User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2020

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

FYE

See here Jim. Regards Gouwenaar (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

Still needed? If not then please delete. Thankyou! -- CptViraj (📧) 09:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletions2

I don't agree vith deletion acc. to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biofyzika projekt-3.pdf. Did you read comments by User:Kychot and User:gryfinn? What concretely you did not understand? --Kusurija (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read their comments. Did you read my closing comment? What is the good of a teaching document whose print is so small that you cannot read it? The fact is that the poster was useless as uploaded -- you cannot read it, so it is nothing but a pretty background. If it had been uploaded at a much higher resolution, I would have kept it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

About the deletion

Hi, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SCUT Building No. 32 Photosphere.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:SCUT GZIC C3 Photosphere.jpg are photos uploaded by myself, how can I delete them in Commons? Thx —Tim Wu (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I kept them because I did not understand the reason you gave -- there does not appear to be any sensitive data there. As a general rule we do not delete good images at the request of the uploader -- the license which you gave is irrevocable -- but I will consider it again if you explain your reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Photographs deleted

Hello, why so many of my photos were deleted whereas they don't have any violation of freedom of panorama ? Chabe01 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I went through about 6,000 of your images and carefully deleted only those that were derivative works of copyrighted subjects. Your responses to the DRs posted November 29 suggest strongly that you do not understand that signs, posters, maps, and the like are all copyrighted and cannot be kept on Commons if they come from non-FoP countries such as France. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CFBTThailand

Hello Jim. Thank you for the concern. the permission mail has been sent to OTRS by CEO Chadchaleo Bunnag (D.D. Fire & Safety Co.,Ltd., CFBT-Thailand) CFBTThailand (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paint-Rock-Scottsboro-Boys-historical-marker-al.jpg

If that image is copyvio, we'll need to delete a few more of mine: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

Feel free to speedy, if necessary. I'll be sure to watch out for dates on markers in the future. BrineStans (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. I sort of hate to do it, but our rules and the law are very clear -- anything more than a sentence is suspect and a full paragraph such as these is a clear problem. It's too bad we can't get the states and the historical societies to add "CC-0" to the markers they erect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:

hi, I would like to tell you that many of those PD license files are in good faith for the most part, I would at least want someone to look at us, at least so to feel more peaceful, they cannot and must not be deleted forever, I would like someone of you administrators may kindly find time to deal with it please????? (just talking using the simple IP address cannot be considered a blocking escape)--37.183.21.21 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have permission

You recently deleted File:Daniel Budden.jpg, but I have permission, I am the person in the picture. I own the rights to it. It is not the kind of thing that needs a license, it needs permission from the person themself, which is me. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think my comment at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Daniel_Budden.jpg covers the subject, but, to reiterate:

  1. It is not clear that your picture is in scope. At first look, it appears that you do not meet our standards of notability -- you have no WP article or first page independent Google hits.
  2. Second, "It is not the kind of thing that needs a license," is wrong. With few exceptions, none of which apply here, every created work, including this photograph, has a copyright. In order for an image to be kept on Commons, there must be a free license from the copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, not the subject.
  3. Third, "it needs permission from the person themself, which is me" is also wrong. Although permission from the subject may be required in some circumstances, it is never sufficient.
  4. Finally, please understand that making a comment here when you have already made an Undeletion Request is a waste of your time and mine. The issue will be decided there, not here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple files added

Seing that you're active - could you have a quick look at those uploads? Plenty of US sports teams logos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jnwuflestad Thanks! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, Thank you -- see User talk:Jnwuflestad. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion in future

When we have something like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rainbow Hotel, 1905 5th Ave, probably between 1911 and 1920 (SEATTLE 1620).jpg, do we have some way we keep track so we can undelete whene this passes out of copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can put the DR or the file in the appropriate one of these: Category:Undelete in 2025 which we have going out to 2150. In the case of the file, you have to actually add it to the Category page while DRs can be added in the usual way..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:TukaDoctorHonorisCausaDeDerechoUniversidadDeberlin1943.ogv

Thanks for your work closing deletion discussions. My concern about this file is that, if we assume that it was released as soon as it was created in 1943, it would still not be PD by the URAA date. The newsreel company that created this is a German company, and German copyright law generally protects works for at least 70 years post-release. The earliest this could have come into PD in Germany would be 2013, after the URAA date. Buidhe (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, you are correct. Now deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion not archiving...

There are some requests on COM:UDR that were closed more than 3 days ago. I hope that I didn't inadvertently cause an issue where I restored the closings on something like six or seven that some other user had deleted. Should I keep waiting to see if the bot does archive it or should I manually archive the requests that were closed for January 23, 24 and 25? Abzeronow (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Good question -- I wondered the same thing myself -- see User_talk:Steinsplitter#UnDR_archiving?. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It got fixed. Thanks Jim. Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request mistakes

Hello. I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files of user:Aidayoung (2) which you closed in December. I just now noticed that these five files were not deleted. At first I thought I made a mistake and forgot to add them to the request, but it appears that they were removed by the uploader during the discussion, likely from a sloppy copy/paste on mobile. The files still have their delete templates, which have been there since November.

Since there is nothing in that discussion saying those files should be treated differently, I think these should also be deleted. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this logo a modern one or one that might have been created closer to 1924? File:Warren Central High School.jpg. DR was Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warren Central High School.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The date on the logo is almost certainly the date of the founding of the school, not the date the logo was created as suggested in the DR. The logo was probably created sometime after the founding of the school, so could be still under copyright if there was notice with every use and the copyright was renewed. However, schools are not very careful about copyright notice, so unless it is later than 1989, it's probably PD-No Notice.

The file doesn't say which of the several schools with that name it is, but the 1924 date suggests that it is Warren Central High School (Indiana). That's reinforced by the fact that the user who uploaded the logo also edited that article on almost the same date. Although high schools are usually out of scope, it is clear from the article that this school has an exceptional athletic program. I wouldn't oppose an UnDR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question. Yes, I was thinking the same as far as to which high school it is. I've found out that the high school actually opened in 1925. I'll consider doing an undeletion request to discuss it. I want to try and research a little more before I do though. Might be able to pin down better when the logo was published. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This complex DR

Dear Admin Woodward,

If you have a bit of time, please reply to the DR above. The web source says "Getty Images for TechCrunch" and someone pointed out in the DR that we have 2704 such images I don't know if the Getty photographer is giving away the copyright for TechCrunch to license the image freely...as Getty is usually not free. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Update: Thanks for your reply on the DR above Admin Woodward. Fortunately it was resolved as keep and the images are free. TechCrunch hired the Getty photographer for their flickr images as Getty itself has No flickr account. So TechCrunch as a flickr account is trustworthy and understands copyright. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Create my articles page at Wikipedia

Hello brother! If you don't mind may you create my Wikipedia page, with all legal information and references, I'm a independent Artist and Video Editor. I've no Wikipedia only have wiki bio. Thank you.. Tabish Nizam 07:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabish1086 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you want me to do or where. If you mean your User Page on Commons, User:Tabish1086, you have already started on that. If you mean a User Page elsewhere, that's up to you. If you mean a Wikipedia article, I can't create that for you because I know nothing about you and you are not allowed to do that yourself as it is a Conflict of Interest. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Marking images for deletion

Thank you for reviewing my contributions to commons. The images came from by uncle who owns the orgianls and are part of a family album. He has given me permission to use this picture in publications about Alexander D. Henderson, Sr., Alexander D. Henderson, Jr., and Girard B. Henderson.--Greghenderson2006 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Greg, please understand that owning a digital or paper copy of a photograph does not give one any right to copy or freely license it. That right is held by the photographer or his heirs. This is much the same as owning a copyrighted book which, as I am sure you know, does not give you the right to copy the book or to license others to make copies of it.

US copyright law is quite complicated. If the images have been in a family album and not published until recently, they may still be under copyright. If they are, unless you can find the photographer's heirs, they cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

James, I understand your point. I am in the process of updating the license for each image. Two of the images I have already given the license PD-US-expired as they were published before January 1, 1925. They are, Alexander D. Henderson, Sr.jpg and Angelina Weaver Henderson.jpg. The other one, A.D. Henderson, Jr.tif, is a picture created on or befoer 1926 and was used in several publications by the Califronia Perfume Company. Here is one: 1926 publication. I have the original picture.--Greghenderson2006 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
That's good -- but note that in the case of images that you say come from a family album, you plain assertion that they were published before 1926 will not be enough. You must, as you did with the last image, show where and when they were published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The picture, Gregory Henderson.jpg, is a picture taken of me and my daughter at my son's wedding. It was taken by a friend using my iPhone. I am the owner of this picture. How do I get the deletion tag removed? For the PDF, Islandora 2226135 PDF.pdf, I changed the author to McConnell and Henderson; added Category:Organizational documents; It is an important document that shows the partnership between McConnell and Henderson when the company, now Avon, was just becoming a corporation. Greghenderson2006 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You really must stop claiming that you were the photographer when you were not. That is a serious violation of Commons rules and it both hurts your credibility here and makes it likely that you will be blocked from editing here.

As I pointed out to you above, owning a digital or paper copy of a photograph does not give one any right to copy or freely license it. That right is held by the photographer. The fact that the image was taken with your camera is irrelevant. The copyright is owned by the person who actually took the photograph and only he or she can license it. In order for the image to be kept on Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.

As for the PDF, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Islandora 2226135 PDF.pdf. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

File:JEEP island dolphin.jpg

Hi. We've received ticket:2020021210001658 regarding File:JEEP island dolphin.jpg. I've seen you've restored and deleted the file and I wondering if you can tell me what problem does this file has. We've received an email from a yahoo.co.jp account and I want to be sure to get at most information I can about the file before to proceed. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

See the current UnDR with the file name in the heading. I restored the file briefly only to allow Google to search for the image. Turelio has originally deleted it, but gave only a generic location at Shutterstock. I found it at https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/swim-dolphin-chuuk-micronesia-1562860423 and guessed, correctly, I think that the shutterstock uploader was the same person as ours. So, what we need from you is a confirmation that thet is correct, including a posting on the user's user page. If you let me know, I will work on UnDR to see that all of the uploads that have been deleted because they appear on Shutterstock are restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Please do not this.User:Md Tanbir Islam— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2020‎ Md Tanbir Islam (UTC)

Request of deletion : Gabriel Tacchino.jpg

I want this picture of me, File:Gabriel_Tacchino.jpg, uploaded without my consent by User:Bull-Doser, to be removed and not be visible from any other sites as Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia. I already done a request for deletion that has been rejected, the reason was "no valid reason for deletion - only photo we have of the subject" when actually there is another photo of me on Wikimedia at File:Gabriel_Tacchino_2018.jpg already. Thank you. Gabriel Tacchino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Tacchino (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabriel, we do not generally delete images at the subject's request. Since the image was taken in a public place in Canada and you are a public figure, your consent to taking and publishing your image is not required -- you have no right to demand its deletion.

However, the subject image is a terrible photograph and I would delete it except for the fact that at the moment it is the only image we have that is validly on Commons. I suggest you deal with the problems I raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabriel Tacchino 2018.jpg so that we can keep that much better image and delete this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Jim, I know the photographer and also the user EmiliaWebDesing who uploaded the file "Gabriel Tacchino 2018" (we had employed her). But if i understand correctly i have to ask the photographer (of the picture "Gabriel Tacchino 2018") to send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (using a message template) in order to obtain a free licensing permission, and then this license will allows you to replace the file "Gabriel Tacchino" by "Gabriel Tacchino 2018" ? Gabriel Tacchino (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. While we assume good faith for images uploaded by the photographer, we require a license via OTRS for any other images unless they have appeared elsewhere with a free license. That is particularly true when there is conflicting information, as is the case here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jim. The photographer and i have sent a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the original file, and our permission has been added to the file page "Gabrel Tacchino 2018". Is it enough to keep this photo and remove the bad one ? What do we do now ? Gabriel Tacchino (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The image has been restored by an OTRS volunteer. I'm not sure what more you want? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that the image has been restored and is valid, can we delete this bad photo of me "Gabriel Tacchino", and keep this one instead "Gabriel Tacchino 2018" as you told me last month ? Gabriel Tacchino (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly -- simply click on "nominate for deletion" in the left hand column of the image's page and add the reason -- poor quality, not used, etc. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, i did it. Waiting now for the deletion, i thank you very much for your help Jim. Gabriel Tacchino (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Per "discussion"

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#Files deleted by Pi.1415926535

End result:

" Not done: Per discussion -- we do not encourage abusers by keeping their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)"

Exactly what is your definition of "discussion"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my closing comment was not quite carefully enough worded. The uploader is a serious nuisance and wastes considerable checkuser time.The only way to stop such waste is to refuse to keep images he uploads. What is the point in blocking a serial abuser if we keep images that he uploads with socks? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You completely ignore the community and have simply pushed your own decision upon, in this case, 4 others. (me, Gone Postal, GMG, Rodrigo.Argenton, not even counting Pi) If you were running for admin today, I could do nothing but strongly oppose that. This is not working with the community, this is working against it. Wording your closing comment would have made this action less deceptive, but still not acceptable.
"The uploader is a serious nuisance and wastes considerable checkuser time.The only way to stop such waste is to refuse to keep images he uploads."
To that I say: "O rly?" Artix Kreiger was first blocked in March 2018. In May 2018 Artix Kreiger and Winterysteppe were blocked indef. So 1 year and 9 months later, how's it going? I don't have a silver bullet for this, but endlessly fighting it, breaking policy to delete files out of process and refusing to turn back such mistakes, turning Commons into a wild west where admins can do whatever they like "to keep the bandits under control" is clearly not working. That tactic never works. The outcome of the discussion was clear: undelete for evaluation. And the initial deletion should have been done by DR, not out of process. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:OFFER is just an essay, but if Commons adopted something similar, perhaps shorter, as a guideline then everyone could be expected to be treated the same way. Commons administrators and others do turn a blind eye to some socks that have focused on useful uploads and productive maintenance.
Rather than badgering on this one case, perhaps you should focus on a proposal, then circle back to the cases to apply it to? Given a consensus, all administrators will comply with it.
By the way, examining the Flickr uploads that were deleted, at least some were clearly public domain US Gov works. I find it surprising that these would be deleted out of process and for those deletions not to be reversed at UNDEL, regardless of the history of the uploading account. In-scope public domain photographs, with correct attributions, should not be getting deleted from the project. --Fæ (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: no. There is no proposal to be made, because the files were deleted out of process. I can't create a proposal that says "admins should obey policy and bureaucrats should not ignore the community in favor of their own views", that's nonsense.
If Jameslwoodward wants to allow these out of process deletions, it's him who has to create a proposal. And that would be really dumb, because this type of action basically gives Artix Kreiger admin rights. If Artix wants to ensure any given image from Flickr won't be used on WMF projects, all he has to do is upload it. The deleted images are far more difficult to upload now because UploadWizard will simply stop you. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Jameslwoodward. See above.

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Wappen Erzbistum Mechelen.png

Hi Jim, Please reconsider deleting the file File:Wappen Erzbistum Mechelen.png. It is an incorrect version of the old arms of the archdiocese. The current ones have been uploaded and used on all appropriate pages. These cannot even be used to show what they were like before the change, because they are not even correct for the old arms. These are the correct current ones and these are the correct old ones. Regards, --Brookford (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As noted in the DR, I chose to keep the file because it was in use on five pages. Policy prohibited deleting it on the grounds offered. Since it is no longer in use, you may certainly start another DR, but I cannot simply arbitrarily delete it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DR closure?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trichofytóza.png included a second image in the discussion besides the image named in the DR title, but which did not get deleted. Another editor has found stronger support for the nomination of that other image. Could you re-visit? DMacks (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! DMacks (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Maps_by_Ron_Blakey

Category discussion warning

Maps by Ron Blakey has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ponni.jpg

Hi. The last email in the ticket it's from a photography studio :) Thanks a lot. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Leif Rantala.jpg

It is not derivative because I did live sketch of Leif Rentala while watching a documentary- he was being interviewed in one of the symposiums that I attended in Sweden. It's an illustration or drawing that I made myself not a photograph. It looks like a photograph because I rendered it digitally. --Audioboss (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello- The Leif Rentala illustration is my original work- I have the OTRS ticket #2015022810004948 attached to it already. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audioboss (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that while you may have put the image together, the portrait in it clearly came from a source that was not freely licensed. The OTRS ticket was considered at the time of the deletion five years ago and was rejected as invalid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Miroir géant.jpg

I don't understand why you do not accept my photo "mirroir géant". Look at Wikipédia "L'ombrière du vieux port de Marseille" or Wikimédia commons, cat "L'Ombrière du Vieux-Port de Marseille" and others categories you have many similar photos. Sorry for my English, but I am French. Have a good day Jim celeda Céléda (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your English is better than my French -- no problem. The image infringes on the architect's copyright. Unfortunately, about half of all countries, including France, do not allow images of copyrighted architectural works to be used without permission from the architect.

The images that you name above do not belong on Commons. Please feel free to nominate them for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Result of undelete request bypassed by Davefanning12

FYI, just thought I would let you know that Davefanning12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded Dave and U2 in studio, 1982.jpg a third time, despite his previous two attempts at undeleting the image being rejected. On Wikipedia, he claims he is the copyright owner, which would either make him Dave Fanning himself or someone close to him. And there are definite conflict of interest concerns with that due to user's editing the Dave Fanning Wikipedia article. What is the best way to deal with someone like this? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No one warned him after the second upload, so we can;t jar him with a short block. I have added {{Dont recreate}} to his talk page, so we can hope this stops. I also deleted the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Emile Kellogg Boisot

James, Please provide a reason for removal of category so people understand. I am trying to understand why Category:People of Iowa was removed? Thanks,--Greg Henderson 00:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are asking why I removed Category:People of Iowa, Category:Bankers, and Category:Boisot (surname) from the gallery Emile Kellogg Boisot -- as they are all in Category:Emile Kellogg Boisot. I removed all of the categories from the gallery except the one of the same name, because they were over-categorization. There is no need for the gallery Emile Kellogg Boisot to be in Category:People of Iowa because the gallery is in Category:Emile Kellogg Boisot and that category is in Category:People of Iowa. As a general rule, if an image or a gallery page is in a category such as Category:Emile Kellogg Boisot -- the subject's name -- then it should not be in any other category related to the subject, such as dates, places, and so forth - they should all be in the parent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

File talk:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg

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

If you created this file talk, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

oknazevad (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jameslwoodward, Just wondering - Is there any actual possibility that AJ can be unblocked here or is it a case that the CU team makes that decision and that's final?,

Can they not be unblocked with heavy restrictions and if they mess up even once they're indeffed?,

Having made a discovery at the Help Desk, I needed to find all logos I'd uploaded - within minutes AJ helped and compiled a list[12] - I never asked nor hinted at them, They simply done it to help out and since then they've continued to help me out,

Being completely honest James, Hypothetically If there were a !vote to either have me unblocked or them unblocked here even I would choose them over me because they're a massive help here and are extremely knowledge with a lot of things here,

I genuinely do feel like not having them here is a massive loss to the project and would go as far as to say we need more people like them here, Again I haven't been asked nor hinted to say this - I simply feel with the help they've given me over the past few days as well as helping me and the project over the years I truly do feel we're losing out big time and would rather have them unblocked with heavy restrictions than to see their knowledge, helpfulness and expertise all go to waste,

I would be happy to put a !vote forward in the correct venue if I can but ofcourse if you or the CU teams word is final then I obviously won't,

Many thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you,

Thanks, Kindest Regards, Dave (Davey2010) 21:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The block of AJ was the unanimous decision of the five CUs. Commons policy requires that CU blocks be reviewed by checkusers (see {{Checkuserblock}}. Obviously when the block was placed with the support of all of us, it is unlikely that it will be removed. Policy prohibits my discussing all of the reasons for the block, but there was completely unacceptable behavior involved.

It is unfortunate that we have lost several very important contributors -- INeverCry comes to mind -- when they turned to breaking the rules. I wish it were otherwise. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi James, Many thanks for getting back to me, I completely understand,
I just wished and hoped there could be a way where they'd be unblocked with any restrictions you/the CU team impose and I sort of thought the private issues could be discussed between you and AJ and the public things could be discussed on-wiki,
Or failing A and the whole CU team have a discussion over a cuppa and try to come to some sort of resolution and then lift it under the private restrictions?,
As I said I respect you and the CUs decision so won't do anything but I just would love for them to be given a one and only chance,
Oh well thank you for kindly getting back to me,
I hope you and yours are safe and well during these strange and unprecedented times,
Take care, Kind Regards, Dave (Davey2010) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the various threats that AJ has made against the CUs, that is not going to happen.
You, too -- stay safe. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Sandro Mamukelashvili.jpg

Think you made a mistake in deleting this image. It is well sourced on Flickr. Editorofthewiki (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Given your very poor record of claiming {{Own}} work for images where you were not the photographer and for uploading images that were blatant license laundering, I'm surprised to see that there is actually one image among all your uploads that appears to be validly licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Easy now. All the images I've uploaded that were deleted were either by mistake or misunderstanding. Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Affiches anti Emmanuel Macron rue de la Sorbonne (cropped1).jpg

Hello Jim. You closed this DR as delete, but you forgot to delete the image. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Georges Rutten painting

Hey Jim, thank you for restoring this great painting. Regards, --Ronny MG (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request

Re. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burzumlogodemoii.png: Was this also some, for some reason PD, font?Jonteemil (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As a general rule, fonts do not have copyrights in most countries -- they are considered utilitarian, even if highly decorative. That is true even if the font is not fully realized -- that is, even if only the five letters in the subject font were designed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I see. This logo was Norwegian so you know, not that I know their TOO regarding fonts. I couldn't find anything on Google either.Jonteemil (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mary Magdalene Church (Kozji Vrh nad Dravogradom)

Hi Jameslwoodward, please reconsider your closure. This DR is not about whether 3D details of File:Poslikava prižnice v cerkvi Sv.Magdalene na Vratih (3)a.jpg are de minimis. There is instead the question whether this is a copyvio of the original photo or not. In regard to the COM:PDART exception any 3D details make it a plain copyvio, see here. Compare this with COM:COIN. Hence, File:Poslikava prižnice v cerkvi Sv.Magdalene na Vratih (3)a.jpg has to be deleted. In the other cases, the 3D details were all removed before. They can indeed be kept now. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the uploader of File:Poslikava prižnice v cerkvi Sv.Magdalene na Vratih (3)a.jpg who is likewise familiar with German copyright law agrees that this has to be deleted. When he uploaded his edit, he was not aware that the original photo was not free. So please do not keep any uploads which are actually copyvios against the will of the uploader. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I completely disagree. The remaining 3D elements in the image are very small and contribute nothing to the image -- in fact, if anything, they detract from it. Therefore I am quite sure that the original photo does not have a copyright (per Bridgeman) so that the image we have here also does not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you have seen the original photograph? I have seen it and it is without question eligible for copyright as it shows a large enough area of the interior in full 3d. Again, since when do we keep copyvios against the will of the uploader who did this by accident? And this is without question a copyvio according to German copyright law. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I haven't seen the original photograph, but we are discussing the image that is now on Commons, not the original. The only 3D elements in the image are the corners of the two pediment capitals on either side. By any standard they are de minimis -- as I noted above, they actually detract from the image. As for the question of German law, Commons has adopted Bridgeman and policy is to apply it even when local law would put the image under copyright. This is an exception to the general rule that an image must be free of copyright in both the USA and the country of origin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
According to your theory, you can pick a mostly 2D element of a larger copyrighted 3D photo (of a pulpit) by cropping and perspective correcting it and keep it while declaring surviving 3D elements including moulds, doves, shadows and uneven light as de minimis. You cannot base this theory on Bridgeman where the copies lacked originality and where an accurate and faithful reproduction was present. Here, in contrast, we have no accurate reproduction (think just about all the processing which had to be done!) and there are elements of the art which are 3D in nature. They are still depicted and you simply declare them as de minimis. Following your theory, we would have no problems with unfree photographs of coins where any surviving 3D elements would be de minimis in your theory. But this is seen differently: COM:COIN and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25#Photographs of ancient coins. And in this case we have all aspects involved, i.e. surviving 3D elements, lighting, the angle etc. of the pulpit in the original photographs and all this is still preserved, even in some distorted way, in the files of this DR. And you decide to keep this file even if someone using his full realname uploaded this just by accident because he thought that the original upload is free and that he can do a better job in perspective correcting it. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we agree that:

  1. You will file another DR for the image and make your argument why it should be deleted.
  2. I will make a single comment, stating my case.
  3. Neither of us will make any more comments -- we will simply sit by and see what our colleagues think and do. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kailash29792

Could you please do something here, as in delete/keep? The page has been open for too long, and I've given up hope on salvaging the nominated pictures. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, now can you pls restore those non-PD pics which were wrongly nominated? Like File:Chocolate Krishna felicitations (cropped).JPG which I personally photographed? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You may file an undeletion request. If there are more than one, please list them all in one request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)++

File:MGB Rodzaevsky.jpg

You unreasonably deleted the file. And here is the United States, it is subject to the laws of Russia. Kolchak1923 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a waste of your time and mine to argue this both here and at Undeletion Requests.

The most basic rule of Commons is at COM:L. I suggest you read it. It says, among other things:

"Wikimedia Commons only accepts media
  • that are explicitly freely licensed, or
  • that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."

You have not proven that the image is PD in Russia because we do not when it was first published. There is no question about the United States -- in cannot be PD there until at least January 1, 2042. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. As I said above, COM:L requires that files be free in both the USA and in the source country, Russia in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That may be -- Commons has 60 million files. I would not be surprised if 1% of them -- 600,000 were copyright violations which should not be here. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD-RU-exempt (mug shots).

Please stop arguing here -- you should be asking these at the DR and the UnDR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete a redirect

Based on this deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breathing Flower Approved.jpg you might also want to delete File:"Blooming Flower".jpg. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete request

I must repost a serie of 5 Photo of Castello Carrarese, because the serie I've already posted was affected by Commons App problems. Thanks. Luciobocchi (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Luciobocchi, simply replacing the {{Delete}} tag on the image will have no effect since the DR had been closed. If you would explain here more fully what the problem is, perhaps I can help. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't see any problem, because it's in my Commons App, that shows me a lot of copy of Photo #1 & #4 (like multiple times posted). If you simply cancel, all the files regarding that 2 photos, I can simply REPOST them, and my App newly will looks good. Thank you for your invaluable help. Lucio. P.S. It is truly incredible that an author cannot delete his own photo without being forced to make a discussion. Deleting a photograph of mine certainly does not harm the work of other people. 

Luciobocchi (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Since an author's own photos are always irrevocably licensed, we do not allow anyone -- even Administrators -- to delete their own uploads. It always takes an Administrator other than the one who uploaded the photo.

I still don't understand the problem or know which photos you want deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Andy Beshear

Hi,

May I ask why the image of Andy Beshear was deleted? That is his official gubernatorial portrait, I see the no reason to delete it. The replacement is a terrible image with Beshear not looking at the camera. Smith0124 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Like almost all official portraits, it is copyrighted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official Portrait of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear (cropped).jpg gives the immediate reason. The file from which it was cropped, File:Official Portrait of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear.jpg appears on https://kentucky.gov/government/Pages/AgencyProfile.aspx?Title=Governor with "© 2018 Commonwealth of Kentucky. All rights reserved" and therefore was deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted photograph

Hello, Jameslwoodward. In response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ewoldt.jpg, where you deleted a photograph just before asking (while closing the discussion...) "Also, who is he? Is this in scope?. . ", I'd like to ask you if the PD-anon-70-EU template should be forbidden, since you obviously treat it as useless. In the Dutch Village Pump someone else has started a discussion on the same subject: is there a sudden change of policy, or a sudden enforcement of before sleeping rules? While perhaps a bit premature, I wonder if Europe should get it's own Wikimedia Commons, if there is no other way to feature European images. By the way, uploader used the picture on nl:Boezemkerk, as you could have checked yourself – some might certainly consider it to be in scope there, don't you think? Greetings, Eissink (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC).

The scope question was an aside -- I'm sorry to have raised it because it was unnecessary. The issue is US copyright law. As a general rule, anything that was under copyright in its home country one January 1, 1996 will be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after creation, see COM:URAA. And, yes sometimes that cuts against EU works. However, the opposite is also true -- any work created before 1925 is PD in the USA, so all of Picasso's early works are PD in the USA but can't be kept on Commons because he died in 1972, so they will be under copyright for another twenty years. Both the EU and the USA give the same protection to each other's works as they give to their own works, which seems fair. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It might seem fair, but it is actually far from reasonable. Images that can be used in the Netherlands, are currently in these cases forbidden for another 20+ years. The country of origin says it's okay, but due to US law European Wikipedia users / readers are deprived of the visual information – not really fair, in my opinion. I'm not blaming you, of course, but I think this situation is highly unfortunate. Somehow we must find a solution for this, either technically (based on country of visitor, perhaps) or judicially (worldwide equalization of copyright law). Other than 'fair', I think it's pretty backward in this globalized world anno 2020 to have so many different systems of copyright, while all are really meant to protect the same. It is a barrier for cooperation. (And besides, but of course related: from a Dutch perspective it is incomprehensible, and pitiful, to see all those countries without FOP, to name one aspect that might be considered oppressive to the free gathering of information.) So not really fair, in my opinion, rather a loss. Eissink (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

I generally agree. The easiest thing would be if the USA adopted the Rule of the Shorter Term. Of course, copyright is one of those areas where a limited group of people -- the creators of copyrighted works -- works hard to ensure that the laws favor them and all of the others, the vast majority of voters, aren't interested enough to make it clear to legislatures that they don't want long restrictive terms. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Victor Adespea

Hello Jim. Hope you are allright. You just deleted some of my uploads. If the titular of metadata aka author of the portraits will send an email with confirmation that they are licensed under terms of Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), will it be enough for them to be restored? Thank you in advance! --Victor Adespea (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted book cover. Ordinarily, this would require a free license from an authorized official of the publisher via OTRS. However, I note that you commented that the book cover photo was under a Shutterstock license. I doubt that that license allows you to upload the image to Commons and in any event a license limited to 500,000 copies is not acceptable on Commons. Therefore, unless a new license is negotiated with Shutterstock, the image cannot be kept on Commons.

Needs a free license from the actual photographer -- SOPHY DREAM is named in the EXIF.

Needs a free license from the actual photographer -- Prokopiev Photography is named in the watermark.

I also note that in three of the four cases you claimed in the file description that you were the actual photographer. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosa Mazón photos

Hi, Jim.

I was given these photos by her son, José Antonio Valero Mazón, as I think I declared.

He sent me authorization via email along with the pictures. That's all I have.

Will that be enough? If not, let me know what I can do, please.

Best regards,

--185.227.9.116 08:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had acces to Wikipedia, but not to WikiCommons.

--Joaquín Cánovas (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

First, you need to respond at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joaquín Cánovas -- your response here will not help because I will not be the Admin who closes the DR.

Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it. That right almost always belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Unless the son has a written license from each of the actual photographers, he has no right to give you any authorization. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Other Torrevejense photos

Hello, Jim.

In the case of Vicente Castell Ibanez.jpg, old mayor of Torrevieja, the photo was taken more than 80 years previously. I have it at home and I scanned it. In the case of Iglesia antigua de Torrevieja.jpg, the photo is from Darblade, old local photographer whose rights are long gone. In any case, the photo was taken at the end of 19th century. In the case of the photos Maria Rene Deney.jpg, Maria Gil 1.jpg, Maria Gil Alumnos Torrevieja.jpg and Maria Gil 2.jpg, they were given to me by Francisco Sala, chronicler of Torrevieja, along with an authorization.

Let me know if there are other problems or if you need some of the documentation I have and how to make it reach you. Thank you.

Best regards.

--Joaquín Cánovas (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

First, you need to respond at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joaquín Cánovas -- your response here will not help because I will not be the Admin who closes the DR. Also, you should understand that incorrectly claiming that you were the photographer of these images is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It also makes it very hard to believe anything you say.

Taking them in order -- you say the first photo was taken more than 80 years ago, but, under the Spanish law then, the copyright lasted 80 years after the death of the photographer, so unless you can show that the photographer died before 1940, we must assume the image is still under copyright.

For the second, you say "the photo is from Darblade, old local photographer whose rights are long gone". It is up to you to prove that Darblade died before 1940.

For the last four, you say "they were given to me by Francisco Sala, chronicler of Torrevieja, along with an authorization." Unless Sr. Sala has a written license from each of the photographers, he has no right to give you any authorization. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cozzolino photograph

Dear Jim, re the photograph of Mimmo Cozzolino that has been nominated for deletion. The picture's author is unknown and likely never to be found, an itinerant 'street photographer' offering instant pictures to Italian emigrants departing the country. In effect this is the same as asking for attribution/copyright on a Photomat pic. The person who pressed the button made his money and they would not, if still alive, be seeking copyright over the image. I know that Wikimedia makes no exceptions, but I really feel this is nit-picking. The picture is highly relevant to the bio of Cozzolino whose career has centred on his assimilating as an 'Aussie' as an Italian migrant, a history discussed extensively in the article. I have already raised these issues on a previous deletion discussion re the image, with our results. Thank you for your consideration. Jamesmcardle (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


Rudolf Marloth and copyright

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/65674#/summary The US Archive seems to think that the work is out of copyright. Cheers Paul venter (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

See the orange box above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

image

i have a picture that i wanted to upload and it was erased is there any way you guys can get it back online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanchez408 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You have already made a request at Undeletion Requests, which is the correct place for it, but you must tell us the name of the image. I can say, though, that most of the images you uploaded are copyright violations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Official Msg of Nass from Khuzaima Qutbuddin Mawla TUS.pdf

Hi Jim, could you tell me what are the contents of File:Official Msg of Nass from Khuzaima Qutbuddin Mawla TUS.pdf (i.e. is it a media file, or is a gmail email as seen in the Google Images cache)? Thanks! --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat:

"Official Msg of Nass from Khuzaima Qutbuddin Mawla TUS 1 message Fatemi Dawat <noreply@fatemidawat.com> Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM Reply-to: Fatemi Dawat <info@fatemidawat.com> To: murtu42@gmail.com On 16th Rabiul Awwal 1435H, we have learned of the wafaat of our bawa shafique Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA. He served as Imam-al- Zamaan’s dai for 50 years and guided mumineen on the Straight Path (sirat al mustaqueem) of Islam and Imam. May Allah taala place him to the most aala darajaat in Jannat and give him afzalul jazaa. And may Allah give us sabr and strength to adhere to his teachings and farmans. After receiving the extremely sad news of Syedna Mohammad BurhanuddinRA’s wafaat today, Syedi Mazoon Saheb Khuzaima bhaisaheb QutbuddinTUS has disclosed that he is Syedna BurhanuddinRA’s true MANSOOS. AqamolaRA performed NASS on him 50 years ago, in private, when he appointed him Mazoon on 17 Shaban 1385H, saying: “Maara pacchi bhai Dai chho,” and he instructed him not to reveal the nass at that time. Syedna Burhanuddin also said “Mumineen bhai ne sajdo karse, bhai rehva dejo; pachhi zahir thaase.” Nass happens through the ilhaam of imam-uz-zamaan, and once performed has never, can never, be retracted. Also, khaangi nass is valid, and has precedents in Dawat history. And the aala rutba of Mazoon is such that his truthfulness is absolutely certain. Qutbuddin MawlaTUS’s video bayaan and proofs are hosted on www.fatemidawat.com Qutbuddin MawlaTUS is saying this now, not two years ago, because pehle ummeed hati keh AqamolaRA tabyet will recover and kai farmawse. Dawat ma fasaad ane firqa-baazi naa thai em koshish hati. Today, it is Qutbuddin MawlaTUS’s duty to AqamolaRA to reveal AqamolaRA’s Nass upon him. Sh. Mufaddal bhaisaheb’s claim is false. Despite repeatedly bringing Syedna BurhanuddinRA since the time of his stroke to public functions and putting microphones in front of him, nobody has once in these events actually ever heard SyednaRA take Mufaddal bhaisaheb’s name as mansoos. Even in Rozat Tahera, it was only Dr. Moiz bs’s so-called interpretation that people heard, and not MawlanaRA’s own words. Mufaddal bhaisaheb, and some of the shehzadas, his brothers and uncles, and the children of late Shehzada Yusuf bhaisaheb Najmuddin, have for decades opposed the Mazoon-ud-dawat-il-gharra, constantly and openly defying Syedna Burhanuddin who appointed Qutbuddin MawlaTUS to this lofty rank. Mufaddal bhaisaheb’s group have enacted extreme policies and threats to force mumineen to conform to their regime. Many of these policies contradict the direct wishes and roohani guidance of Syedna BurhanuddinRA and Syedna Taher SaifuddinRA over the past 100 + years. They also contradict Shariat principles of Dawat kitabs, and the Quran, Hadith and Kalaam of Mawlana AliAS. But worst of all, they continuously risked Syedna BurhanuddinRA’s health and subjected him to pain and discomfort. They have abused our beloved AqamolaRA—to the extent of strapping him to a chair and bringing him out in public, time after time—just to impose their false claims. We pray that Allah taala grant our beloved Mawla Burhanuddin the most Aala Darajaat in Jannat in the saya of Panjetan Paak, Aimmat Tahereen, Duaat Mutlaqeen, Syedna Taher SaifuddinRA. And we pray that Allah taala keep his Mansoos Syedna Qutbuddin MawlaTUS till qayamat in sehhat and aafiyat. May He grant us tawfeeq to answer Qutbuddin Mawla’s Dawat and stand with Haqq, for the Najaat of our souls. This message has been sent with Qutbuddin MawlaTUS’s raza. For Qutbuddin MawlaTUS’s bayaan video and supporting documents, go to www.fatemidawat.com This email was sent by Fatemi Dawat, located at Saify Mahal, A.G. Bell Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400006 (India). To receive no further emails, please click here or reply to this email with "unlist" in the Subject line." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Jim: Thanks! Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

File:E3 - 2013 (9028398719).jpg

Hello, Jim. I appreciate your works as the administrator. File:E3 - 2013 (9028398719).jpg remains in Com:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Electronic Entertainment Expo 2013 (I submitted on 10 February 2020). Is this your mistake? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yuraily Lic -- when closing DRs, we use a tool called DelReq Handler which makes all the appropriate edits with one click per file plus two per DR. Occasionally it hiccups. This might have been one of those times or simply my oversight. Thank you for catching it. I appreciate your careful work in all of SciFi copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, Jim! --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Missed deletion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aguascalientes Flag (Propose).png

Hello. You've closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aguascalientes Flag (Propose).png as delete, but File:Aguascalientes Flag.svg still exists. I mention this in case it was unintentional. --bjh21 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Générations Star Wars et Science Fiction

Hello, Jim. In this DR, files have been deleted. But you wrote "Kept". Is this a mistake? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Просто_автор

Уважаемый Jameslwoodward! К нам в OTRS обратился автор снимка File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Кабул, Афганистан).jpg. Файл был удалён по причине COM:SCOPE. Он пояснил, что на фото изображён в национальном костюме, и планирует его использовать в статьях русскоязычной Википедии: здесь Пуштунское платье и здесь Паколь, Ticket#2020052010002691. Прошу оценить целесообразность использования данного файла в статьях, и если Вы считаете возможным это, восстановить фотографию. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are not an OTRS volunteer -- neither am I -- so neither of us have seen the ticket. Further, the ticket has today's date, so it has not reached the head of the OTRS queue. The best place for this request is COM:UNDR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not understanding that you are an OTRS person. Let me suggest that you add {{User OTRS}} to User:Dogad75 so that others do not make the same mistake. As I suggested above, I think it is appropriate that you go to UnDR with this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted images on Norman Carton wikipedia page.

Lengthy Discussion
Hi Jim,

My name is Jacob Carton, a son and heir of Norman Carton's paintings that I have tried to load on Wiki. I saw today an email sent today regarding Vycl1994‬ proposing to delete the 2 remaining images I loaded on this wikipage (File:0729 x EveningFlame crop1Sm.jpg and File:0890 x Regatta-crop1Sm.jpg) and learned that wiki has now deleted 10 images I had previously loaded on this wikipage and are numbered below under "List of 10" heading, 9 deletions by you and one deletion File:0709 x PocatelloSummer-crop1Sm.jpg by Gbawden. Will you please reply to my email jakecarton1199@gmail.com so that I can see your answers to my questions or at least explain to me in that reply how I can view your answers?

On 4/1/20, I sent this email using “Create Release Email” tab in the Commons:OTSR generator... "I hereby affirm that I, Jacob Carton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media:

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Jacob Carton 2020-04-02 [generated using relgen.js]"

In addition I believe I properly went through the process releasing my copyright authority to the Commons to load these 4 images:

Yet you deleted

and Vycl1994‬ is proposing to delete

I am asking for help as I either must be doing something technically wrong when I complete the Commons:OTSR form online and it is not registering and/or I have no knowledge of the criteria by which you are making these decisions and thus do not know how to prove that I own copyright and have authority to release it. I am asking you if you can explain,

  1. Is there a way to ask Wiki to confirm you received my 4/1/20 Release Email” tab in the Commons:OTSR generator and whether you can now confirm wiki did receive it?
  2. Why was this release rejected and the 8 images in the release deleted and what are the criteria for making your decision if you are make determinations of credibility, authentication, or other remote fact-based decisions?
  3. When I go through the image loading process in Wiki and check off my release of copyright as I did for File:0709 x PocatelloSummer-crop1Sm.jpg, File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg, File:0729 x EveningFlame crop1Sm.jpg and File:0890 x Regatta-crop1Sm.jpg, why is this not sufficient for a release? I ask because, I don't know how to get the Common:OTSR page except for following the link provided by Wiki once someone at Wiki proposes to delete a photo.
  4. Is there a way to consolidate these conversations with you and Gbawden and Vycl1994‬ or must I copy this message separately to their pages and then individualize the message?
  5. Why was I not notified of proposals to delete 0709 x PocatelloSummer-crop1Sm.jpg, File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg and given an opportunity to go through the Commons:OTSR?

LIST OF 10 DELETED BY WIKI SO FAR

  1. File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg
  2. curprev 08:20, 14 May 2020‎ CommonsDelinker talk contribs‎ 16,278 bytes -39‎ Removing 0709_x_PocatelloSummer-crop1Sm.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Gbawden because: per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:0709 x PocatelloSummer-crop1Sm.jpg. undo
  3. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 16,703 bytes -87‎ Bot: Removing Commons:File:3225 x Passage-crop1.jpg (en). It was deleted on # Commons by Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo
  4. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 16,790 bytes -48‎ Bot: Removing Commons:File:1444 x -crop1a.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo
  5. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 16,838 bytes -153‎ Bot: Removing c:File:0687 x ManhattenGothic-crop1.jpg (en). Deleted by 6. Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo
  6. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 16,991 bytes -87‎ Bot: Removing Commons:File:1090 x JazzLight-crop1.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo
  7. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 17,078 bytes -215‎ Bot: Removing Commons:File:3032 x Cadwalader-crop1.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo
  8. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 17,293 bytes -159‎ Bot: Removing c:File:Sojourner Truth by Norman Carton-crop.jpg (en). Deleted by Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo
  9. curprev 13:51, 6 May 2020‎ Filedelinkerbot talk contribs‎ 17,452 bytes -100‎ Bot: Removing Commons:File:0625 x Hildring-crop1.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Jameslwoodward (per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton). undo/

Sincerely, Jacob Carton--JaCaw (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems here.

First, it is OTRS, not "OTSR". I don't know if that led to a problem or not.

Second, if you sent an email license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a valid return address, you should have received a bot-generated reply immediately.

Third, when you uploaded the paintings, you claimed that they were {{Own work}} when they are actually your father's work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It also makes it difficult to believe anything you say here.

Fourth, although I am not an OTRS volunteer, so I cannot see what you actually sent, the license you show above is untrue and invalid. You are not the creator of the works -- your father was. Unless your brother has died very recently, or your father explicitly willed the copyrights to you and not both of you, you are also not the sole owner of the copyrights to the various paintings. This incorrect affirmation means that we will look even more closely and skeptically at your uploads.

Your questions:

  1. Answered above
  2. It is not clear it was rejected -- if it was, you would have received an e-mail. Please remember that we are all volunteers and there are not enough of us, so there is a backlog. Also note that while it may or may not have been rejected, it should have been -- as I said in my comment above.
  3. We do not know who JaCaw actually is. We get many imposters here. In order to protect your father's copyrighted work, we require the OTRS process to confirm your identity. As I noted above, that becomes even more important when it is clear that you have said several things that were not correct.
  4. Yes, I can ask them to join here -- @Gbawden and Vycl1994: .
  5. You were notified -- they are 5th and 6th items on your talk page.

Aslo please note that Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Norman Carton has been withdrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


Dear Jim and @Gbawden and Vycl1994: , Thank you for replying and thank you for withdrawing the deletion of the remaining 2 images on the Carton wiki page. Finally, I feel I am doing something right here. I am going to try resubmit one of the deleted images (edited and renamed) using the manual OTRS process I just did with the approved remaining 2 images to see if I can restore the page. Do you think that's OK and if not, do you have a different suggestion?

I'm sorry if I transposed the OTRS letters. I can assure you I went through the OTRS process because I clicked on the link provided by Wiki volunteers. I went throught the automated process for the first 11 images and only sent a manual email for the last 2 accepted images. I'm not sure what "a bot-generated reply" is but if it is a confirming email back to my email address, no I did not for the auto-generator tab. I did get a reply when I manually sent the email from my gmail account. Wiki did not inform me to look for this email in either case. Maybe my gmail account doesn't accept a bot-generated reply from Wiki's auto-generator? In any case, I'm not trying the auto-generated request anymore. It's strictly manual from now on. I respect your OTRS process and am not trying to avoid it.

I'm a newbie to Wiki and not a regular technilogical practioner but also not a dunce. I am currently an agricultural worker in a remote location with poor and intermittent connection to the internet. I don't visit my talk page unless I get an email about a problem like Vycl1994 has been so kind to send. Does one have to visit the talk page regularly if they want to help build Wiki or should those people go away?

Regarding this process, it's been a strange journey and it feels oddly defensive of Wiki volunteers to assume the worst without asking constructively for proof or say what you need from me... that I am an imposter, that they know the details of my Dad's will, that they know my relationship with my brother and how we have divided up my Dad's collection and copyrights, that I've been trying to claim I am the creator of my Dad's work. This makes no sense when he's been dead for 40 years so he no longer owns the works or copyrights and everything that I have written on his wiki page (image captions, bio, etc) is attributed to him and not me, just the opposite of these claims. Yes I am the creator of the images because I digitally photographed the art and the photographs I own. That was the only way to load them onto Wiki as digital photography didn't exist until after my Dad died in 1980. No, I didn't create the paintings and I don't believe I have ever tried to claim that. That would make no sense as I am openly writing on the wikipage my Dad was the creator and most of them are dated before I was born. I am just trying to respect his legacy. In fact, it was a Wiki volunteer who added the short section about my brother and me.

As I have asked all along when I hear these "imposter" allegations, will somebody at Wiki please tell me the process to authenticate myself, to demonstrate securely my ownership of the paintings, to prove I own copyright when I own the art? If I want to load images on behalf of my brother (he owns those pieces of art) as his agent in the future, how do I demonstrate my agency to Wiki when my brother doesn't have a Wiki account?

I hope you can see the "and/or" in this statement "I hereby affirm that I, Jacob Carton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media" and be less aggressive in your threats and we can start over with a more civil and respectful discourse.

Sincerely, Jacob Carton — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaCaw (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if I can knock off all of your questions:

  1. " Does one have to visit the talk page regularly if they want to help build Wiki or should those people go away? " No, if you have email. Go to "Preferences > Notifications" at the top right when you are logged in as JaCaw. Check "Email" for "Talk page message" and for "Mention" and anytime you get a notice on your talk page or a ping, you will get an email.
  2. "that I've been trying to claim I am the creator of my Dad's work." Actually, you used {{Own work}} when you uploaded at least one of his paintings, so you did claim that you were the painter, although you may not have understood the implication of using that template. Please remember that from our point of view (and US law -- see Bridgeman). a reproduction photograph of a painting does not have a copyright, so the "Author=" line refers to the painter and not the photographer.
  3. Imposters are frequent here, so we do take care. I'm sorry if that seems intrusive, but note that OTRS volunteers are chosen as trusted people who must carefully not disclose anything private that they learn. Their actual identity is on record with WMF.
  4. Ownership of the paintings is irrelevant. The only thing we are interested in is ownership of the copyrights. If you and your brother own the copyrights jointly, then there is no problem with your uploading images of paintings that your brother owns. If, for some reason, your brother owns some of the copyrights, then I suggest that you get a simple statement from him saying something like: "Dear Jacob: I hereby grant you a license allowing you to freely license all of our father's works as required by Wikimedia Commons."
  5. Once you have satisfied the OTRS volunteer that you are actually Jacob Carlton and that you have the right to freely license your father's work, the volunteer can put a note on User:JaCaw saying that and you should have no further problems.
  6. "I hope you can see the "and/or" in this statement "I hereby affirm that I, Jacob Carton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright" Yes, I see the "and/or" -- generally I would expect that you would have struck out "creator", but as it stands you are claiming that you are either the creator or you are the sole owner of the copyright. You have said above that your brother has an interest in some or all of the copyrights. Again, please understand that we get a lot of imposters and a lot of people making claims that are not true, so we are very careful to nail down exactly what is said and the truth of the matter.
  7. Please understand that the dozen or so very active Admins -- those who do more than half of the Admin work here -- are close to being overwhelmed. We are working against a long backlog. We get around 10,000 new images per day and must delete around 1,700 of them. Most of those are fairly simple, but some take more time, so we sometimes are less than completely diplomatic as we try to stay ahead of the flow.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for replying and clarifying, I appreciate your volunteer work and Wiki's capacity challenges. I will work through the manual OTRS process from now on, resubmitting the deleted images (technically modified) and and being careful to not claim myself as creator of the paintings but rather simply copyright owner although I'm not sure there is clarity how to do this in Wiki's multiple choice format if I can recall it in this moment. As I said earlier, I went through the auto-generated OTRS process for deleted photos I uploaded so I didn't get an opportunity to edit the auto-generated email, rather simply copy it into my records. In any case, it's possible Wiki nevber received it as I got no bot reply. I'm not sure if I got an answer to my earlier question so I will try to reframe it in the context of your recent explanation: If every copyright of the images and artworks that I have loaded on Wiki so far is either owned by me or jointly with my brother, there should be no problem (assuming I am Jacob Carton, etc..) even if they were deleted earlier? Are these issues I solely take up with OTRS? Sincerely, Jacob Carton--107.77.227.38 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I am checked "email" in the boxes you reference in answer#1 yet didn't get an email when Gbawden deleted an image and certainly not always when I am getting pings. For example, I got no email when you replied here. I do get emails when Vycl1994 proposes to delet my uploads. (Yes, I check spam folder).--107.77.227.38 01:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@JaCaw: You did not get an email from my reply above because I generally do not ping people who come here -- I assume that they will be back to see the reply. You should, however, get one from this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

JaCaw: As Jim has explained, uploads like File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg need to be tagged {{OTRS pending}}, not {{Own work}}. In addition, that file is File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg (which has already been deleted) under a different name. Vycl1994 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear and @Gbawden and Vycl1994: and Jim, I resubmitted an editted version of File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg through the manual OTRS process and got an email reply from a Wiki Commons moderator this morning that permission was approved. Now that it has made it through the OTRS process, probably for the first time, why is it now deleted. If you deleted a version of this file to start prior to OTRS process (which I did through auto-generate and it never went through), is it permanently banned from Wiki? Please advise how I can properly load this image? Sincerely, Jacob Carton--JaCaw (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)--

JaCaw File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg has been approved by an OTRS reviewer. It is File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg that remains deleted. I simply wished to remind you to use {{OTRS pending}}. Now the OTRS process for that image is complete. Please use {{OTRS pending}}, not {{Own work}} for future uploads, if they are reproductions of any original work. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Vycl1994 and Jim @Gbawden and Vycl1994: , It took me a few minutes to learn that the File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg was in the Wiki system even though the reference (link or tag?) to it was deleted off of the Norman Carton page and that I shouldn't assume it was deleted from the Wiki system and that I could upload it once it was approved. What still confuses me is when you instruct me to "use {{OTRS pending}}" instead of "{{Own work}}." I have no memory of using {{Own work}} when I manually sent the email to OTRS or when I loaded the revised image into Wiki yesterday. Where did I do that and in the future when do I do that? For example, do I write "OTRS pending" when I write my manual email to the OTRS moderator? I do not recall "OTRS pending" as an option when I upload an image to a wiki page or submit an image to OTRS for review. I do not want to mess up future uploads and fall into an old trap that I still can't see. Please help. Sincerely, Jacob Carton --JaCaw (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

First, note that nothing ever gets removed from the Wiki system -- files that are "deleted" are actually simply marked as non-public. It is therefore neither necessary nor permitted to upload a file more than once.

Second, when you are doing an upload, the second page asks you to pick one:

  • This is my own work
  • This is not my own work

When you are uploading your father's work, you must pick the second one. When you are finished with the upload, go the the file description and edit the licensing section. It should read:

== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}
{{PermissionOTRS|ID=XXXXXX}}

Note -- replace the XXXXXX with the OTRS ticket number. When you save this, you will get a warning message saying that because you are not an OTRS member, you must be careful. Push "save" again. Also, check to see that the Author= line names your father and not you.

I note that you got an OTRS approval for File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg. In the file description, you claim that it is {{Own work}} -- that is, that you yourself were the actual photographer in 1959. If that is correct, then everything is fine. If that is not correct, then the image needs a license from the actual photographer. If you are an heir of the photographer (your mother, perhaps), then the license is OK, but you need to change the Author= line to name the actual photographer. If you are not an heir of the photographer, then the OTRS member should not have approved the image without a license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Guru Rinpoche Gomkora.jpg

˜˜˜Mario Biondi Writer Unfortunately I am a real beast about talk pages, I do not know how to use them, so I do not even know if I am trying to answer in the right place and in the right way. (And please pardon my poor english: I speak another language.) Anyway. 1) The copyright to that photo surely belongs to me, it's a photo I have personally taken with at least 400 more in Eastern Buthan on the date and time stated in the relevant page. 2) It is the photo of a holy thangka exposed to the public worship in that festival. It is a thing especially made for the public to worship it. Does it have a copyright? Wikipedia is full of photos of thangkas. If I publish a photo of, let us say, a crosier of the Pope, a hat of Queen Elizabeth or the whig of Mr. Trump, should I take care of the copyright?

I really do not know, so please do what you deem correct. Ciao from Italy Mario Biondi writer (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Mario, your use of the talk page is excellent, and your English is fine, certainly much better than my French (which I studied for eight years a long time ago). The only thing I would suggest is that when the subject is a Deletion Request it is better to make any comments there -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guru Rinpoche Gomkora.jpg.

The problem with the image is, as you said, the tapestry has a copyright, so your image infringes on the rights of the creator(s) of the tapestry. Hats are utilitarian (useful objects), so they do not have copyrights. A crozier might or might not -- certainly a simple cross with two plain bars would not, but some complex croziers certainly would. Wigs, I don't know -- probably not.

Most of the objects in Category:Thangka appear to be old, but certainly any that are not out of copyright should be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

˜˜˜ Many thanks again. I repeat: Wiki must do what they deem correct accordingly with the copyright laws in the world and especially in Bhutan. (BTW, being from Italy, I myself speak italian and only a very bad french.) Mario Biondi writer (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Mario, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you spoke French -- my guess was that your native language was Italian. I only meant to say that your English is much better than my French, which is my only second language. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Campus Guns

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campus Guns.jpg: Where are you getting your information that there was any contract requiring newspapers to print AP photos with a copyright notice? There has been extensive discussion of this on this two other FFD's at enwp (1 2) and nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of such a contract. All the evidence is to the contrary, particularly the fact that no newspapers at the time were actually publishing AP photos with copyright notice (except for occasional instances of remarkable photos that the AP picked up from local newspapers). Toohool (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot point to written evidence, but as one experienced in such things, I cannot imagine that there was not such a requirement. Without it, the first time a photo or story was printed inadvertently without notice, the work would be PD. That's silly -- the AP existed by being paid for the use of its photos and articles and if all of its product rapidly became PD, it would have no revenue. Also, I doubt very much that any newspapers in that era ran without a copyright notice, usually at the bottom of the masthead on the editorial page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be good if you had brought up these assumptions in the discussion, so they could be addressed, instead of closing the discussion unilaterally. In fact, most newspapers in that era ran without a copyright notice, including, for starters, all the examples that were linked on the file description page. Generally only the well-known big-city papers were copyrighted. Even in those papers, under the pre-1978 copyright law, a single copyright notice under the name of the newspaper/publisher only covered material for which the publisher owned the copyright, i.e. not wire-service or syndicated content.
The AP's business model was based on the fact that their members got exclusive access to first publication of their content, i.e. while it was still news. They did not need copyright to protect that business model, because they convinced the Supreme Court to create the hot news doctrine, which provided protection for their work for the short time period where it had value. As the AP argued before the Supreme Court in 1942, news "has no value after it has once been published", hence why they apparently saw little need for the long-term protection provided by copyright (at least not enough need to justify dealing with the perceived burdens of registration and deposit, per one expert analysis from 1953). Toohool (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Any more thoughts on this? I hope I can provide any further information or citations that might help change your mind. Toohool (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I am going to stick with Commons precedent. Two things affect that -- first, you are quoting case law from twenty years before the image in question. The uses of photography changed a lot in that time. Second, we frequently get people who want to have images on Commons that quote all sorts of things and make all sorts of assertions in order to accomplish their end. Until you get better known and established here it is unlikely that you will get much traction with theories that are different from our precedent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
What precedent are you referring to? Toohool (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Victor Vescovo at the Calypso Deep, Mediterranean Sea.jpg

Dear Jim: Apologies again for the incorrect upload procedures regarding "own work." I am new to upload procedures to the commons and (incorrectly) believed that 'own work' included those images for which I had full use rights and was a subject of the photograph. I am now clear on what it means, but there was no deliberate intent to be deceptive or not give proper credit. I admire the diligence and protections of the site, and those who enforce them. Thank you. Vlvescovo (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

COM:UNDEL in re: File:Eye chart in focus.jpg

(I write this on your talk page as the COM:UNDEL is closed to further comment.) I'm sorry. I did not mean to take the work of admins for granted; I had assumed that, as on English Wikipedia, users must, by policy, be notified of speedy deletions and of deletion discussions. If this is not the case, then I apologize for criticizing Moheen. Thank you for your work maintaining Commons. Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

You've deleted an unfree file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheung Tak Memorial Alex chow.png. The uploader has essentially superseded that by doing a {{CSS image crop}} [13], which I find rather eyebrow-raising.

I can't say that I am too familiar with how FOP Hong Kong applies to the greater image File:Sheung_Tak_Memorial.jpg, but I think the above is not allowed (because it's derivative to the artwork itself).

Your thoughts? --Cold Season (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is a violation, but since it appears only on WP:ZH, I don;t think there is anything we can do about it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

opinion

Hi, ِDear Jim, whats your opinion regarding This file, do you think its Derivative works or not? regards Déjà vu • ✉ 21:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the Addidas logo is OK -- no one would notice or care if it were not there, so it passes the test of de minimis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for dispelling my doubts. all the best. Déjà vu • ✉ 01:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Svenskt konstnärslexikon

Hi Jim. You closed this DR in April, but there is still a bunch of files left intact with the deletion templates in place on the file pages. What's the deal with those? Please check if they should also be deleted or mark them as "kept". Cheers, De728631 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of File:UK Addiction Treatment Centres.png

Hi Jim, I have sent permissions for this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.com as requested, can show proof of the email sent on 16/04/2020 @ 12:58pm so can this be reinstated please, I am the original creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason4656 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding OTRS permission

Hope you aware that Special:AbuseFilter/69 tagging changes "Adding OTRS permission by non-OTRS member", as it`s also tag filter log for you. I`d like to suggest you to request OTRS permission on Meta, if you can spend time to contribute there. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Vilen (singer) 4.jpg

Hello @Jameslwoodward: I notice one of uploaded files was deleted by you. Also I did provide all the source by which you could verify that the image is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. But I guess you have missed to check the source YouTube, I also used YouTube, License Review templates. Please do look into the matter and re-upload the file. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed this issue for C1K98V. Source is under the CC-BY 3.0 license and all appears in order, so I've undeleted and performed the license review. Nick (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of flags

Hi, Jim! I'm sorry to bother you. I'd like to about hear your opinion about Category:Photographs_of_flags_of_Hungary_in_Miskolc. My guess except two File:Tizes Honved Regiment Flag.jpg and CoatOfArms CityHallBalcony Miskolc all other files are miscategorized, those are not Category:Photographs_of_flags_of_Hungary_in_Miskolc, or? Can I remove the flag photo category from the other 160 files? Related discusses here here. Also I d like to know your opinion about Category:Photographs_of_flags_of_Hungary_in_Pécs what I nominated for delete: formerly none of the files were fit to there, but the user (who created over 100! Photographs of flags of Hungary subcategories) cropped same 5MB photos to circa 100 KB size (none of these used) just to prove the category required...however my opinion still a dozen other photos in Pécs category (example all Pécs Ex-Moschee Gazi...) not flag photo? Thanks in advance for your reply! Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

help request re "Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International" license

Hi Jim- I'm worried that I may have misinterpreted the licensing for an image I copied from the Parker Library. When I checked its licensing, it appeared to me that I would be free to upload it to Commons. Here's the Creative Commons page for it. After I uploaded the images and did a ton of work filling out info templates on them, I got messages that make me think I may have got it wrong and wasted a lot of effort. Can you tell me if there's some way to make this license work for these images? Otherwise I may contact Cambridge University and see if they have some way to grant me permission directly. They give contact info for this at the bottom of the "more details" pop-up linked below the manuscript viewer I link above. Thanks in advance for any rescuing or advice you can provide. The images: File:Philip_II_and_Hugh_de_Boves_at_Battle_of_Bouvines.png & File:Philip_II_unhorsed_Battle_of_Bouvines.png Eric talk 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ellin Beltz, Rybkovich, Yann, and Didym: I got your names from deletion discussions we were all involved in, and am pinging you here to keep my perilous quest documented in one place after realizing that Jim is out of the office for a while. You both seem like you might be able to provide guidance on copyright issues. Hoping you might have a minute to take a look at my question above. Thanks in advance. Eric talk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Eric: There are no "non-commercial" licenses on Commons.
For simple (non-creative) reproduction of two-dimensional subject, use {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-scan-two}}.
If the depicted subject is a creative work, it should have also its own permission (license tag)!
For SVG representations of an ancient script, use {{PD-ancient-script}}.
For technical images created as part of standard medical diagnostic procedures, use {{PD-medical}}.
For photographs of old works taken by yourself, use the appropriate one of the following …
{{PD-old-100}} for works by authors who died more than 100 years ago.
{{PD-old-80}} for works by authors who died more than 80 years ago.
{{PD-old-75}} for works by authors who died more than 75 years ago.
{{PD-old-70}} for works by authors who died more than 70 years ago.
{{PD-US}} for U.S. works published before 1 January 1925.
{{PD-US-expired}} for non-U.S. works published before 1 January 1925.
{{PD-1996}} for works that are in the public domain in their source countries on 1 January 1996.
And finally, for photographs of old works (as above) taken by someone else, use {{PD-Art}}
Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a million, Ellin! Does it look like I got it right?: File:Philip_II_and_Hugh_de_Boves_at_Battle_of_Bouvines.png & File:Philip_II_unhorsed_Battle_of_Bouvines.png @Ellin Beltz: Eric talk 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Eric: Yup!! Perfect! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the rescue, Ellin! Ok, looks like the rest of you are off the hook. Thanks for the venue, Jim! Eric talk 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Pending deletion request

Hi Jim,

since a couple of weeks, a deletion request concerning some of my uploads is pending:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Aguetul

Can this be deleted or partly deleted? I do not really know the procedure.

--Aguetul (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinite IP blocks?

Hi. Noticed that you have some infinite IP blocks. Was this purposeful or just artefact of actions?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to check two of my Flockr uploads

Good day Jameslwoodward! May I request for your verification of two Flickr files that I uploaded here: File:Young JV @ Adamson - Flickr.jpg and File:Young JV @ Adamson2 z Flickr.jpg? They were indicated as "PD" in Flickr, though there were warning tags on each of these uploads. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No need for request. I posted that request on User talk:King of Hearts#Two Young JV Flickr pics. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Picture licensing

Hello there. I saw there was a controversy regarding a non-PD painting that was ultimately removed from the site (the uploader having claimed that, as they had taken the photo of it, it fell under CC). And while the issue is over now and I have no intention on participating on it anyway, there's another thing -the opposite situation, sort of - that I've noticed and has been going on in my mind for a while now. I've seen there are many images of public domain paintings ('faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art') that are uploaded under licences other than PD, most often Creative Commons and as such, demanding attribution should the pictures be used elsewhere (examples here, here and here). And so, I wanted to ask if it's a legitimate practice and/or if these could later be re-licensed under PD-Art or similar. Thanks for your attention.--179.6.199.229 23:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have the same question over these photos (1, 2), which are a hundred years old or more, and yet list the uploader lists them as 'own work'. Is there any legitimacy in that? Furthermore, Commons:Copyright rules by country states that 'the anonymous works are in public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified', so this practice of claiming them as 'own work' has me very confused. I hope you can solve these questions.--179.6.192.157 08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Child Rajju1396.gif

Hi! You closed this DR as delete long ago. The license at that time was {{PD-India}}. I think it should have been {{PD-India-photo-1958}}. The photo is according to the the information from 1926-27 and the copyright law of India the copyright expired 50 years from creation at that time and up to 1991. So I think it should be safe to restore the photo. What do you think? --MGA73 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo of public poster

Dear Jim I have only just spotted that this photo I downloaded has been deleted. It is a picture of a public billboard on one of the main roads through Brummana, Lebanon. How does/did it infringe copyright? Padres Hana (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)0

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lebanon January 2014 687.JPG

I see the user who got my (two) photos of Hobeika street posters removed has now had his account permanently blocked. Should I reload them? Currently the Wikipedia article on Hobeika has no image of the man. Padres Hana (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2020/2021!

  * Happy Holidays 2020/2021, 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 12:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive_2020&oldid=533573815"