecommons". There were no results. Perhaps something has changed again at 500px or perhaps Commons:500px licensing data needs a clearer and correct explanation.

I also note that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses require that the license designator, either literal or icon, and the attribution, must appear on each use of the image. The fact that 500px buries it in their code makes their use of the images a copyvio and casts doubt on whether there is really a CC license in effect at all.

In any event, the principal reason that I deleted the images is that the modifications made to them make them artworks by an artist who is not notable, so they are our of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Children around

Hi. Can you please stop the IP playing with Category:Hamza? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:RogerChape02.jpg

Thanks for closing the discussion, but there was one more version of File:RogerChape02.jpg that needs to be deleted. this version is a copyvio, taken from https://www.lance.com.br/corinthians/corintiano-desde-crianca-roger-mira-estreia-com-brincadeira-carille.html.

Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I want to tell you that you shouldn't use “no valid reason” as a reason to kept those outdated/improved file. I had made some of the maps in svg format and I could not upload it in png format, thats why I wanted to delete them because the svg version of the map actually is a duplicate version, thank you. *angys* (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, we do not delete older maps when newer ones become available. That is particularly the case when the older map is a PNG and the newer one an SVG. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

is it possible to get a copy of this image

This image was previously deleted on 17th March, and I've been using it on my own website for the school at https://spsdarj.org.

I was not aware of the pending deletion as I would've saved a local copy of it myself. If possible, could I get the image via email or any other means?

Thank you,

Abhinav paulite (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I replied to your email. But I guess I can just post it here. [snipped for privacy]

thank you, Abhinav paulite (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Governour_DKI_Jakarta_Djarot_Saiful_Hidayat.jpg

@Jameslwoodward: Why did you erase the image after clearly there were 2 Keeps and no supports? Even the nominator did not response anymore after facing opposition. Please explain the reason and please return the image. Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it relying on the cite from Patrick Rogel which said that Article 43 applies only if there is no copyright notice. After you note above, I read Article 43 and see that the cite is wrong. The law does not say that there is no copyright, but that it does not infringe the copyright to use the image. This is similar to the situation with FOP where we honor foreign FOP even if it would apply in the USA. Thanks you for reopening the question.

Note, by the way, that DRs are not votes. Admins are required to use their own knowledge of the law and circumstances so the fact that several people wanted to keep the image is not relevant..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Utrecht klein2.png

Hi Jim; you deleted that file giving the reason "This appears without a free license at https://provincieutrecht.d66.nl/content/uploads/sites/209/2015/12/Utrecht_klein2.png " - however, as that URL ("...2015/12/...") suggests, the file was probably uploaded there in 2015. The Commons file was uploaded here in 2012. So it can't be taken from there, I think? Rather the other way round? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Strange. The map that I cited and you cited above is the same as the original map with this file name. However, on January 22, 2019, before the DR was filed, Mario Bronkhorst prvutr uploaded a new map. I'm not sure why I called out the old version in my closing comment. Am I missing something?

Anyway, take a look at the latest deleted version. It doesn't at all look like an amateur work and has a watermark in the lower right, "ESRI Nederland AHN". It appears at: https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/algemene-onderdelen/serviceblok/english/province-utrecht/ with a copyright notice on an accompanying page (https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/algemene-onderdelen/serviceblok/contact/proclaimer/):

"De provincie Utrecht bezit het auteursrecht op de tekst, afbeeldingen en films van haar websites. Niets van deze informatie mag gepubliceerd, verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar worden gemaakt zonder schriftelijke toestemming van de Provincie Utrecht, behoudens wettelijke uitzonderingen."
The province of Utrecht owns the copyright to the text, images and films of its websites. None of this information may be published, reproduced and / or made public without written permission from the Province of Utrecht, subject to legal exceptions.
translator: Google

Dutch government works are free of copyright unless there is a copyright notice, which is clearly the case here. Your thoughts? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I feel a bit confused, too, because I think I haven't previously seen the file uploaded by Mario Bronkhorst prvutr on January 22 at all. I'm not sure how that's possible, as you correctly note that this new map was uploaded before the DR was filed, but I only remember seeing the completely different map that was previously there, uploaded by NeoRetro, and my comments were referring to that map. I completely agree with deleting the new map, but still think that the older versions can plausibly be the uploader's own work. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The DR was about the earlier version. Before I filed that DR, I removed the later version, for being both a violation of COM:OVERWRITE and a clear copyright violation. I hope this clears up the confusion. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Jcb. Jim, what's now your assessment? I think we all agree that the latest version was rightly deleted (by Jcb), but for the earlier, different files, your deletion reason doesn't really seem to apply (as the 2015 upload to a site outside of Commons was later than the 2012 Commons uploads). Gestumblindi (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Photo-barbarian

Crash and burn, but at least be correct.

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Canadian_Senator_Paula_Simons.jpg

In Canadian law, official photographs of Canadian officials published on their official websites do not hold copyright since they are paid for by public resources. So what gives you the right to demand my contribution be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canlawtictoc (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your version of Canadian law, but our summary at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated_list C-D#Canada clearly states that government works are subject to a fifty year Crown Copyright. Further, as clearly stated in the DR you reference above, images from the source of this one are limited to Non-Commercial use, see https://sencanada.ca/en/important-notices/ about halfway down the page. So, either Crown Copyright, or free for non-commercial use, but no evidence that such images are free for any use.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that throwing out things like "Photo-barbarian" and "at least be correct" is counter-productive. Since it appears that you are the one who was incorrect here, it also reflects poorly on you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding file deletion request

File:Luukharleman-profiel-foto.png Small image, no EXIF -- all five other uploads by this new user are clear copyright violations . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the concern, yes I am new here. Questions regarding your deletion request:

What is meant with EXIF? What is small? Too small? And about the other 5, these business profile logos are uploaded on their behalf with explicit approval. I thought Id follow the right steps. Cheers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuukH87 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite inquiry. I will try to answer your questions clearly, but if you do not understand, please ask again.

EXIF is information about the image that is embedded in the file. See for example today's featured picture, File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpg. At the bottom of the file page you will see "Metadata" and a table with various information about the image generated by the camera at the time it was taken. Not all images have EXIF -- scanned paper photos may or may not have EXIF from the scanner and older photo-editors do not save it. Since most images found on the Web do not have it, lack of it is an indication that the image is not actually the uploader's own work.

Small size is another indication that the image was lifted from the Web. Few images on the Web are posted at full camera resolution because for a modern camera that will be much larger than almost all screens. So any image that is less than perhaps 1,200 pixels on a side is certainly suspicious and anything less than full camera resolution raises a question. If you downsized the image before uploading it, please remember that Commons wants images at full size, whatever that may be. Our software sizes images as required as it loads pages.

Finally, there is the fact that your username resembles the name of the subject of the image. If you, User:LuukH87, are actually the subject of the photo, then, unless the image is a selfie, it is not "own work" as you claim. The copyright owner is the photographer and they must send a free license using OTRS.

As for the logos, since we do not know who User:LuukH87 actually is, or what authority he has over the logos, policy requires that an authorized official (or officials) of the organization(s) owning the copyright for the logos must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, and much faster, the organizations owning the logos could add a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to their web sites. This can be done for the whole site or just for the logo. For example, the bottom of https://www.vaneeks.nl/ could be changed to read "(c) copyright Van Eeks All Rights Reserved except for the logo at the page top which is CC-BY".

Put briefly, with a very few exceptions, in order to upload an image without using OTRS, it must be:

  • An image for which you were actually the photographer
  • An image that appears on the Web with a free license where it is obvious that the person posting the image had the right to freely license it.
  • An image for which the copyright has expired or there is no copyright in both the country of origin and the United States.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC) I see thanks for your response, I guess a bit more homework for me to do before I upload :) It seems clear though I need to do some research how the exact process goes. Thanks again, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuukH87 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 April 2019‎ (UTC)


File:Perun and Veles create the land.jpg

Are you sure it is deleted, because it is out of scope? Being supported by citations from several literature sources? Based upon a request from some freak who couldn't give any reason? The Wikimedia Project definitely drifts in a wrong direction. I always have seen this as an open project that severs to give people deeper understanding of some ideas - like here in case of the slavic mythology. Well, I was wrong. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pborys (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Pborys (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perun and Veles create the land.jpg, Commons does not keep artwork from artists who are not themselves notable. As a general rule, "notable" means that they have an article on one or more WPs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

it said it could not save my edits last time I tried to save this. So I am resending it Slides for deletion.

John, I have moved your comment to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Jawiki_bsa where any discussion of the DR must take place. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emergency Resource List for Los Angeles, California.pdf

Hi Jim, happy Easter from here in Asia...I am the author of the Emergency Resource List for LA. I uploaded this emergency resource list and it's my link to academia.edu. PeabodyB is just my user name, not my legal name. This is a Wikicommons upload only with a page dedicated to emergency response. Best, Aron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 April 2019‎ (UTC)

And Happy Easter to you , also, thank you. OK, that answers the copyright question, but not the scope question. I don't think it is something we should keep, hence the DR. As a newbie, you may not realize that we keep a very limited number of text files in PDF and those are almost all images of notable out-of-copyright books. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Utrecht klein2.png

Hi Jim; you deleted that file giving the reason "This appears without a free license at https://provincieutrecht.d66.nl/content/uploads/sites/209/2015/12/Utrecht_klein2.png " - however, as that URL ("...2015/12/...") suggests, the file was probably uploaded there in 2015. The Commons file was uploaded here in 2012. So it can't be taken from there, I think? Rather the other way round? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Strange. The map that I cited and you cited above is the same as the original map with this file name. However, on January 22, 2019, before the DR was filed, Mario Bronkhorst prvutr uploaded a new map. I'm not sure why I called out the old version in my closing comment. Am I missing something?

Anyway, take a look at the latest deleted version. It doesn't at all look like an amateur work and has a watermark in the lower right, "ESRI Nederland AHN". It appears at: https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/algemene-onderdelen/serviceblok/english/province-utrecht/ with a copyright notice on an accompanying page (https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/algemene-onderdelen/serviceblok/contact/proclaimer/):

"De provincie Utrecht bezit het auteursrecht op de tekst, afbeeldingen en films van haar websites. Niets van deze informatie mag gepubliceerd, verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar worden gemaakt zonder schriftelijke toestemming van de Provincie Utrecht, behoudens wettelijke uitzonderingen."
The province of Utrecht owns the copyright to the text, images and films of its websites. None of this information may be published, reproduced and / or made public without written permission from the Province of Utrecht, subject to legal exceptions.
translator: Google

Dutch government works are free of copyright unless there is a copyright notice, which is clearly the case here. Your thoughts? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I feel a bit confused, too, because I think I haven't previously seen the file uploaded by Mario Bronkhorst prvutr on January 22 at all. I'm not sure how that's possible, as you correctly note that this new map was uploaded before the DR was filed, but I only remember seeing the completely different map that was previously there, uploaded by NeoRetro, and my comments were referring to that map. I completely agree with deleting the new map, but still think that the older versions can plausibly be the uploader's own work. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The DR was about the earlier version. Before I filed that DR, I removed the later version, for being both a violation of COM:OVERWRITE and a clear copyright violation. I hope this clears up the confusion. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Jcb. Jim, what's now your assessment? I think we all agree that the latest version was rightly deleted (by Jcb), but for the earlier, different files, your deletion reason doesn't really seem to apply (as the 2015 upload to a site outside of Commons was later than the 2012 Commons uploads). Gestumblindi (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Photo-barbarian

Crash and burn, but at least be correct.

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Canadian_Senator_Paula_Simons.jpg

In Canadian law, official photographs of Canadian officials published on their official websites do not hold copyright since they are paid for by public resources. So what gives you the right to demand my contribution be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canlawtictoc (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your version of Canadian law, but our summary at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated_list C-D#Canada clearly states that government works are subject to a fifty year Crown Copyright. Further, as clearly stated in the DR you reference above, images from the source of this one are limited to Non-Commercial use, see https://sencanada.ca/en/important-notices/ about halfway down the page. So, either Crown Copyright, or free for non-commercial use, but no evidence that such images are free for any use.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that throwing out things like "Photo-barbarian" and "at least be correct" is counter-productive. Since it appears that you are the one who was incorrect here, it also reflects poorly on you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding file deletion request

File:Luukharleman-profiel-foto.png Small image, no EXIF -- all five other uploads by this new user are clear copyright violations . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the concern, yes I am new here. Questions regarding your deletion request:

What is meant with EXIF? What is small? Too small? And about the other 5, these business profile logos are uploaded on their behalf with explicit approval. I thought Id follow the right steps. Cheers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuukH87 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite inquiry. I will try to answer your questions clearly, but if you do not understand, please ask again.

EXIF is information about the image that is embedded in the file. See for example today's featured picture, File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpg. At the bottom of the file page you will see "Metadata" and a table with various information about the image generated by the camera at the time it was taken. Not all images have EXIF -- scanned paper photos may or may not have EXIF from the scanner and older photo-editors do not save it. Since most images found on the Web do not have it, lack of it is an indication that the image is not actually the uploader's own work.

Small size is another indication that the image was lifted from the Web. Few images on the Web are posted at full camera resolution because for a modern camera that will be much larger than almost all screens. So any image that is less than perhaps 1,200 pixels on a side is certainly suspicious and anything less than full camera resolution raises a question. If you downsized the image before uploading it, please remember that Commons wants images at full size, whatever that may be. Our software sizes images as required as it loads pages.

Finally, there is the fact that your username resembles the name of the subject of the image. If you, User:LuukH87, are actually the subject of the photo, then, unless the image is a selfie, it is not "own work" as you claim. The copyright owner is the photographer and they must send a free license using OTRS.

As for the logos, since we do not know who User:LuukH87 actually is, or what authority he has over the logos, policy requires that an authorized official (or officials) of the organization(s) owning the copyright for the logos must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, and much faster, the organizations owning the logos could add a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to their web sites. This can be done for the whole site or just for the logo. For example, the bottom of https://www.vaneeks.nl/ could be changed to read "(c) copyright Van Eeks All Rights Reserved except for the logo at the page top which is CC-BY".

Put briefly, with a very few exceptions, in order to upload an image without using OTRS, it must be:

  • An image for which you were actually the photographer
  • An image that appears on the Web with a free license where it is obvious that the person posting the image had the right to freely license it.
  • An image for which the copyright has expired or there is no copyright in both the country of origin and the United States.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi (Jameslwoodward) sorry for the late reply, but thank you very much for your added info, much appreciated. Cheers LuukH87 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Kept, but deleted

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Автентична секція брами XIX століття та секція сучасної брами. Капітульна 22, Ужгород.jpg

You said you kept it, but actually deleted it..? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete Nomination

I was the one who requested deleting a group of files on Feb. this year. First, I am sorry to respond to you on 6 months later. Here you told me that "You are anonymous here and these files certainly do not expose you in any way." Well, actually the government can easily find out who took the picture. With the height and position, they can find out the geographic location of photographer. Date, camera info, EXIF, it's even not a problem for the government of China to find out the guy hides behind the name of "YouTable". Actually, police has talked to me. So please delete these files-these photos were uploaded by me! I have the right to be forgotten.

These files are:

Sincerely, YouTable. 15:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is a problem, then deleting the files will not do any good for two reasons:

  1. The government may already have the files.
  2. Any Commons Admin can look at deleted files and I think it is likely that if the government is actually interested in Commons files, then one of our Admins is a government agent.

As far as any "right to be forgotten" goes, in fact your licensing of these files is irrevocable and you have no right to demand their removal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not joking-it's very important. Concerning other reasons, please remove them. --YouTable 06:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouTable (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Resurrection_Peninsula_mappa.png

Hello. The file "Resurrection_Peninsula_mappa.png" derives from "File:Fourpeaked-map1.jpg" which is in the "Category: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska" is that it is in the public domain.--Enrico Blasutto (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the two files have both maps of Alaska, but show different places and were made by different people. Even if File:Resurrection_Peninsula_mappa.png were derived from the other file, you cannot claim "own work" for a file that is derived from another file that you did not create. That is true even if the other file is in the public domain. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

File: Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg

Thank you for arbitrating the undeletion of "Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg".

The person who originally requested this deletion is also responsible for a number of other photographs of paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years being deleted. In fact, his reason for deletion, essentially that they were probably published someplace, is word-for-word identical. What is the best way to undelete these other files?Wmpearl (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jameslwoodward/Archive 2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg

Hi Jameslwoodward. Would you mind taking a look at this DR? A permissions email was sent to OTRS, but the reviewer apparently felt it was insufficient. I'm not sure why this then ended up at DR since it seems more like something which could be easily resolved between OTRS volunteers and the person who sent in the email. Another participant in the DR also seems to have posted a copy of the email sent to OTRS; this was probably done with the best of intentions, but also seems wrong since my understanding is that emails sent to OTRS are not really for public view. The same editor also posted a copy of the email at OTRSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Krd, a highly experienced administrator and a fellow bureaucrat and checkuser has closed this before I saw the note above. I see nothing for me to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for taking a look at this anyways. I saw that it was closed and intended to post an update here to that extent, but forgot to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jameslwoodward/Archive 2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plaque mémoire Histoire du 11ème.jpg, the request was for two files. You deleted one file, but the other one File:La Plaque mémoire - Patrick Bloche entouré d'élus et de Bernard Casnin architecte.jpg needs to be deleted as well. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

DR

Hi, Consensus works everywhere - No admin gets to come along and super!vote close (unless it's plain and obvious which is not the case here)
Also Please don't use rollback on me[1] as my edits are not vandalism,

You're more than welcome to relist the discussion to achieve a consensus but I strongly object to your super!vote closure, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanger to H-O.jpg

Unpublished works--as per w:Salinger v. Random House, Inc., letters are unpublished works--do not require copyright notices; as per the Copyright Office, "A notice should be affixed to copies or phonorecords of a work in a way that gives reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. Using a copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, and works published on or after March 1, 1989." This is not how the law works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Astra1999

Hi James,
Just wondering - Would it be okay to nominate/renominate Astra1999 (and his sock accounts) images providing they're like the first DR (here) where every image is checked and whether every image is replaceable or not?, IMHO the first DR was much more helpful and certainly less disruptive than the second DR but wanted to ask you first,
Obviously if you say no then his images (and his sock account ones) won't be touched but I can't really see the harm in nominating them providing they're laid out like the first DR,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see a good reason for deleting the images. Certainly they are, as I said, a little clinical, but as record shots of the front and back of various vehicles they are well within scope, particularly given their excellent quality. I can easily image model makers using them for details of the cars. The uploader may be a sock, but we should not deprive Commons of potentially useful images for that reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay that's fair enough, Given DRs aren't really participated in it'd be hard to justify renominating them and seeing if others disagree with essentially the first DR although Alexis Jazz has stated they'd of !voted Keep,
Don't agree with it but that's on Commons policy not you,
Anyway many thanks for replying, Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: if the uploader hadn't socked I doubt you would seek deletion, is that correct? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Alexis Jazz, My rationale for the DR would be along the lines of: the images listed are listed because there are other images in that category that are better and therefore the images are replaceable, and those that aren't listed there would be because of for instance there is no images of a Black Astra or a Navy blue Zafira or a white Astra,
It would basically be identical to the first DR minus the socking and minus the DR tag for that image (so the image would still be listed but those being kept would be basically struck through and not actually nominated just an explanation as to why it's being kept),
But this is pretty much dead in the water given James' reply above, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010: We generally don't delete images because they are replaceable. They would have to be replaceable in every single aspect: licensing (is the license for the replacement not any more restrictive? is the replacement not copyfraud?), what is depicted (is a 2005 Zafira a replacement for a 2013 Zafira?), how it is depicted (is an angled side+front shot a replacement for a frontal shot?) and quality. (detail, lighting, etc) Effectively, scaled down duplicates of the same image will be deleted. Images that are worse in every single way than their replacement may get deleted in some cases. The photos from Astra1999 clearly are not worse in every single way, they even offer some unique qualities. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay no worries thanks for your feedback on this. –Davey2010Talk 21:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

File:כשרויות.jpg

Hi, regarding the above file, can I ask why it was deleted? The picture was from a product taken in public and should not have any copyright concern. There is a fair use issue as well, showing that many products have multiple kosher symbols on it as well. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing comment, most, if not all, of the stamps are complex enough to have copyrights. Therefore the image infringes on their copyrights and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the various copyright holders.

Please note that the fact that the product was in public is completely irrelevant -- the copyrights are there wherever it was. Also note that "fair use" cannot be claimed on Commons -- a fair use claim, in those countries that allow it, can only apply to a specific use of the copyrighted work and can never to apply to keeping it in a repository such as Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Script images from a book

Hi James, Thank you for your past guidance. This book was published by Madras Christian College with Government of India financial support. It has many images where a c. 5th-century text was written in ancient writing scripts such as Tamil Brahmi. I will like to photograph a few pages and upload these for use in some wikipedia articles, if possible and compliant with our guidelines. The book was published in 1980 and its license para reads (see page 2, mid page): Any part of the book or the whole book may be reproduced and freely transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopy or any information storage and retrieval system. Further, per my checks, no page has any other conflicting copyright notice(s). Is this okay to photograph and upload to commons? If yes, should I label it as public domain license, or some other? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. As to your main question, yes, you can certainly do as you ask. However, the license question is a little more complex. If all that is on the pages that you upload is ancient text, then I would use {{PD-old}} -- we don't really have a template for ancient works, but that will do. If the pages include a translation or other modern work, then I would use {{CC-0}}, which isn't strictly right either, but will certainly do. In either case, I would quote the sentence you quote above under the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. After some checks, I will go with the CC-0 option, because even though the scripts are ancient or pre-11th century, the font typeface can be interpreted as the creative work of the authors. I will also quote that sentence, as you recommend. Cheers and thanks again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Misclick in closing comment

See this. I think you probably clicked the wrong close reason button or something. To avoid confusing the heck out of any future wikimedian that stumbles in there, perhaps best to update it. :) --Xover (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Portrait of Georges Rutten

Hello Jim,

Here : [2] you deleted the said portrait. The problem with this portrait is that I attributed it to a certain artist - Hubert Bogaerts - while the portrait is not signed 'Hubert Bogaerts' but 'Bogaerts Bruxelles', referring to the Bogaerts workshop, not to a particular artist. So, actually, it has to be maintained in Commons. Regards, --Ronny MG (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If you consider this a joint work of the members of the workshop, then the copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the last of them to die, which would be Louis in 1957, so the work will be under copyright until 1/1/2028. If, on the other hand, you consider this to be a work by an unknown author, then the copyright lasts until 70 years after publication. Since no information has been given about its publication before its appearance, here, that would be many years from now. I favor the first interpretation. I see no basis on which the work is not under copyright now, unless it can be proven that it was published before 1949. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The portrait was made between April 1900 and December 1902, which is the period wherein a member of the Dutch Bogaerts painters family - Hubert Bogaerts (Hubertus Aloisius Henricus Maria Bogaerts) - founded a branch of the Dutch mothercompany Peinture Bogaerts in Brussels, under the name Bogaerts Bruxelles (which is the signature mentionned on the painting in the below left corner). The population register 1900 - 1931 of the village Boxtel (Netherlands), where the mothercompany Peinture Bogaerts was established : [3] mentions on page 52/615, line 28 : '30/04/1900 (first column 'date'), Bogaerts (second column 'last name'), HAHM (= Hubertus Aloisius Henricus Maria)(third column 'front letters'), Boxtel (sixt column 'address'), Brussel (nineth column 'left for')' and also mentions on the same page 52/615 on the next line (line 29) : '31/12/1902 (first column 'date'), Bogaerts (second column 'last name'), 1869 (sixt column 'date of birth'), Brussel (eighth column 'previous address'), kunstschilder (= painter) (last column 'profession')'. Specifically these two lines indicate that on the 30th of April 1900 the painter Hubertus Aloisius Henricus Maria Bogaerts, born in 1869 and living in Boxtel left for Brussels and returned from Brussels to Boxtel on the 31st of December 1902 (most likely because his father Henri Bogaerts died in Boxtel on 22th of December 1902). Furthermore, a number of publicity advertisements, e.g. in 'Gazette Van Kortrijk' from 29th of June 1902 mentions [4] ' ... huis Bogaerts van Brussel voor geschilderde kunstportretten ...' (second line of the advertisement), translated ; ' ... workshop Bogaerts from Brussels for painted portraits ...'. Bogaerts Brussels stands for Bogaerts Bruxelles, as mentionned on the portraits' below left corner. In my opinion, the facts above proove that the portrait representing Georges Rutten and bearing the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles was made in Brussels well before 1949 (based on the population register of Boxtel, it was made between April 1900 and December 1902). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronny MG (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Here : [5] the date of publication of the above mentionned advertisement (29th of June 1902) can clearly be seen (on the right below 'Originele bestandsnaam'). --Ronny MG (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
When the painting was made is irrelevant. As I noted above, depending on how you look at the copyright status, what matters is, in the first case, when the last of the people who collaborated on the work died, and, in the second case, when the work was first "published" in the technical copyright sense of that word -- that is, when it was first displayed in a museum or when a copy of it first appeared in a book. None of those facts have been proven beyond a significant doubt, as required on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hubert Bogaerts' brothers Louis and Henri were never in Belgium. So, the artist who made the painting was Hubert Bogaerts or another artist working for the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles, but another artist is impossible to track down. If we choose to attribute the painting to Hubert Bogaerts himself and not to the workshop the copyright status is unclear, while it is unknown when Hubert Bogaerts died. The portrait suddenly popped up as an item for sale on the internet, making part of the possessions of a person who passed away. So, it was never displayed in a museum, nor published in a book. Besides all of this, I have permission of the recent owner (who bought the portrait) to publish the portrait on Wikipedia. My question towards you is if the copyright of the artist is of no importance by this permission. --Ronny MG (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
So, again, we have the same two possibilities -- first, the work is by Hubert Bogaerts, with an uncertain death date. The work is too recent for us to assume that he died at least 70 years ago. the second possibility is that it is an anonymous work and not published until very recently. The law in Belgium is that copyright for an anonymous work lasts 70 years after first publication. The permission of the current owner of the painting is irrelevant -- the law is very clear that the owner of a copyrighted work does not have the right to license the work. If that were not the case, then you could buy a copyrighted book and make and sell copies of it, which you certainly know that you cannot do.
So, in the first case, in might be restored ten years from now. In the second case, the copyright lasts until 70 years from the year it appeared on the Internet..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

re: File:Grant_Ingersoll.png

Hello, in regards to the deletion of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Grant_Ingersoll.png, is a Wikimedia Foundation blog post not a reliable source? // sikander { talk } 🦖 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently not -- the image was clearly supplied by his former employer, so in order to keep it on Commons we will need a free license from an officer of Lucidworks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Some additional info: https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-foundation-welcomes-grant-ingersoll-as-chief-technology-officer/1386/2 OTRS volunteer rejected the ticket so I suppose this file should stay deleted. // sikander { talk } 🦖 00:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ticket#:2019110510009248 File:Jonathan_Messer_Filmmaker.jpg

Hi Jim, the copyright holder Stephen Heath, photographer has now sent an e-mail to permissions. Could you please re-instate/undelete the image and delete any blocks. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jonathan_Messer_Filmmaker.jpg Ticket#:2019110510009248 Thank you. (PaisleyParks 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaisleyParks (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 November 2019‎ (UTC)

No, sorry. I am no longer an OTRS volunteer and therefore cannot handle the ticket. It can be restored only when the ticket has reached the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly before permanently deleting other peoples uploads, allow the 7 days time period to pass before being so earnest. The ticket is being restored as the copyright holder has been contacted. --PaisleyParks 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaisleyParks (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Again -- please sign your posts. If you continue to ignore Commons rules, you may be blocked from editing here. The same applies to reloading deleted images which you did in this case.

The image clearly qualified for {{Speedy}} treatment, so no seven day period applied. There is no such ting as "permanently deleted" on Commons. Images that do not qualify to be kept are simply hidden from the view of editors who are not Administrators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Restoring my content

Hello! I noticed that you removed my content. However, I only asked for one of the pages to be removed, i.e. the Google page. Could you please restore the .djvu file and remove the Google page? Veverve (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I could be very wrong -- djvu files are not used often here, so I am not very familiar with them -- but I don't think that is possible. Commons deals with files as a whole and does not itself have the capability to edit them. I assumed that you would edit the file yourself and reload it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick answer! I reuploaded the file without the Google page.Veverve (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carte ACE.jpg

It's not the same map as the background graphic on https://ace-submarinecable.com/ you referred to as deletion reason - just drawn in a similar style. For example, at the website, the lines at Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon, have points ending in the country, whilst on the deleted map, they end at the coast. There are also numerous other differences in labeling/lettering etc. So I still think (as I said in the deletion discussion: particularly because it's not really professionally done) that this is most likely the uploader's own work. Or would you say that it's too close to the original and therefore must be deleted as a derivative work? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right, it is not the same map -- I should have noticed that -- my apologies. However, I think your last sentence may be right, but I'm not sure. I'm going to restore this and see what others think. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Photos from the Roger Puta collection

Hello, While I was looking at files from this collection for other reasons, I noticed two small things about which I think you may be the best person who can help.

  • In 2016 you confirmed [6] the validity of the OTRS ticket 2016020210001676 as used in the Template:RogerPuta. That's all good, of course. However, the user who created the template wrote at the end "They are in the Public Domain, and may be used with attribution to "Roger Puta"". It seems to me that this wording can leave the impression that there is a requirement for attribution and a contradiction with the mention of public domain. I see in the AN/A60 that you clarified that the OTRS communication says something like "Out of courtesy we hope his photos will be attributed to him." So, to prevent any confusion in the template, I wonder if you could reword slightly the template to clarify that the attribution is a request, not a requirement. (The opportunity could be used also to fix in the template the apparent inconsistency of the plural pronoun "they" in the second sentence referring to the singular "this file" in the first sentence. The template should use the singular or the plural, not both.) Technically, I could modify the template instead of annoying you with this, but because I am not an OTRS member and I am not a native speaker of English, I prefer to ask an admin or OTRS member to do the rewording.

Thank you in advance, -- Asclepias (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done the first, as requested. Why don;t you start a DR for the second? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll do a DR. (Although right now, I'm more trying to get the undeletion of Roger Puta's photographs, as you probably saw.) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to express my gratitude that you help out with the undeletion requests. I’m glad that there are several administators helping out so the number of requests can be kept below 50. Thuresson (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

hi Mr. Jameslwoodward, I have a problem, I should present a small list of badges on commons undeletion, but I can't publish the aforementioned files on the page, how can I do? the badges I tell them are part of this user's uploads here--Frünsßerg12 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(This is a sock of A3cb1) .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Liam Otero - Spider Monkey Sculpture.jpg

Hello Jim,

I am writing to ask that you do not nominate the "Spider Monkey God with Wind Regalia" or the "Stone of Moctezuma" images for deletion, as it is pertinent for a class that I am taking, and would affect my grade. I do not understand why you want to delete these, especially since your area of expertise is "mostly lighthouses and sites on the National Register of Historic Places". I am very open to hearing the reasoning behind your decision.

Thank you.

Best, Lotero3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotero3 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Liam, I had hoped that you might all be students at the same university, namely F......, rather than sockpuppets. Thank you for clearing that up.

There remain my two questions -- first, is this in scope? My guess is that your professor thinks it is, but I'm not certain. We will see what others say. Second, where did the image come from? It does not look like a photo that you might have taken while visiting a museum -- it looks like a photo that a museum might make in its photo studio. If you, in fact, made the photo yourself, please make that clear on File:Liam Otero - Spider Monkey Sculpture.jpg. If you got it elsewhere, you must say where and prove that it is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Simon Michel.jpg

Perhaps you remember this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simon Michel.jpg. Well it has raised it ugly head again with this OTRS Ticket:2019111810008261 I am dealing with, though it was a different Ticket:2014011110003537 that originally verified the image back in 2014. I'm not really sure what to do with this, so perhaps you would review and advise, preferably by dropping a note in the ticket. The email used now is different from the one used in 2014, but it was Swiss email and there was an release attached to that ticket, though not signed. Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I am no longer an OTRS agent. OTRS has a policy that in order to remain an OTRS agent, you must actively open and close tickets. My attitude is that I am a competent and highly productive Commons Admin and Commons has a seven week backlog -- I am very slow at handling OTRS tickets because I have to look things up and OTRS has very short backlog now. So, where am I more valuable to the project as a whole -- seems obvious to me, but not to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try someone else. Ww2censor (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Urgence Amazonie

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Le cacique Raoni Metuktire au journal de 20H de TF1 le 29 novembre 2012 pour la campagne "Urgence Amazonie".jpg

I can generally blur/blank background stuff. I can't find this image anywhere so I don't know if it's possible here, but usually it is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In this case it would be hard because the image is of a TV news desk which has a single large photo as the backdrop. It's probably digitally added to a bluescreen image of the desk and people. Blurring it would be hard because it is the whole background for the two people . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)shown. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a fair chance I can do it, but I have to see it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Hello James,

In regards to this: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#%5B%5B%5D_https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.m.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ASeph_Lawless_2014.jpg%5D

Most photographers like the subject take self-portraits (tripods and timers) I think you’re thinking more of a selfie which is far different. You claim it doesn’t look like a self/portrait when in actuality it epitomizes a self-portrait.

Furthermore, why delete the only photo on a Wikipedia page and not replace it with the thousands of images listed online concerning the subject.

Even though it’s very clear this photographer took that self portrait reported in several news stories listed as sources for the subjects page itself.

Perhaps, you can assist me where I can get help with the community replacing the image. Removing images only hurts the platform by appearing to be incomplete. --2600:1009:B009:641C:90E0:3427:FF27:306F 22:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter whether it is a self portrait or not -- it appears on the Lawless web site with an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, as I clearly said in the UnDR,

"In order to restore the image to Commons, the actual photographer must give a free license using OTRS."

That is firmly established policy -- when the uploader is not the photographer and the image does not appear on the web or in print with a free license, then a license using OTRS is absolutely required.

Also, please understand that it's not an Admin's job to seek out replacement images, assuming there are any available -- I will wager that almost all of the "the thousands of images listed online concerning the subject" are not freely licensed. Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day. We must delete about 1,700 of them, mostly, as in this case, for copyright violation. The dozen Admins that do most of that work have little time for anything else.

As for, "Perhaps, you can assist me where I can get help with the community replacing the image." -- the best assistance I can give you is to tell you again to read the clear statement quoted above and get the actual photographer to send a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply

Hi James, how can you mention in one and the same paragraph that I have 60 edits on Wikimedia commons and still call my 60th contribution my first contribution? I don't even know what point you were trying to make by that. I rest my "ad hominen (because why use the word "personal") attack" aka comment about your deletion frenzy. --Rderijcke (talk)

  • Rderijcke, if you expect an intelligent response, and perhaps some action on the issue, you must tell me what you are talking about. You have only two deleted files, the most recent of which was deleted four years ago, and neither were deleted by me. So, please, what's the problem? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tuválkin. Rderijcke, you misquoted me -- I said that it was "your first major contribution here", which is perfectly sensible. [emphasis added].

As for the DR four years ago, I have nothing to add. The images all apparently infringe various copyrights and no one made the required effort to prove otherwise, by showing that the creator had been dead for seventy years or by proving that the creator was actually anonymous -- which is very unlikely in the case of work for a corporation -- or merely unknown to us. In order for PD-EU to apply the creator must actually have been anonymous. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • It could be added for Rderijcke’s enlightenment, that while Wikimedia Commons is more than a file repository for Wikipedia(s) and essentially unable to host fair use imagery, some Wikipedia(s) — the English-language Wikipedia among them — have a policy of local hosting of files to be transcluded in articles under a fair use clause. The case of these long deleted files could be solved by making use of that possibility. Other matters are moot. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

First, the draft article on WP:EN would be edited and proper references would be included in the article. The article was reviewed by an administrator few hours after been submitted for review and I believe Wikipedia accept further edits.

Just one rejection doesn’t proof that the article is not notable. . Goldie19 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Olaf Simons

Please fix license tags in kept files. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Request LTA

hi Mr. Jameslwoodward, I am writing to you because I saw that you canceled my request to restore some PD files, I would like to point out to you that one of those following files had been submitted, and I asked for the PROVISIONAL RESTORE, for checking of the status of the file, the request I'm saying is this therefore, I personally believe that the TEMPORARY restoration is also right for you so you can take these elements with the "pliers", despite the mistrust it has in comparison to these files. this system in this request was really useful also in the discussion --37.183.21.104 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) (This is a sock of A3cb1)

unable to understand the comment oppose

@Jameslwoodward: Sorry, I'm unable to understand your comment why you Opposed :- "Oppose FascinateGuy , you could try to get HDME to send a free license to Commons via OTRS, but I don't think it is likely that they will do so. Without that, the images cannot be kept on Commons." I'm not that familiar with all the terms used in Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So I request could you elaborate your comment. Don't get me wrong with the oppose nor you neither I'm biased. And I want to build a good rapport and edit in good faith. So it's a humble request to get a answer from you if you could a 2 mins help or suggestions. Thanks FascinateGuy (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you do not understand -- please feel free to ask again if I do not answer all of your questions.

Unless you are the actual creator of the image -- the photographer or artist -- when you upload an image to Commons you must prove either that the copyright has expired for some reason or that the image has been freely licensed by the copyright holder. You did not do that here, so the images were deleted. If HDME (Hungarama ...) grants a free license, then the images can be restored. They can do that by sending a free license using OTRS. There are good instructions there.

So, in order to get the images restored, you must ask HDME to send a free license. I think it is unlikely that they will do so, but you can certainly try. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Highstreetgraphic.jpg

Jim, you should be more careful in closing deletion discussions without much discussion at all, especially when the account is rife with so many problems. First off with your arguments, no the image is not large - most of it is white space around the graphic, and the text is actually very low resolution, almost to the point of being hard to read. With the white space cropped out, the image is only a mere 565 x 869. Secondly, no, this user's uploads are deeply flawed. They uploaded the works of two people who worked at the same time at the City of Columbus Department of Development, Planning Division: Maria Smith (née Watson) and Mike Beirne (an intern at the time), under CC license without any proof. Using non-Wiki sources, the uploader was evidently another intern there, but as outing is against policies, I'll stop short there.

They also uploaded this file as "Permission granted by organization with requested all rights reserved." (clearly ignorant of Commons' free-license requirements) necessary for them because unlike the others, Condon worked for the Short North Business Association, not the Columbus Dept. of Development. Other Commons users fixed this licensing mistake by swapping in the applicable PD-textlogo license.

Within Wikipedia, they almost only worked to write a very promotional new article on a marketing effort for Columbus at the time.

Their internship to promote Columbus on Wikimedia projects evidently ended in 2011, so they haven't uploaded since. Presumably based on names, yes, this user had permission from the three other named individuals to upload, but it's clearly an act of promotionalism and ignorance for copyright rules, conventions for single-purpose/promotional accounts, and rules that accounts be for one user, not an organization or government body. The proper channel is for these people to upload their own images, and/or for them to prove their consent via OTRS emails. If this research is enough to let you accept the uploads as valid, circumventing our normal accepted practices, so be it, but LinkedIn detective work should not be the bar to set for allowing uploads. ɱ (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you expect me or any Admin to "... be more careful in closing...". On the facts in front of me at the time, it was a proper close. Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and a dozen Admins do most of the work of deleting about 1,700 of them every day. Inevitably we work only with the facts in front of us and don't have time to do a lot of investigation. I did look at the User's talk page and his deleted contributions, and as I noted, saw only one -- a mural in the USA -- that is a very common mistake.
I also note that your nomination said only, "No evidence this was released this under a free license." In view of the four paragraphs you wrote above, I wonder why you didn't say more when nominating the file. If you had, I would have looked harder at it, although even now I am disinclined to delete the image. All of your assertions are unsupported.

You say

"Secondly, no, this user's uploads are deeply flawed." and
"...especially when the account is rife with so many problems..."
Oh? Again, as I noted, the only deleted contribution was a single image that was a type of copyvio that is very common here. On his talk page, I see the usual beginner's problems -- lack of categories and a notice from Nikbot that he had not included a license, which he fixed 31 minutes after the upload and nothing else. Against that, he has 23 uploads, many of which are in use. I do note, that among the 23 are several copyvios, DWs of various works of art and seven where the named author is "Mike Beirne". I have put a DR on all of those, but, again, that was not evident in your DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I did not know the scope of these problems when I nominated it, but looked into the details after you defended the image and uploader. My assertions are easy to discover - do you want me to privately link you the publicly-available online CVs of these people, each of whom worked at the Department of Development at the same time? What I stated above is without a doubt accurate to what took place here. ɱ (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
No, thank you, see the DR and File:Highstreetgraphic.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Original Ushahidi Homepage.png

Please, what exactly is the problem with this file? Is it just the Google Maps thing or are you also questioning the authorship of the original publisher? I would have thought that the map features were de minimis or something. But if someone really sees a problem there, I could just replace those few streets with OpenStreetMap material. Rendered with the right stylesheet, it might even look pretty much the same.--Reseletti (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't imagine how you think this is OK. It has the Google logo and copyright notice and shows rivers, roads, and a lake. Far simpler maps than this are covered by copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wall drawing, part of the work 'Sphinx, 1931, 1935-46' by Marc Bauer 2014.jpg

Hello. Mostly my fault, please recheck the file, OTRS permission is present. Thx. --Krd 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

On a deletion you did

For File:Freeciv-2.1.0-beta3-sdl slack11.0.png you deleted this as claimed it was copyrighted. Freeciv is distributed as a GPLv3 license (see: [7]) so would seem to be fine for Commons under that. --Masem (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The copyright on the software and the copyright on the products of the software are different. For example, Microsoft Word is copyrighted, but works you create with it are subject to a copyright you own, not Microsoft. There is no evidence that this map is freely licensed by whomever created it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Common use file

You have deleted "Stellarium.png" under the claim "Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work". This is a screenshot from GNU liscensed free, open software. UI see here that it's not the 1st time you delete under false claims of "Copyright violation". Stop that. אילן שמעוני (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the comment immediately above this. The fact that the software that produced the image is freely licensed does not make the work produced by the software free.

Also, please be careful of accusing other editors of being liars. Whatever the facts of the case, "incorrectly" is a far better word to use than "falsely"..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Citing GPL liscense: "GPL states that: This screenshot is of a program that has been released under a free software license. As a derivative work of that program, this screenshot falls under the same license."
Please restore the image. As for "please be careful of accusing other editors of being liars" I did not imply that you lied. I did imply that you should be more careful with such deletions. I understand that you were hurt by what you thought as accusation of lying. Rest assured it did not cross my mind. אילן שמעוני (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, "The copyright on the software and the copyright on the products of the software are different. For example, Microsoft Word is copyrighted, but works you create with it are subject to a copyright you own, not Microsoft." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Rpi test

Speedynote CptViraj (📧) 14:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Block of VKras

Hello, this is me VKras, which you know me and have last contacted me yesterday. I have been blocked yesterday as reason “Abusing multiple accounts Example (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log )” and I would never have done socking, I believe I am innocent. The block is likely to have been placed in error. Can you please enable my talk page access so I can discuss and appeal my block. Can you please discuss my block. --178.215.169.42 12:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request - foto Luigi_Martignon_Schweidnitz_1944.jpg

True! The photo is my property, not my execution. The photo is included in the family album and was taken by my mother Lydia Sprang, dead in 1946, and I am his only heir. Arno43 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to do something? Arno43 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Luigi Martignon - photos of the works

The publication of the photos was made by me Franco Martignon, the author's son (Arno43 by Wikipedia), and the authorization by the co-heirs, sons of Jole Basso (the second wife of Luigi Martignon) dead in 2017, was sent to the OTRS service. Sorry I wrote the message and the license information in Italian only. Arno43 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

In both of these cases, since in the one case you are not the actual photographer, and in the other case you are not the painter, you must confirm the free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am the actual photografer of photos (made whit my Panasonic DMC-FZ5 and DMC-FZ300 cameras), and I sent the message only in Italian to OTRS service. This is the tranlation of the first part of the message:

In these days I am inserting a series of photos on Wikimedia Commons of paintings, engravings and drawings of my father Luigi Martignon (1911-1984), already present with his own voice on Wikipedia.
The photos are grouped in the appropriate category "Luigi Martignon".
In this regard, I sent you the authorization to publish of the only co-heirs....

Do I have to integrate the message? And I have to send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or permissions-it@wikimedia.org? Arno43 (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all permissions of this sort must go through OTRS.

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org is for English language emails
permissions-it@wikimedia.org is for Italian emails

They have the same function -- the only difference is that volunteers working on the second will have a good command of Italian. I'm not sure which will be faster -- certainly there are many more volunteers in English, but there are also many more emails. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I will write to permissions-it@wikimedia.org, Italian is easier for me. Thanks, friendliness and best wishes! Arno43 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Абдулла Файзурахманович Шагиев.jpg

The image WAS PD in Russia on the 1996 URAA date. AFTER the 1996 URAA, Russia retroactively re-extended the copyright of that work until 2015 (and it would go on further IF the author was found by then, but we don't know). So it WAS PD on the URAA date, so it is PD in the US, and it is currently PD in the country of origin. (Because it was PD in 1996, THEN re-copyrighted, THEN copyright expired again). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Russia - it explains all that stuff. I know that Russian copyright is VERY confusing. As for the medals - it was an SOP for Soviet magazines and newspapers to sloppily draw on additional medals to photos before publishing them in newspapers (I can provide examples of this). The original version, sans penciled-in medals, is what was published, and going without the additional medals doesn't change the copyright status. Those edits do not render the photo, obviously published, into an unpublished work. If the spirit of the law was intended so that only EXACT, identical versions of things previouly published (not the originals that were scanned by newspapers, cropped to fit on pages just right, then printed on imperfect paper) were eligible for public domain status, the public domain would be incredibly shoddy!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Freeciv-2.1.0-beta3-sdl slack11.0.png

Why have you deleted File:Freeciv-2.1.0-beta3-sdl slack11.0.png? It was made by the uploader and Freeciv is licensed under the GPL. Rp (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The software is freely licensed, but maps made with the software have a copyright which belongs to the creator. LibreOffice is freely licensed, but any document you write with it has a copyright which belongs to you. The same is true with Freeciv. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Zhanmadao.jpg

Please formally close the deletion request as well. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2020!

  * Happy Holidays 2020, Jim! *  
  • Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
  • Joyeux Noël! Bonne année!
  • Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
  • Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!
  • ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo!
  • Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!

   -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Biba blonda

It’s not April’s fools day so either your account was hacked or there’s more to this than what you expressed in this truely unexpected closing rationale. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It is exactly as I said == an image without any useful categories or any useful description is completely lost among our 58 million images-- no one will ever see it again. It is certainly possible that someone could change that, but since they are not particularly good images, who is going to bother? I would be happy to restore them if you agree to fully categorize and describe them, but I think that would be a waste of your time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Trivial and innocuous as it may seem to the casual observer, that rationale could be used to blanket justify the deletion of a huge number of files — which is the stated goal of several of “us”, some admins included. I was truely shocked to see it uttered by you, especially as the closing statement of the deciding admin, to boot, not just as your opinion, una tantum, in the DR discussion. Of course that, once deleted, accessing a file becomes the sole province of the admins, so you have the upper hand here. I cannot remember the contents of the now lost images and I seem to recall that I didn’t add significant categorization to them, which I normally do when I have time and see some usefulness in it. My issue here is not particularly with these images per se, but with the dangerously generic and far-reaching wording of your closing statement, which could/might be abusively coopted by deletionists to uphold an new standard doctrine in order justify the deletion of just anything off our repository. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Jim, happy holidays to you. Seriously Tuvalkin? I can understand that we keep some "stock" images when they are nice and/or with visual interests, but none of the files in this DR was visually good, nice, described, categorized, and therefore were obviously out of scope. The closure is perfect. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you (Tuválkin) miss the point -- even if we kept them, they would be just as much lost as if we deleted them. What is the point of keeping below average images of unnamed subjects that no one will ever see because there is no way of finding them? Remember. please, that the word "usable" appears in Commons statement of purpose. An uncategorized image is not usable and a below average image doesn't deserve the editor time necessary to categorize it. And, yes, I think that any below average uncategorized image should be deleted.

Note that our policy on scope says:

Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
  • Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

These, and many others, certainly fit that mold. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

A Thanks

Hey I just wanted to say thanks for deleting some of my pictures which violated some country-specific rules; this was my first time uploading pictures and I am still learning :) EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

EagerBeaverPJ, you are very welcome. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here. I don't know all the answers, but I'm pretty good at finding answers I don't know. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive_2019&oldid=390423410"