User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2021

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

OTRS/Release of rights to photographs of less visited pre-17th-century, pre-8th-century / ancient sites in East Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia

Jim,

Happy new year. Thank you for the past guidance. I am not active these days in wikimedia commons or en-wikipedia. I see you have not been active here either. I hope you or someone else watching your talk page with admin/bureaucrat rights and experience here would read this and guide me.

Someone in real life reached out to me with questions about the proper way to upload into public domain a lot of photographs of historical importance, rare pre-16th century/ancient temples, inscription stones, other less-visited/difficult-to-reach archaeological sites and such in East Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. This philanthropist is the one paying local teams and guides to visit and take photos of these sites. I have read the private emails given to me. I see that the local persons / guides have agreed to transfer all their creative rights and copyrights under local and US laws into the public domain in exchange for the compensation from the philanthropist.

Is there a wikimedia commons form or letter that we need individual(s) to sign before they or I upload their photos? I can get and send these signed forms and submit them through OTRS if needed. I have as not yet uploaded any photos to wikimedia commons, nor flickr website or any other.

I want to ensure that years from now, there are no claims or difficulties to wikimedia commons on rights or other licensing matters.

FWIW, I have already discussed at length, and I have been assured that the guides / photographer(s) have and will follow local laws about the sites, they will delay this project where appropriate to avoid any undue Covid-pandemic risks, and if or when they do travel and take photos they will take Covid-pandemic related precautions such as masks and hand sanitizers etc.

I would appreciate your guidance on any forms or letter we need signed and have on record. I am open to any alternate approach that would work for wikimedia commons. If I do not hear from you or someone, I will do the best I can. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: any guidance while Jim is busy with RL? Pinging you here to keep the discussion in one thread. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: This came up in a different context a while back. The method for giving permissions from a photographer who is not the uploader is to send a simple email as described at COM:OTRS. For example, "Mary Jones" uploads a photo by "Paul Smith." Mary credits Paul as the photographer and adds {{ OTRS pending | day= | month= | year= }}. Meanwhile, Paul's email gets sent to Commons. Additional correspondence may result. The helpful OTRS editor that reached out to me for similar situation is Nat who asked that a message be left on his talk page with the file names uploaded by this method and he would assist. I hope this is helpful, if not please feel free to continue the discussion, pinging me and/or Nat if it continues here, or on my talk page. It sounds like a really interesting project! I am glad we can be of service to you! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Thanks. I started an OTRS ticket with the same title as this thread. Sent in a signed permissions form for comments or approval. I hope to find time this weekend to review the photographs, pick the useful ones, clean them up if needed for upload to wikimedia commons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!

Dear Jameslwoodward

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information from wikimedia file metadata sections

Hello, I would like to request help with deleting sensitive personal information from a certain wikimedia file's metadata section. Is there any possible way to do so, including deleting it from the file page's history? Misterms735 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Misterms735, yes, that is possible, but I will need to know the file name and the reason for the removal. If you want to do this privately, please send me a message by clicking on "e-mail this user" in the left column above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of image request

Dear Jim. I retired in November and have been organizing my photographic files since then. I cannot find the negative of this photo - File:Keil do Amaral 1.jpg . I took many photographs of Keil do Amaral along the years, but now I strongly believe this isn’t one of them. I therefore ask you to please delete the image. Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Manuelvbotelho, I cannot do that unilaterally. Please go to the page, and click on "Nominated for deletion" in the left column, and follow the instructions there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC

Hello Jameslwoodward,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

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

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

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you -- CptViraj (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the warning. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Paris 2 George Herman.jpg

Hello. Is File:Paris 2 George Herman.jpg intended to be deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ez1realty? Or was it intended to be kept for some reason? Or was just an oversight? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oversight, thank you for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Гольденберг1.jpg

Jim hello, hope your cruise is good. Please, finish this DR (and others that may be missed). Thanks. --Drakosh (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkish, Lute (late 19th–early 20th century), wood, ebony, ivory, and mother-of-pearl inlay, 93.3 × 37.5 × 20.3 cm., MFA, Houston.jpg

Hi Jim! Regarding this deletion request, may I ask why you decided to keep those 14 remaining files? I assume that was a mistake, am I correct? Hopefully this can be sorted out. Thank you and have a nice day! Howhontanozaz (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sometimes the tool that we use for mass deletions hiccups -- thanks for the catch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: You missed one Jim hehehe: File:Turkish, Lute (late 19th–early 20th century), wood, ebony, ivory, and mother-of-pearl inlay, 93.3 × 37.5 × 20.3 cm., MFA, Houston.jpg. Thank you again! Howhontanozaz (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Facepainting and copyrights

Can you expand on your comment about facepainting having a copyright? There are a lot of files in Category:Facepainting that would be endangered by that. Mo Billings (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have revised the DR -- thank you for the comment -- I learned something. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I see from the message below that there may be further discussion needed, but it's probably easiest to retain all of these images until the larger copyright question is settled. Mo Billings (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually think the facepaint in the referenced DR would be safely de minimis. The more pressing copyright concern there are the photographs themselves. The nomination reason, Flickr washing, seems a quite reasonable suspicion given the Flickr account characteristics and dating; I'm concerned that this was not addressed appropriately either by responders or in closing. Эlcobbola _talk 16:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that while the Flickr account characteristics look similar to those of Flickr-washers, it may be explained in this case by someone wanting to share the image bit not wanting to be identified. It is likely that the Flickr user lives in the same city as the subject, if the image is theirs. The username "TheUnseen011101" is suggestive. Mo Billings (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's also speculation and a reason we have COM:OTRS. It could just as readily be explained as someone engaged in morally compromised license laundering not wanting to be identified; verily, we can concoct whatever scenario we wish, which is precisely why we rely on evidence rather than speculation. As always, "the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate [...] that any required consent has been obtained." Эlcobbola _talk 16:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

With apologies to Jameslwoodward for continuing this here, I was just offering what I think is a plausible reason why the Flickr account may be recent and contain just the one image. I was speculating, of course. I'm not sure why this one image (or any particular image) would require OTRS verification when literally hundreds of images are uploaded daily with as little or less evidence of authorship. I'm not sure why you quote something about consent, since the subject is obviously in a public place. Do you believe there are consent issues involved? Perhaps you should open a new deletion discussion for this file. Mo Billings (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm confused by this - where is the referenced discussion/explanation of fixation? Carell v. Shubert, 104 F.Supp.2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), for example, found the makeup used in Cats to be protectible, which one would not expect if application of pigment to the body (indeed, the face) failed to meet the fixation requirement. Indeed, it found "There is no disagreement between the parties that the Makeup Designs are copyrightable, or that the creator of such Designs is entitled to protection even if he or she does not apply the makeup to the show's performers. The Designs contain the requisite degree of originality, and are fixed in tangible form on the faces of the Cats actors." Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I see a difference between stage makeup done daily and a one off face paint, which I presume this is. At 17USC101 we have

A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

The question is on which side of this a face painting lasting part of a day falls. I would say it's transitory. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that face paint (and tattoo) designs are often selected from an artist's existing portfolio (e.g., at a carnival, one might see a board of designs a child may select to have painted on their face) and thus derivative works, even loading software into RAM has been found to be sufficient fixation. The concept is not dissimilar to the permanence requirement for many FoP provisions. Permanence does not mean "for eternity"; it means for the natural lifetime of the work. By way of example, do you believe if you took a photograph with your phone and deleted it a minute later, it was never eligible for copyright protection as its existence was fleeting (transitory, by the "lasting part of a day" definition)? Эlcobbola _talk 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Good evening,

In 2019 you have deleted some of my photos due to some reason (see User_talk:Olgerts_V#Notification_about_possible_deletion). Now one of them is downloaded by anonymous user as "his own work" with copies and used by many language editions of Wikipedia without possibility to be replaced.

It seems, hmm, at least incorrect. Woudn't be better to restore my original file? (Sorry, I have no access to deleted files and can't exactly name what file it was.) Thank you. — Olgerts V (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the two files per the original deletion request -- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Arena Riga. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Церква Непорочного Зачаття Пресвятої Діви Марії1.jpg

This image was cropped by me and it does not violate FoP. Why did you delete it?--Anatoliy (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that there is apparently nothing with a copyright in the image. There is no FoP in Ukraine so nothing about it applies to this image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Jameslwoodward. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

I am not sure whether you receiving the email or not, thus I notice in here. If you have any question, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you. --SCP-2000 17:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

two pictures have been deleted

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G%C3%9CLC%C4%B0N_FOTO_(2).jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G%C3%BClcin_Foto_(3).jpg

Dear Friend you deleted these two pictures. If there a document he can sign maybe? Thank you very much for your help.

The picture has just been uploaded and he sent the permission letter and received a message like this:

Dear Emir Degirmenli,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2021041610009871].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team Gemalmaz (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Gemalmaz ^ileti 16:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Jarekt .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pictures deleted

Hi Jim,

On 6 March 2021 you deleted following pictures, among others:

• File:Luxembourg, water tower Gasperich, Jim Clemes (1).jpg
• File:Luxembourg, water tower Gasperich, Jim Clemes (2).jpg

For the mentioned files, there were authorizations given by the architect Jim Clemes, please check OTRS. I already pointed it out on my Talk page on Jan. 14 when I got the Deletion request, but it has not been taken care of. Would you please check OTRS an replace the original files? GilPe (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Putting a note on your talk page will very rarely have any effect -- the notice there is placed by a bot that handles all the details of a DR. I note that PermissionOTRS|2016052010006382 was added to the first file by someone who is not an OTRS agent. I am also not an OTRS agent, but User:Jarekt who has edited the files is one. He can look at the files, check OTRS, and restore them if appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@GilPe and Jameslwoodward: I verified OTRS permission and undeleted the files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to @Jarekt and Jameslwoodward: and sorry for not having put the initial message at the right place ;-) GilPe (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Report

Hello, please take a look at this report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Files named with meaningless/disruptive names (motivated renaming was reverted without any valid reason) as these are serious everyday violations of the Commons rules and protection of meaningless names (in this case, Kalumny which translates as Columns). User Kazimier Lachnovič with filemover rights constantly performs violations of the Commons rules, creates instability issues and protects meaningless names, thus creates confusion. His Commons admin rights previously were lifted, but it is clear that it is not enough. -- Pofka (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions on Commons:Deletion requests/US Government Videoconference Screenshots

Hello, I noticed you were the deleting admin on Commons:Deletion requests/US Government Videoconference Screenshots. I had two questions, one procedural, one content-based. The first procedural question is whether it is within the standards of Commons for an administrator to close a discussion as delete for reasons not mentioned in the DR discussion, especially when there were no participants in the discussion actually speaking in favor of deletion? (The original speedy-nominator never responded to my clear rationale as to why it wasn't within policy, which I took as effectively a concession.) I am aware that Commons is often short on admins, and that deletion discussions here generally do not generate as much participation as on en.wiki, however, my understanding is that all concerns should be added within the discussion to give all parties a chance to respond and ask questions, and that for an administrator to come in and close the discussion like this for anything but the clearest of cases is effectively a supervote. Again, if things work differently on Commons, and I'm misunderstanding, just say the word, and I will drop it. But my understanding is that others on Commons have a similar understanding: for instance here. And though I know the context is very different, when a similar issue came up last year, you said that you usually gave at least 24 hours after making your own comment to close the discussion yourself.

The content-based question is about the question of whether some of these individuals had some active human behind the camera. Assuming this is the relevant question, while that seems at least plausible under the precautionary principle for 51081952862, others like 51128553065 and 51134333225 sure seem like everyone is either on a webcam or a US government employee, based on the angle and position. I think we should also give some weight to the state department's assertion of public domain. Do you have examples of individuals in these photos who look like they might not come from simple webcam-type sources? MarginalCost (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

First, as you mentioned, it is important to remember that Commons gets more than 10,000 new files every day and must delete around 2,000 of them, mostly for copyvio. Around two dozen admins do most of that work -- there has been a shortage of admins and a month or two backlog for the ten plus years I have been an admin.

The initial DR rational was that the images are screenshots. Unless made by fixed, automatic, cameras, screenshots have a copyright, so my closure was based on the DR. As for my simply closing it without further discussion, it had been open for more than a month and it's unlikely that leaving it open longer, even with a comment by me, would have generated more comment. And yes, to some extent admins here have a supervote, subject only to the possibility of an UnDR. The nominator, A1Cafel, is not an admin. It's likely that if the images had been seen by an admin before A1Cafel added the {{Speedy}} that the admin would have deleted them on sight as clear copyvios. Again, remember the volume -- several hundred DRs every day do not allow for extended discussion on issues that appear to be clear.

As for the facts here, it is up to you, as the uploader, to show beyond a significant doubt that an image is PD. In this case, two of the files are of senior foreign officials and the third of senior corporate executives. I think it likely that few (if any at all) of the individual images are fixed cameras, but are cameras that have a human operator behind them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

a photo has been deleted

Hi Jim,

You removed File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982.jpg from the Patera Building page. This was posted as "my work" (Nigel PG Dale). Please let me now the reason(s) why this is unacceptable. The image is a part of a small Patera Building archive, which includes photos, writings, catalogues, award documents etc. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel PG Dale (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Nigel PG Dale this isn't your own work -- that is, you are not the person who took the original photograph and you have no right to freely license it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, OK I'm new to all of this. File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982.jpg is an important historic image of a building which no longer exists in its Stoke-on-Trent location - but which does exist in the London Docklands having been moved twice. It is the subject of a listing application by 20th C Soc. The image is my photo of a photographic print. The print was commissioned by Longton Industrial Holdings Plc for publicity purposes and widely circulated as a part of a press release. Unusually, the print does not have the photographer's name, or that of any agency stamped on the back. There is nothing that might give a clue as to the photographer. In the 1980s, LIH Plc was taken over by Thompson T-Line Plc, who in turn were taken over by Ladbrokes. I have tried without success to ascertain the copyright owner. My other option is to apply for an 'orphan works' licence (UK) to use the image on line. If you have any other suggestions please let me know.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your description of the situation is very clear -- the image is an orphan work. It is clearly still under copyright and will be until at least 2052 (if the photographer died shortly after taking the picture in 1982). We don't know who the photographer was, so Commons can't keep it. You might be able to use it on WP:EN under their "fair use" rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've applied for an 'orphan works' licence to use this image File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982.jpg.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The copyright.

Dear colleague, I present you with an official letter of permission from the association, Please restore the image of the medal, because it is not protected by copyright, the official letter states that there is no ban on its use. It would be correct to reflect this in an association article on Wikipedia. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no: 1) Your statement "it is not protected by copyright" is clearly not correct -- the Association's letter explicitly claims copyright. 2) Such letters must be sent directly from the copyright holder. using OTRS. We do not accept letters from the uploader because it is too easy to forge them. 3) The letter gives a limited license, for use only in Wikipedia. Both Commons and Wikipedia require that works be freely licensed for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear colleague, If I apply to OTRS from the official e-mail address of the organization and answer questions about the copyright of the image, then is it possible to restore the image?--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

OTRS will require a free license from an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright. The procedure is fully explained at COM:OTRS/CONSENT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph Lubin (24961256615).jpg

Hi,

Could we reopen this DR, possibly undelete the photos for another look? The first on the list looks correctly released by Ivo Näpflin. It seems likely that the rest were by the same photographer.

For example, the last in the deleted set was https://www.flickr.com/photos/liftconference/24961255915 and the EXIF data on the original clearly both names the photographer and has their release as CC-BY-4.0. We normally take that as verification unless there are good reasons to have additional significant doubt, just not seeing any in this case. If I were asked to upload from this Flickrstream, I would consider it a reasonable project. --Fæ (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fæ. I don't see what you're seeing -- the Flickr account is not Ivo Napflin's -- it's Joseph Lubin's. So, while Napflin is named, it's not his release, it's Lubin's. As I said in my closing comment, they may be works for hire, but that would have to be proven. As it stands, I think we need a release from Napflin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's in black and white in the EXIF data "Copyright Notice - Ivo Näpflin". The Flickr account, and even the Flickr release, is not the only evidence to examine in this case. TBH the whole 'work for hire' is a tangent as it has nothing to do with the photographer's release that we can read. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the EXIF is clear that the copyright belongs to Ivo Napflin, but the Flickr account does not belong to him -- it's titled "liftconferencephotos" and it's "about" page says

"A conference about the challenges and opportunities of technology in our society.

Most of the photos have been taken by Tristan Pfund.

Contact him at tristan[at]osmose[dot]ch"

There is nothing there to even suggest that Napflin has given a license..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. The copyright release is correctly in the EXIF data for the photograph. That is the evidence of a correct release for Commons in compliance with COM:L. We can ignore relatively minor questions about the Flickrstream, I carefully examined the Flickrstream and did some research on both Napflin (who appears on Instagram) and Pfund (who runs their own photography blog), to ensure they are real and have some footprint, before creating this thread. Nobody at any point has doubted the EXIF data is original.

At this point I'm quite surprised. I could probably find about 100,000 Flickr sourced images that have been successfully hosted here for years without any question and where there never has been evidence of work for hire, or the photographer is not named and where I could present significantly more doubt than this Flickrstream. We don't bother to put all those up for deletion because of our underpinning principle of "significant doubt". That doubt just simply does not exist for this case. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Aha -- right you are. Good catch, thank you. I don't think I have ever seen a CC release in the EXIF before, so I didn't look down far enough. Sorry about that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, actually there is still a problem which one of us should clean up (I don't have time now) -- we're relying on a CC-BY license from Ivo Napflin in the EXIF, but he does not appear as the author in our files. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@1Veertje: could you tidy up the undeleted? The license should match the EXIF (cc-by-4.0) and the photographer's name ought to appear in the author field. I've done this for File:Joseph Lubin (24961255915).jpg. --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request Leo Spaventa Filippi

Hi, I’ve seen the deletion request; I’m the nephew of the painter, how can I demonstrate I am the copyright owner and make the image public domain?

Can I at least retrieve the photo since I’ve deleted the original?

Thank you Ampo (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please use the procedure at OTRS to verify that you are the painter's heir and therefore the copyright owner. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please give your assessment (Putin Palace leaked photos 2011)

Deletion request: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Anoneska

In 2011, you already gave your assessment for photos from the same source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Putin%27s_Palace.jpg

Now again I would like to know your opinion. --Anoneska (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

In 2011, there was no FoP in Russia, so at that time the images infringed on the copyright for the architecture. The law changed in 2014, so the copyrighted architecture is no longer a problem. The images in the current DR apparently have valid OTRS permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Jameslwoodward: , I would like to see your opinion right here (Deleted or Keep). --Anoneska (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate. The decision at the DR you cite must be based on whatever is in the OTRS message log and I do not have OTRS access. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• You misunderstood. Administrator Nat just lumped it all together. In fact, quite different photographs are related to OTRS (they are not taken from Ruleaks). And in the specified DR, we are talking about deleting photos taken from Ruleaks (OTRS will not help here anymore). --Anoneska (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I see no reason why my opinion would be particularly useful. My only connection with the files is now obsolete due to the change in the FoP in Russia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is what I understand. I don't understand this: Why there are no complaints about the four photographs received from Ruleaks.net since 2011, but there are now complaints about other photographs from the same source. At the same time, admin Nat is lying that the source is not accessible in the Wayback Machine. All this looks like some kind of farce. --Anoneska (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pictures Antibes 2020 Angela Becker-Fuhr

Regarding pictures Antibes 2020 Angela Becker-Fuhr.jpg et al, hello the upload success uaf express request of the artist. How can you clarify an email from Ms. Becker-Fuhr or what does it need to whom?

Please do not delete the OTRS mails are in progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whp2005 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whp2005 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Kimsa Sok sock

I see you've blocked User:Jimmy Xinqeen. Twinjin Hiso (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user seems like another one. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Elcobbola blocked the account earlier today. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:OpenMB License

Template:OpenMB License 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 template, 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!

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete closures

A couple of weeks ago you closed a couple of deletion requests I created but I think I may have created them out-of-process: there are two related files that were listed on the nominations, but they haven't been deleted: File:Portrait of H.M. Queen Elizabeth (cropped).jpg and File:Portrait of H.M. King George VI (cropped).jpg. DrKay (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Pedro Calunsod at Naga Cathedral.jpg

From a DR page watcher: Is File:Pedro Calunsod at Naga Cathedral.jpg supposed to be deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedro Calunsod at Naga Cathedral.jpg or not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Image File:Geograph-6864623-by-Nigel-Dale.jpg

Hi Jim,

Please help to reinstate the above image on the Wikipedia Patera Building article. The image is available on Geograph, and I have an 'Orphan Works' licence for its use Orphan Works Licence OWLS000258. On line and Wikipedia were specified as the uses to which the image should be put. As part of the orphan works procedure, I made extensive efforts to trace the copyright owners without success.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. The image exists on Commons, where you claim to be the photographer and have given it a CC license. On the other hand, you say you have an orphan works license for "on line and Wikipedia". That license would not be sufficient, as both WP:EN and Commons require licenses that are free for any use anywhere by anybody. Are you the actual photographer or not? If not then what is the full text of the Orphan Works License? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What may have happened is that a computer search found two similar files and deleted the Geograph commons version, which was the correct one. I'm going to put File:Geograph-6864623-by-Nigel-Dale.jpg back up.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete File:Trio Macan Taba Saling.jpg. The file name does not describe the contents of the image. You can translate the file name from Indonesia to English by using Google translate. Regards and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.125.236.251 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

An incorrect name is not a valid reason to delete a file. If you think the name should be changed, please use {{Rename}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright controversy on an FPC

Jim: I request you to take a look at this image and the FPC discussion. It will be good if you can resolve the copyright issue one way or the other before the image is promoted to FP. Thanks! --Tagooty (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user Jameslwoodward filing for wrongful deletions due to a vendetta. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Hello Jim, an user reported you there but has not warned you, regards. Blackcat 19:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not warning you firstHogyncymru (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elgin Marbles at the British Museum.jpg

Hello. Is the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elgin Marbles at the British Museum.jpg supposed to be deleted or not? Or was it just an oversight? Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Occasionally the app, DelReqHandler, that we use hiccups. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deleted page Angela Becker-Fuhr

Can you please restore the page (commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angela_Becker-Fuhr), as all images have been approved by OTRS, Thanks --Whp2005 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

for checking, appreciated... JarrahTree (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Jim, how are you?

Just an advice, Do you think my rational in this DR is wrong? -- Geagea (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you. I hope you are also well.

This is a tough one. We have an uploader who has claimed "own work" on the 100 year old image. That could be a tendency to lie, or simply a newbie misunderstanding of whose work a photo of an old work is. As you certainly know, that mistake is frequent with newbies. Certainly the 1993 image is a scan of a paper print or negative. While there wee digital cameras then, they were expensive and not very good. I didn't stop using film until 2000.

I'd be inclined to Assume Good Faith and keep it, but it is a close call. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to add category

Hello. Since you locked the page COM:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg, I'll just make a request here. Please add "<noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/deleted]]</noinclude>" to the FOP case page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have no idea why I locked it -- so I unlocked it and added the category. BTW it's easier to refer to a category without including the page in it by adding a colon in front of Category, the same as the syntax for file names. It also has the advantage that it provides a link to the category.

[[:Category:French FOP cases/deleted]] yields Category:French FOP cases/deleted.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Consider undeleting images

Hi Jim, sorry in advance for all my errors! I uploaded these images which I took:

• File:2019-nCoV Press Conf - 3.jpg (1214×809, camera Canon EOS 80D)
• File:Bccdcbuildingcol.jpg (640×427)
• File:Dr Natalie Prystajecky.jpg (1280×854, camera Canon EOS 80D)

but they were deleted. What can I do to have them undeleted? I'm the photographer for these images. Sorry, am new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeger eger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

The problem is that the images are all small -- posting a 1280x854 image taken with a camera that does 6000x4000 strongly suggests that you took the images from someplace on the Web. If these are actually the full frame and you have resized them down, then please note that Commons much prefers to have full size images. You can simply upload the full size image using the same file name. If you do that, please let me know here and I will deal with the deletion request.

If, on the other hand, these are crops from a larger full frame, then the best thing to do is to upload the full frame in each case with a new name such as File:2019-nCoV Press Conf - 3 full frame.jpg. Again, let me know here and I will undelete the crop and deal with the UnDR.

If you can't do one or the other of these, then you will have trouble convincing Commons that you are actually the photographer, but you can try posting a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. As a general rule, unless it is obvious I made a mistake, I (and most other Admins) will not unilaterally restore an image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Thank you so much for your explanations. Okay, I didn't--but should have--know that commons wants the full frame. I uploaded newer higher res versions: 20:48, 21 September 2021 diff hist +392‎ N File:Dr Natalie Prystajecky BCCDC - 1 (1).jpg ‎ Cross-wiki upload from commons.wikimedia.org 20:19, 21 September 2021 diff hist +458‎ N File:2019-nCoV Press Conf - 3.1.jpg ‎ Cross-wiki upload from commons.wikimedia.org But didn't link to the article. Can I do that, or should you, or what is the appropriate action? I don't want to run afoul of the rules. I've posted a few photos to Wikipedia and others have been deleted, so it's good to know as I'll need to repeat this procedure several times.

Thanks for all your help. Aeger eger (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jim. May I write here, too? I write as one of the editors of Uematsu's page. What a thoughtless deletion, here is 23 image files (deleted),

1. File:KU1969 TransparenceH2O Galerie16.jpg
2. File:KU1971 Cutting galerie16.jpg
3. File:KU1973 HorizontalPosition 2sheetsGelatinSilver.jpg
4. File:KU1977 Studio Dusseldorf.jpg
5. File:KU1980 AxisLatitudeLongitude I PS1.jpg
6. File:KU1988 CornerPiece I-InvertionVerticalSpace.jpg
7. File:KU1988 Invertion-VerticalSpace VeniceBiennale.jpg
8. File:KU1989 Situation-FloatingSpace Ootani.jpg
9. File:KU1991 Studio Duesseldorf.jpg
10. File:KU1999 AxisLongitudeLatitude Kuranuki.jpg
11. File:KU2000 FloatingForm-Red 615cm Kirishima.jpg
12. File:KU2003 WithATree-TouchOfSpiral AomoriCAC.jpg
13. File:KU2006 Studio Minoo.jpg
14. File:KU2007 TouchOfSpiral 800cm SuncoCollection.jpg
15. File:KU2009 Inbetween-form II PortKobe.jpg
16. File:KU2012 CuttingAxisLatitudeLongitude Nomart.jpg
17. File:KU2015 FloatingForm-InvisibleAxis Arario.jpg
18. File:KU2017 CuttingTriangle Nomart.jpg
19. File:KU2017 FloatingStone BBPlaza.jpg
20. File:KU2019 InvisibleAxis-HorizontalVertical Inclination Nomart.jpg
21. File:KU2021 InBetweenFriction-GiftFromCosmos Ashiya.jpg
22. File:KU2021 InvisibleForce-AxisLongitudeLatitude Ashiya.jpg

3 are the outdoor sculptures (includes 1 permanent installation) --> #1, #12, #16, 3 are not the artworks but his studios --> #5, #10, #14. The rest are temporarily exhibited artworks. At least, the photos of studios do not have to be deleted. Anyway, I know Mr. Keiji Uematsu took pictures of his own artworks, and uploaded those images to the Wikimedia Commons with grant a Creative Commons 4.0 licensed. The letters "KU" of the image files represent Keiji Uematsu himself. If CC BY-SA 4.0 can solve the copyright problem, all his uploaded image files should be revived. Thank you.--TAQUEDA, Atsuo (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

These deletions were not "thoughtless" at all. They were entirely within policy, except, perhaps, for #5 which is, as you say, an image of a room without artworks. #10 and #14 have art works in them.

It is fairly common for fans of notable artists to open an account on Commons using the artist's name. We have no way here of knowing that User:Keijiuematsukunst23.5 is actually Keiji Uematsu. That is why policy requires that persons using the name of a notable person must either (a) prove that they are the notable person or (b) prove that they also have that name, in both cases using VRT. See Commons:Username_policy#Well-known_names_and_names_of_organizations.

In order for these to be restored, Keiji Uematsu himself must use VRT to establish that he is the user with that name. The VRT volunteer will then place a note on User:Keijiuematsukunst23.5 confirming that.

As for your comments about the location of several of the works, I suggest you read COM:FOP. In about half of all countries, it is permitted to take and use photographs of created works without infringing on their copyrights. The location of the works and the works covered by this exception varies from country to country, see my FoP table. As you will see there, in Japan the exception applies only to architecture and not to sculpture. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jim. Thank you for comments, I read COM:FOP and saw your FoP table. Althoug it is a fact that the exception does not apply to sculpture, I think the permission by the author can solve the problem. Am I wrong? I am going to ask the author (Mr. Uematsu himself) to prove his identity to the Wikimedia. Thank you. --TAQUEDA, Atsuo (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Antipolo.jpg

Hello. While the file now complies with PD Phil. architecture (as a pre-1972 work), there is an old deleted file that you accidentally restored. It was soon deleted as a small version of the copyvio file File:Antipolochurch.jpg (http://www.paraisophilippines.com/category/philippine-provinces/tarlac/). The old version by User:Gaea03 must be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg

I believe your close here was a bit of a supervote; ultimately where things lie on the idea-expression divide is a subjective opinion, and it behooves the deleting admin to judge the case based on the opinions of the participants rather than forming one's own opinion on the topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

First, I make the count of keeps and deletes about even -- certainly not strongly one way or the other.

I agree, obviously, that a map drawn from public domain data is not subject to copyright. However, the point here was that the maps at issue purported to be derived from Coons maps. As I said in my closing comment, that runs into a common conundrum -- if the copy is close enough to the original to be useful in representing the original, then it is a copyvio. If it is far enough away to avoid being a copyvio, then it is not representing the original. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. It is very possible to take a copyrighted work and distill it down so that whatever portion it made use of the original work is no longer copyrightable: File:P Harry Potter-icon.svg, File:1984 fictous world map superstates and disputed areas.png, File:Rising with Krystal & Saagar logo.png. Maybe not the first one, but the latter two are very much usable in place of the original copyrighted work without being subject to the copyright of the original. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In terms of the count: Joe Roe's !vote to keep the original is not based in policy or copyright law, and so his !vote to delete the derived maps as redundant is based on a false premise and should be disregarded. I see three people (DarwIn, Dunkleosteus77, and me) arguing to keep the derived maps, and only one (Fæ) arguing to delete them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your examples are off point. Both the caricature and the map were created from data, not a drawing, in the first case, or a map, in the second. In addition, caricatures enjoy particular freedom when it comes to copyright. This is a case where the map purports to be usable as a copy of the Coons map. As I have said twice -- if it's usable, it's a copyvio and if it is not a copyvio then it is not what it purports to be.

As for the count, Fæ has millions, Darwin, and I have hundreds of thousands. you have tens of thousands, while Dunkleosteus77 is a noobie, with just over a thousand. The closing Admin can certainly take into account the varying experience of the commentators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Старое объявление.jpg

You deleted this photo by mistake. It is not subject to copyright according to {{PD-RusEmpire}} --Zinnsoldat (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Why didn't you raise that at the DR -- it could have been discussed more widely there? The car company, Molidat, was Ukrainian, not Russian. During that period Ukraine was, then wasn't, then was part of Russian Empire and the USSR predecessor. I don't think {{PD-RusEmpire}} can apply to the middle part of that, so in order to keep this we would need to know better exactly when it was published. The evidence of the orthography is not completely clear as I can see that Ukraine might have adopted the new orthography more slowly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine was proclaimed on January 22, 1918. The subject in any case refers to the Russian Empire. Plus the item is earlier than 1917. This is an advertisement for 1913 model year cars. There was no Ukrainian state yet. I raised this issue in DR too. And I didn't expect the file to be deleted in such an obvious case. --Zinnsoldat (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Zinnsoldat

"I raised this issue in DR too." -- I see no mention of {{PD-RusEmpire}} in the DR. I applied the general rule that works from after 1900 are too recent to assume they are PD.

"...in such an obvious case." Please remember that Commons Admins have to deal with several dozen copyright laws on a regular basis and tens more on an occasional basis. It is a mistake to think that we can actually remember all the applicable laws.

Nonetheless, you appear to be correct. I have restored the file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Zinnsoldat (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks James for your help here - I too am perplexed as to why PD-RusEmpire wasn't mentioned in that DR - I sort of feel that the RusEmpire template was used as an excuse to keep it but if you genuinely believe that template applies here I will say no more. (I have 0 knowledge with this sort of thing and obviously I nominated purely based on De Minimis), Anyway thanks again James,

Hope it's okay but I've also removed the DR from the file, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Davey -- I learned something here -- that Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire until 1917, then briefly independent, then became part of the USSR -- so PD-RusEmpire is applicable except for the short period of independence. As for the removing the DR -- sure, thanks. Undeleting a file has several parts -- doing the restoration, then cleaning up the DR, then cleaning up the file and changing the PD template, and finally, removing the DR notice. You caught it in the middle. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay, All confusing to me lol, I trust your judgement (I never haven't) so all's good :), Ah sorry for getting in the way I just assumed you had forgot about it anyway sorry again, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to check an account

Hello, please see user contributions of R2ksajalr2k (talk · contribs). Maybe this account is sock of Mr.nonenone (talk · contribs) and Md.labibsikder (talk · contribs). -- Afeef (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: please check Botlevel10 (talk · contribs) also. This account recreated Category:Muhammad Labib Sikder & Category:Shamsul Arefin Shakti. -- Afeef (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your succinct explanation of copyright in your AfD rationales! Really appreciate it, especially since it’s so vital to maintaining Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Brick House "fabulation"

In interest of educating me, why was File:Brick_House_Sculpture_-_Univ_of_Penn.jpg

deleted? as I found image on Wikimedia. I looked at the relevant Wikipedia page and could not find category for delting

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_policy I defer to others with more experience. OneMoreByte (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brick House Sculpture - Univ of Penn.jpg, the image infringes on the sculptor's copyright. In about half of all countries there is an exception to copyright law which allows such images, but in the United States the exception is limited to architecture. See COM:FOP for more information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The photographer

Hello, James. Concerning Commons:Deletion requests/File:Annhelen.jpg.

Let's say that I hand over my camera (or cell phone) to my friend, saying "Please take my photo". Most of us have done things like that when we need a photo for an occation, right? Would you say that the rights to the photo belongs to me - as the owner of the camera and initiator of the situation; or to my random neighbor or colleague who used 5 seconds identifying the button and pressing it?

Leseløva (talk · contribs) did that. And I don't think it is obvious that the rights to that picture belongs to the person with the finger. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is well established that copyright belongs to the creator -- the person who pushed the button. The underlying theory is that with a modern point and shoot camera, the only creative effort in making a photograph is the framing and picking the exact moment to shoot. The best known related case is described at Monkey selfie copyright dispute. A photographer set up a situation, with the camera on a tripod, where a macaque took its own photo. The court held that the macaque was the creator of the image, not the photographer, and that, therefore, the image was PD because under copyright law, a non-human cannot hold a copyright. It is well established on Commons that in the absence of a written work-for-hire agreement, copyright rests with the person who pushed the button. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Jim, just wonder why you delete File:Exclam icon.svg. I see that there are many pages are using this file, which resulting in many red links. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. It was apparently one of a long list in a DR and I didn't notice that it didn't fit with the rest of the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

File:Yabbies.jpg Please consider you are hosting an image that violates all of Wikicommons criteria. I nominated this image for deletion as it is putting right the incorrect uploading of it in the first place. This image is not my own work and is copyright of private property and living persons who have not given consent to have the image hosted on Wikimedia. I uploaded this image and made a mistake by using someone else copyright image from their camera, I was very young at the time and confused. Please delete this image as it is illegal to host it. Escapement (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Given your record of rule-breaking here, I see no reason to believe anything you say. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion (again)

Hi James, it's me again. I noticed that you marked this DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth II with HMS Queen Elizabeth.jpg as deleted, but you missed one file in this DR that supposed to be deleted. Please double check. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg

I don't really understand the reasoning here. Based on this and other discussions I have seen, it seems like it is simply based on the body part. Axillary hair: "no valid reason for deletion". Breasts or genitals: "we should respect their wishes, even if the subject is an unidentifiable adult and the file is in use". But this doesn't seem to make sense: perhaps axillary hair is as embarrassing to this subject as other body parts are to other subjects, and why are we engaging in such discussions about minors in private places to begin with? Brianjd (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In the first place, the person requesting deletion was an IP address, so it's maybe 50/50 that it's just a troll. Even if the person had been identifiable, I would probably not delete the image based on a request from an IP -- I see too many people playing games with us to take anything an IP says very seriously.

Second, the person is completely unidentifiable and last, the image is legitimately in use. We have a strong bias against deleting useful images without a very good reason -- usually only copyvio will be enough. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As I explained at the DR, the original request came from an IP address, but subsequent edits confirming the deletion request came from the logged-in uploader. These edits also confirmed that the subject is a minor.

"Unidentifiable + in use = keep" does not seem to apply to other files, even when they are posted by adults.

You have not addressed the issue of this subject being a minor. Do you think it is not relevant at all, or that it is relevant but outweighed by the arguments for keeping this file? Brianjd (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The subject is completely unrecognizable. Since that is the case, the only reason that the subject being underage -- if, in fact, he or she is underage -- would matter is if it were child pornography, but a picture of an armpit is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There are more things which can identify the subject. Did you notice that there is a location (longitude and latitude) recorded in the EXIF? A location in the EXIF can be useful if you take a photo of a building, but it can be a privacy concern if you take a photo of a person. Maybe information about the picture has spread amongst the subject's friends. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I noticed it too, but thought it was best to not draw attention to it publicly. Also, I looked at it on a map and the provided location doesn't seem to correspond to anything. On the other hand, I am not from that area and maps can be misleading. I wasn't sure whether to bring it up or not. Now that it has been brought up, I suggest that information at least should be removed. Brianjd (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: You seem to be confirming my suggestion above that this is only based on the body part. But why? If a minor is embarrassed, then a minor is embarrassed: why does it matter which part of the body is involved? Especially when the photo appears to have been taken in private, with no guardian consent. Brianjd (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): I doubt the EXIF coordinates would be of much use as the locations appears to be a retirement home, no doubt populated by many people, so how could one identify this one person who may have just been a visitor. I see no new justification to delete. Ww2censor (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The only reason that the body part is important is that both law and policy prohibit child pornography. Since this is not child pornography, the age of the subject and the body part are irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Puk en Muk books

Hello Jim, the Austrian illustrator of the Puk and Muk characters, Carl Storch, died in 1955. I photographed three books in my possession, with information about the author and the illustrator. Both have died. The (Dutch) publisher does not exist anymore. I cannot find a way to ask any sort of permission. I hope therefor these photos will not be deleted. (?) Niksbij26 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In both Holland and Austria, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, so Storch's death in 1955 means that the illustrations will be under copyright until January 1, 2026. Copyright orphans, as these appear to be, are very frustrating, but there is really nothing we can do except wait. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by Fae...

Any chance of checking that the licenses on these are correct? https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=20536607

Some of them seem to be incorrectly uploaded as PD-US-Gvo when they aren't work by the US Federal Gov or Federal employees.

I'd also appreciate it if you could review some of the DR's I filed recently, fairly promptly. Waiting a year to resolve some of the previous ones is too long. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I work on various aspects of Commons as it seems appropriate. I agree that old DRs are and area that needs more attention. As far as Fae's uploads go, if you see a problem, file a DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I did that. I also note that in the past to save filing DR's on things that only need a check for renewals by someone with access to the relevant records, I created a category [[1]]. If you wanted to reduce the backlog, feel free, but no obligation obviously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely confused

In 15 years of experience as a Wikimedian, this is the first time I feel like asking what in the gargantuan <redacted>???! The reason is so far beyond logic and imagination, I am almost speechless. Can you do a favor for yourself and restore these images, for the love of everything breathing...!!!!!! Gikü (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The 25 or so active Admins here have far more to do than there are available hours. You can fix this problem by simply reloading the files without the EXIF to which you object. An Admin's fixing your mistakes is a file by file process which, for the sixty files, will take more than an hour. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong on multiple levels.

1. No, I cannot just reload the files, I'd have to find their sources in Youtube videos with specific timestamps (not even by second, but even more exactly if I want the pictured persons no not blink). I don't keep the images on my computer because I'm not running a freaking server farm.
2. My mistake was honest and my request was never supposed to be answered with a full deletion – either perform the requested action or ignore. The DR sits in the queue too long? Drop me a message, explain the situation in six words – I'm not retarded I would understand, especially given my adminship experience on another wiki. I would have requested a couple of days to download all the files, make sure EXIF is alright, and re-upload them under different names and cropped by a pixel. Then, yeah, delete all and save yourself a couple of minutes – no problem. I would've done that <redacted>.
3. How much do you think any human in their right mind would care for their name to be displayed – mind you, in a previous version of the file – where the alternative is for the files to be completely deleted? You are an admin, don't you care about content on Commons? Aren't you here to safeguard the collection of media?
4. Even if I go by your absolutely preposterous suggestion of re-loading the files after they have been deleted, do you imagine how many delinks have taken place in the meantime? Are you going to restore the filelinks in dozens of Wikimedia projects? <redacted>

Anyway, I heard you. I am no less surprised and mad than when I saw your "DR closure" if I can call that that. I'm taking this to the noticeboard; it's a pity admin's time will be more requested now (and I say this without any sarcasm, rather with compassion for the situation you've created). Gikü (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Please restore files deleted by User:Jameslwoodward in my revision deletion request. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Of course now that the issue is completely sorted out I can look behind and say I jumped the gun several times from a Commons:Civility standpoint. My shock was so high I could not refrain myself. I redacted a number of unfortunate expressions from above and I owe an apology.

And I'd like to recommend you discussing such decisions from time to time – it doesn't take more than a minute to to that in a succinct manner and it saves lots of nerves. To add to the situation at hand: it's not only the fact that I didn't save the files locally (I do have a professional backup subscription), it's the fact that the descriptions would need to be re-generated / re-typed, and most importantly files like File:Alexandru Slusari in July 2019.jpg would need to be re-submitted to License Review... For sure no way that'd take less than revdel-ing.

Anyway, that's what I had left to say, regards, Gikü (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Contrary closing of stroke order GIFs

Hi James, I thought I should point out that your closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:碎-order.gif as delete ran contrary to Ruthven's closing of similar deletion requests as keep. Maybe you two can come to an understanding of what to do with these files - because they should all be closed the same way.

只, 仍, 世, 固, 尼, 𠓨

Personally - although I think the stroke GIFs are in the public domain - I believe that your close was more in line with Commons policy. Especially since COM:INUSE is not a valid defense to copyright concerns. But that's just me.  Mysterymanblue  22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: @ Mysterymanblue  started this discussion at the Administrators'_noticeboard to solve the issue. FanNihongo (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi James! Re this, I forget what exactly I was referring to, but I think it might've been the incidental appearances exemption. Would that be sufficient? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The copyrighted buildings are the central focus of the image -- the marina in the foreground is just like marinas everywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note; I'll defer to your judgement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For valid reasons

Dear James, there has been this very long deletion nomination (in time and number of motivations), where users have given their grievances about the template in question. It wasn't the first time but yet the third time that users were expressing that they are very uncomfortable with it. The greatest reason of all, and therefore very valid, is that there is no Commons rule supporting the template. In English WP there may be, but not on Commons and either in my language Dutch. This makes working at Commons as an international community unpredictable.

Please note with me, that any newbee or troll can warn me for anything on my talk page & there is no way I can remove it, contrary to the conventions we made together on Commons. Having the conventions at my side I'm still left to the grills of anyone without the knowledge or good will to make this a place where one can share knowledge without being unfairly attacked. There are users having used this template as a means to stalk. Our votes and motivation have been made for reasons that we find very valid and necessary.

Please James, this was not a discussion to decide on boldly. Your motivation on how you came to your decision looks like an opinion of your own, where as we need a neutral view. No hard feelings. But I would like to invite you emphatically to evaluate weather our assertions are true that this template is not supported by Common rules. Can you please re-decide on this one? Ymnes (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and your position. As I looked over the three DRs, I saw comments on both sides of the issue. You say that I should not have acted boldly -- but in dealing with an issue that was first raised 12 years ago and that has been open in this iteration for 9 months, one must be bold.

In evaluating the comments, I noted more Admins and highly experienced users on the keep side than the delete side. I also noted that the two previous DRs had been closed as Kept, in both cases by Admins I know and respect. And yes, I myself believe that people should not delete talk page messages, except perhaps for such newbie messages as you complain about above and similar things. I myself receive messages from trolls objecting in strong language to actions I have taken as an Admin or CU. They are often deleted by a talk page stalker before I see them. It is very helpful to be able to see warning messages when as an Admin or CU I am evaluating a User with an eye to what action, if any, should be taken. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that I am allowed to remove a warning on my talkpage, whether one likes it or not. People threathening with it and admins dealing accordingly, are making work here unpredictable and Commons an unsafe working place. Ymnes (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have analysed the template's wording in some detail on its talk page. Can we get some input there? Brianjd (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Protecting the page from vandalism

Hello. I noticed that you are an active administrator. Unfortunately, according to my last experience there is a lack of active administrators in this project. So I would like to ask you to protect File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg from the user who aggressively states that this flag is fictional (they keep on removing the existent categories and adding Category:Fictional flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) despite the provided reliable source: Цітоў А. Геральдыка Беларусі. — Minsk, 2010. ISBN 978-985-454-500-4. P. 113. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't know where the truth lies here. It is clear that issue is controversial -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg which refers to the svg version of this flag. What I do know is that if you continue edit warring, I will block both you and User:Cukrakalnis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that edit warring is a bad way, but I can not agree that this issue is controversial. Here is a scan of page 113 from the mentioned book by Belarusian historian and heraldist Anatol Tsitou. The translation of the Belarusian caption for this flag is "Military flag of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania in 1764—1792" (Belarusian: "Вайсковая харугва Вялікага княства Літоўскага 1764—1792 гг."). Do you really claim that adding category [2] Category:Fictional flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania‎ shouldn't be undo as an obvious vandalism? What else should I provide to show that this is obvious vandalism and who and where finally react adequately on this obvious vandalism? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The justification for my actions in File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg is that it is impossible that someone can come along 200 years ago after the destruction of a country and then claim to have found its flag. This is literally the only case of this flag. The ONLY. Claiming that it is legitimate is absolute nonsense and better, more contemporary sources need to be found to show that this flag is indeed from the time it is supposed to be. In addition, the precise design of the Vytis, the leaping knight, in this flag is taken directly from Wikipedia:Juozas Zikaras. File:Older_version_of_Lithuania_COA.png is the original from which Лобачев Владимир designed File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg. It is incorrect, to say the least, to use a 20th-century design and 21st-century book, as a solid, undeniable proof of "this is the real historical flag of the country from centuries ago".

As for the book itself, it has many issues, like frequently putting the words Lithuania and Lithuanians in "...", which should be interpreted as a denial of Lithuanian history considering Wikipedia:Litvinism, as this is an example of the false claim that "Lithuanians of the past were actually Belarusians, and modern Lithuanians are Lietuvans" put in practice. Another example of "Lithuanians are actually Belarusians" is File:Litoŭski (Biełaruski) ułanski połk. Літоўскі (Беларускі) уланскі полк.svg, where a regiment recruited from ethnographically Lithuanian lands, such as Wikipedia:Trakai and Wikipedia:Kaunas, is called Belarusian. That is a clear falsification of history.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment The statement «As for the book itself, it has many issues, like frequently putting the words Lithuania and Lithuanians in "..."» is a pure lie. There are no «putting the words Lithuania and Lithuanians in "..."» in the mentioned book. Unless the user provides the direct references with page numbers, I believe that such obvious misleading manipulations should have certain consequences for that user. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Concrete examples of where the words Lithuania and Lithuanians are in "..." is on page 116 of the book by Anatol Tsitou, where that is done as many as 3 times. Considering this undeniable fact, it is obvious that the real misleading manipulations and lies are not perpetrated by me.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Here is the scan of this page. It is started with the sentence (in Belarusian: «У час вайны 1812 году на баку французскіх войск выступіла 100 тысяч жыхароў былой Рэчы Паспалітай, з іх прыкладна 20 тысяч былі ўраджэнцамі "Літвы"»): «During the war of 1812, 100 thousand residents of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth took the side of the French troops, of which about 20 thousand were natives of "Lithuania"». It is quite obvious that this part of the book is dedicated to the early 19th century when the terms Lithuania and Lithuanians were still used in their historical sense. According to US historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. en:Timothy D. Snyder (The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 49), «Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian”» and «By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists» (p. 50). Taking info account page 125, which directly uses the name (Belarusian Літвы, Літоўскай рэспублікі, літоўскі etc.) of modern nation-state, which appeared in 1918, inserting the name "Lithuania" into "" for the early 19th century obviously means distinction between historical and modern meanings of the term. So the user is just trying to find something in order to discard the reliable source they just don't like. And they don't like it just because its Belarusian. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Here again, under deeper inspection, it can be seen that Kazimier Lachnovič's statements do not correlate with reality, past or present. That book is full of nonsense, such as "The Republic of Lithuania, which emerged during this period, chose the ancient Slavic coat of arms as its state emblem" [Узнікшая ў гэты перыяд Літоўская рэспубліка абрала старажытны славянскі герб у якасці свайго дзяржаўнага.] (last line, page 122) and "In a certain way, this was embodied through the innermost claims of the Lithuanian bourgeoisie to the subjection of the ancestral Belarusian lands to it. It is impossible not to say." [Пэўным чынам угэтым увасобіліся праз патаемныя прэтэнзіі літоўскай буржуазіі на падуладнасць ёй спрадвечных беларускх земляў. Нельга не сказаць.] (first line, page 125) [I used google translate for them, but the original sentences are next to them if you want to check]. Such statements are Belarusian chauvinism, pure and simple, and claims about this being reliable in any sense are false. If such things were published in English, they would be immediately dismissed as baseless en:Belarusian nationalism.

When speaking about historic Lithuania, Kazimier Lachnovič tends to Slavicize/Belarusianize it as much as possible. Basically, en:Litvinism. As for the meaning of the term "Lithuanian", Kazimier Lachnovič's statement is nonsense, considering that a clear distinction between inhabitants of en:Lithuania proper and en:White Rus was always made. Claims about Lithuanian identity in the 19th century being different from now in the precise sense that Kazimier Lachnovič says it, are refuted by simply looking at this book from 1825 (Precisely the era we are talking about), written by pl:Stanisław Plater: Jeografia wschodniéy części Europy czyli Opis krajów przez wielorakie narody słowiańskie zamieszkanych : obejmujący Prussy, Xsięztwo Poznańskie, Szląsk Pruski, Gallicyą, Rzeczpospolitę Krakowską, Krolestwo Polskie i Litwę. Many more writings would show that, but I am showing Plater's writing to demonstrate it concretely. There is an obvious distinction between Lithuanians (Litwinów), Ruthenians (Rusinów) and Russians (Rossyanów), as is evident on pages 195, 206 and 215. Lithuanians ARE viewed as an ethnic group already way before 1863, as the Lithuanians (the en:Prussian Lithuanians) that were not in the Lithuanian State, i.e. Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but in the Kingdom of Prussia, were explicitly said to be Lithuanians (Litwinów), as seen on page 17.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Just like I said, the user is trying to find anything suitable (even if it isn't related to the subject, which is actually the GDL military flag, but not any kind chauvinism) to discard the reliable source they don't like. Anyway, Anatol Tsitou's statements, which correspond to other historians specializing in the Eastern Europe (Dr. Andrew Wilson, Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder, who are not even connected to Belarus) have nothing in common with the reliability of graphical information provided in the book. Unless the user gives reliable sources with the statements of real inaccuracy in the book (e.g. examples of fictional graphic), not his personal opinion about the statements in the book or any reference to any language version of Wikipedia which is NOT a reliable source, I really don't see a sound reason to waste time on the user who's good faith here is under a big question. Still I'll be glad to clarify the situation if any questions left. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Kazimier Lachnovič seems to not understand that a book with the aforementioned statements should not be allowed. Considering its dubious text, this consequently casts doubt on the pictures too. This is only worsened by the fact that some of them only exist in this book and are not to be verified elsewhere (e.g. File:Horadnia, Pahonia. Горадня, Пагоня (XVII).jpg, a distortion with inverted colours of the original flag, i.e. File:Chorągiew grodzieńska.JPG). So, we come to what Kazimier Lachnovič calls the "GDL military flag", for which there are simply too many reasons to doubt that this is really the case. Showing something printed more than 200 years later, without any semblance of concrete evidence, does not count as "reliable". Something that immediately discards the idea of this being a so-called "GDL military flag" is that the official coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania never depicted small houses at the bottom - only the coat of arms of certain nobles, e.g. by the Czartoryski (File:POL COA Czartoryski duży.svg) and Sanguszko (File:POL COA Sanguszko.svg). This flag, if real, most likely actually belonged to one of these nobles instead of the state as a whole.

Kazimier Lachnovič clearly ignored the Belarusian nationalist writing I showed, so he immediately sidetracked and went into unessential matters in this case. Dr. Andrew Wilson and Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder would definitely not endorse Tsitou's highly-nationalistic statements (as seen on page 125). In addition, Kazimier Lachnovič asks for something that would not be asked elsewhere. Him asking for that is like asking a specific refutation of some Russian propaganda drivel because stating that it is en:Propaganda in the Russian Federation is somehow insufficient for that person. Instead of addressing what I said head-on, he goes into irrelevant objections, in the process undermining that he is acting in good faith. What I mentioned about en:Prussian Lithuanians is undeniable and why I referenced it was to show that indeed such people existed. Showing that these people existed by pointing to the article about them does not at all contradict en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In fact, this shows Kazimier Lachnovič's double-faced attitude, as he himself uses links to Wikipedia in the manner that I did, as can be seen in this edit from November 18. Kazimier Lachnovič's attitude and actions should be called into question, considering his flagrant and frequent disrespect of rules on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia (most notably), which are clear for all to see and evident over a long period of time.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment User's personal opinion is obviously not a valid reason to discard any reliable source. Unless the user gives reliable sources directly criticised the particular book, I really don't see a sound reason to waste time on the discussion some user's personal opinion, especially when this opinion is clearly biased. Still I'll be glad to clarify the situation if any questions left. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Chauvinism does not discredit a source in Kazimier Lachnovič's view and he continues calling it "reliable". This is no longer a question of opinion, but following basic rules of the Wikisphere as a whole. Neither does Kazimier Lachnovič address any arguments, something that is most likely a result of him being unable to address my valid arguments. As for "opinion is clearly biased", that is just a baseless accusation. Actually, Kazimier Lachnovič is accusing others of what he himself is guilty.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment So called valid arguments without providing critical reliable sources are just user's personal opinion, biased opinion. I've already found out that the main aim of the coordinated disruptive group the user belongs to is just wasting the time of regular users contributing to the Wikimedia. So, if some question left (I'm no talking about Cukrakalnis), I'll be glad to clarify them. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you add the information above, including the scan of the page, to [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg]]. With that done, I can close that DR as "Kept" and could then protect the subject file referencing the DR. I'd delete the subject file as the SVG is better, but the subject file is widely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added the information to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg as well some peace of opinion for keeping both files. This old flag is non-trivial one (as a handicraft, it has irregular shape, some color distortion due it age etc.), so for educational purposes it would be better to keep both its .jpg photo and .svg drawing. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued edit-war by Лобачев Владимир

Sorry to have to write this, but your warning in in this section was simply circumvented by Лобачев Владимир, who continues to edit-war after you made the notice on November 12. Concrete cases are: 1 and 2 and 3. Moreover, this section on COM:AN/B might be relevant. With regret, --Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I realise that this concerns another user, but his involvement in the edit warring on Lithuania-related topics makes him an inextricable part of this.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Localisation de la Wespnanie dans l'Europe v2.png

Why did you keep File:Localisation de la Wespnanie dans l'Europe v2.png ? There is no such thing as Wespnanie, so what is the use of such a map? --92.213.13.61 11:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The author requested deletion. As a general rule, we do not delete images for that reason. I did not give the issue you raise any thought. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

goblin market

The book I scanned was published by Lippincott in the USA. Honest!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Life sized cardboard cutouts of the Moe Character(Monami Gentsuki and friends).jpg

Hi Jim, so sorry but that is actually my own work, I uploaded those photos to be used as my profile picture on [[ Dagbani Wikimedians User Group Meta ]Page]] You can check it out. thank you.[[3]]. User [[Abubakari ]khadijah]] sorry if I'm unable to represent my concerns well, this is my first time contributing on the talk page

Hello. Sorry to bother you. I noticed that you are an administrator. Please help me. There are photos I took and uploaded with the permission of the copyright owner. Evidence of the license is published on the official website of the original author(license page). I also provided a link to the license page when I uploaded. Despite that situation, a deletion has been proposed. If there is no problem, I would like you to kept. Please point out any problems. I'm sorry to cause you trouble.--SetoMonamer (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese, so perhaps I am not a good choice to help here. Please note that there are several copyrights here and all must be licensed -- the copyright for the photo and the copyright for each of the artistic works show in the photo.

I suggest you ask either User:Miya or User:Yasu. They are the two listed at Commons:List of administrators by language as native speakers of Japanese and both are active Admins. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness!--SetoMonamer (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

DR: Sarajevo 1914-2014

Hi, can you please check this, since you previously close this DR. All files are re-uploaded and should be deleted again. Thanks. Smooth O (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Supression d'images injustifiée

• File:HOMERE TER PACA MARSEILLE 0012.jpg
• File:A45ZRT REGIOLIS PACA MARS.jpg
• File:HOMERE TER AIX PACA 23.jpg
• File:REGIO 2N MARSEILLE -LES ARCS.jpg
• File:Capture d’écran 2021-08-01 221136 (2) REGIO 2N.jpg

Cher collègue de Wikipedia,

Je reviens vers vous suite à votre vague de suppression intempestive d'images.

Il semblerait que vous n'ayez pas bien compris le fonctionnement de Wikipedia et celui des droits d'auteur. Tout d'abord, l'écusson de la région PACA n'a pas de protection particulière concernant les trains et leurs livrées, ce que vous devriez savoir. Concernant la gare routière de Toulon, vous remarquerez que la photo ne porte pas uniquement sur l'image du bus, qui n'est pas non plus spécialement violée ni protégée en conséquence. Concernant les images de Regio2N, il n'y a encore aucun droit bafoué, et il en est de même pour l'image du Regiolis en gare de Marseille Saint Charles. Au cas où vous auriez un doute, merci de me contacter directement et prioritairement avant de supprimer arbitrairement des contributions appropriées. Je vous rappelles les règles générales de suppression sur wikipedia (https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionnaire:Pages_propos%C3%A9es_%C3%A0_la_suppression) et vous invite à lire attentivement les critères d'acceptabilité des images avant de supprimer arbitrairement et intempestivement ces dernières. Je vous rappelle au cas où vous auriez un doute que les droits d'auteur du photographe sont respectés puisque j'ai pris ces photos moi-même. La prise en photo de trains n'enfreint pas le droit d'auteur des décorateurs car ce sont des unités non pas singulières, mais industrialisées et en plusieurs exemplaires, surtout les Z 23500 livrée PACA. Si vous en comptiez le nombre, vous vous en rendriez rapidement compte. Je devrais peut-être à ce sujet jeter un coup d'oeil sur vos actions et modifications Wikipedia pour vérifier que vous n'ayez pas commis d'autres désordres autre part.

Je vous enjoins en conséquence à cesser de supprimer arbitrairement des contributions qui ont leur raison d'être faute de quoi je me verrai dans l'obligation d'en référer à qui de droit pour faire cesser l'atteinte au règlement interne de Wikipedia.

Je vous prie de bien vouloir agréer mes respectueuses salutations.

--Homère plus (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that before you start acting in a condescending manner to other editors, it might be wise to consider how much experience they have and how little you have. You should also remember that this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Quoting Wikipedia rules on Commons is a sign that you do not understand that the rules are different here.

You fail to understand that your photographs of copyrighted works can not be permitted on Commons without permission of the creator of the work pictured in your image. You also fail to understand that none of these images have been deleted and that they will not be deleted until other editors have commented at the various deletion requests and unless another Admin agrees that your work violates Commons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Cher collègue de Wikipedia,

Afin d'essayer de mettre un terme à la controverse qui risque sinon d'être usante pour chacun à défaut d'arguments précis et fiables, je viens de mettre sous le même nom une image similaire mais qui devrait vous convenir. Pourriez-vous me le confirmer?

Cordialement

Homère plus (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand -- what image, where? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

L'image a été remplacée, je vous invite à la regarder à nouveau.

Homère plus (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Permettez-moi d'ajouter une question double:

Qu'est-ce qui différencie les droits d'auteur d'un phare de ceux d'une fresque de gare ou d'une livrée de train?

Les livrées de train violent-elles toutes le règlement de Wikimedia? En ce cas, il y a beaucoup de travail...

Respectueusement

Homère plus (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A lighthouse is architecture, which is covered by Freedom of Panorama in many countries. Also, almost all lighthouses were built long ago and therefore no longer have a copyright. However a new lighthouse in France would be under copyright and images of it could not be kept on Commons. Most train liveries are too simple to have a copyright. However, logos, including shields, are the subject of copyright if sufficiently complex. The complexity required -- the Threshold of Originality -- varies from country to country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Huawei GameCenter.png

I took a Huawei GameCenter Screenshot with my Smartphone to publish it on Wikipedia. Also I work for Huawei. I help to Huawei to publish articles on Wikipedia about its Apps and Services. My job is to make popular its Apps and Services. I as a Huawei Worker consider it unfair that only Google and Apple images are allowed on Wikipedia. you make exception for brands. you prefer Google and Apple images, but you ignore to Huawei. You ignore to my team and to me. Please stop ignoring to Huawei. Please allow the Huawei Images on Wikipedia. If you don't let to Huawei or me to publish the Screenshot, please upload yourself the Huawei GameCenter Images.

A cordial greeting. Johanan Rohten. Johananrohtencarrasco (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Johananrohtencarrasco, I do not know what Google and Apple images you are talking about. Other Admins and I apply Commons policy evenly across the board -- I have no preference for Apple or Google.

The Huawei image you are referring to is copyrighted. We have no way here of knowing whether anything you say about your work is true. If Huawei wants you to upload its copyrighted images, it can either freely license them on its web sites or send a message using VRT from an authorized official of Huawei saying either that specific images are freely licensed or that you, Johananrohtencarrasco, are authorized to freely license Huawei's images.

I also note that you claimed that you were the designer that created the image. Since that is obviously not true, it makes it harder to believe what you say above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If you don't believe in me. You can to contact to Huawei through this Link: https://consumer.huawei.com/cl/support/contact-us/. But if you prefer other ways to contact to Huawei, go to contact to Huawei through your preferred way, and go to ask them if I help to Huawei, and If I work for Huawei helping them. I have helped to Huawei because I have called to developers to brig their Apps to Huawei AppGallery, I called to Mega developers , Ludo Club developers, cava developers, Gameloft developers, and many others developers to brig their Apps to AppGallery. And I help to Huawei on many others things. But please, contact to Huawei, and go to ask them that I said you above.

A cordial greeting Johanan Rohten. Johananrohtencarrasco (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If Huawei wants its copyrighted images on Commons, then an authorized official -- usually a corporate officer -- must send a free license using VRT. Sending a message to a support email address does no good because it is highly unlikely that anyone there has the authority to give away valuable corporate property. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Reconquest

Hi Jim, Regarding your recent closure, I just checked the source of the files, and it shows a free license at the bottom. Is this sufficient to have them on Commons? If not, the other files should be deleted. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

?Yann, when I click on the source page you cite, it comes up with "© 2021 Meow Powered by WordPress" at the bottom. Anyway, that page apparently belongs to Meow who is not the artist, so even if I saw a free license there, it would be bogus. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Above that there is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International". But yes, if this is written by Meow, it doesn't mean anything. Yann (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Right you are, Yann on both counts. When I went to the bottom of the page, that was too high for it to show on my screen. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So then, Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Meow/Characters/Meow/Reconquest. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2021/2022!

		* Happy Holidays 2021/2022, Jameslwoodward! *
		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 13:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GambiaSerekunda024 (31272651311).jpg

Hi, Jim! Merry Christmas and happy new year!

I looked my watchlist and found a DR you closed. I nominated only first version for deletion. Meanwhile the third version was uploaded (also not suitable for Commons). You deleted the whole file. Do you agree to restore the second version (my crop)? Taivo (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you and yours. I agree, the second version is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)