User talk:Jameslwoodward


1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015
2nd half 2015
1st half 2016
2nd half 2016
1st half 2017

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at

My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

Eglise Saint-Nicolas de MyreEdit

Merci pour cette suppression de page, après mon erreur je ne savais pas comment solliciter cette suppression.--Brunodumaine (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please considerEdit

Please consider notifying users who contribute out of scope pages etc. It may not prevent re-occurrence however it makes it clear that they have been warned previously when the behaviour is repeated. I've deleted a couple recently that had previously been deleted by you with no warning issued. --Herby talk thyme 11:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Herby, I probably delete ten gallery pages a day, almost always because they are empty or single image galleries or are articles. If they create the page a second time, I put {{Dont recreate}} on their talk page. I could, I suppose, warn all of those that I delete, but it more or less triples the effort and I think it is not worth it, because the number of second creations is maybe 1 in 20 or 30. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ngv design, michele de lucchi, first chair, 1983.JPGEdit

Now that I was right, can you please revert the Delinker cancellation of the image around all the wikipedias? Thank you --Sailko (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you can do that as well as anyone else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It was your fault, because even if I had linked you similar cases you did wanted to delete the image anyway, without giving any consideration of the policies I linked. I am not asking for apologize, but you should at least restore what went missed for your mistake. --Sailko (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It was not a mistake -- it was a difference of opinion. I think Carl's interpretation of COM:PRP is wrong, and the restoration was a mistake. However, since it is clear that we considered the issue at some depth, I think it is unlikely that the copyright holder will be able to act against us in any way other than requiring that the image be removed. Therefore, I think that keeping it is very low risk, so I will not open a new DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

SUUper playing card game image you deletedEdit

Jim, Christopher Burtt said he sent in an OTRS email a few days ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose That may be, but until the message reaches the head of the queue in several weeks, and then is read and approved, the image cannot be kept. The length of the OTRS queue is an unfortunate fact of life here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
What's this about "head of the queue" -- once it is in the queue, surely you can see it, and restore the image you deleted?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I could -- but I won't. There is no reason to allow this image to jump to the head of the queue as most of the images in the queue are in the same situation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Since when is it official policy that the queue position is more important than making good decisions? Is it like OTRS emails have a "spot in line" that must be honored? Come on, please be reasonable. It won't take you any more time to simply look for the email regardless of its position in the sacred queue. When it does get to the top spot, will the image be reinstated?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To the extent it will help to hear from another OTRS member, Jim is not being unreasonable here ("Come on, please be reasonable.") While it is not "official policy"--and I don't see that Jim claimed it to be--it is established practice and, more importantly, a matter of fundamental fairness. Numerous editors are waiting patiently for permissions to be processed; their images are no more or less important than yours. To afford you special treatment would, as I said, be fundamentally unfair to the others. The queue is not "sacred," not disadvantaging patient editors is. Asking that you wait your turn like everyone else does not preclude the "making [of] good decisions"; if everything is in order, the image will be restored once the ticket is processed. If the ticket is not in order, the OTRS member will communicate the issue and the ticket will remain at the head of the queue pending a resolution. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why there should be a queue in the first place. Jim put the image up for deletion -- the image creater (Christopher Burtt) wrote it was fine, an OTRS email was sent -- and after the OTRS email was sent, even knowing the email had been sent, Jim deleted the image. It would have taken one second to check if the OTRS email was there (given digital technology, I assume nobody has to read through all of the other OTRS emails in the queue to get to the Burtt OTRS email). Just seems like a lot of fusswork for no purpose, if the image will be reinstated later on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please reviewEdit

Hi Jim: Could you review [1]? There's many western artists and images with copyright claims; I looked and nominated a few, but it seems to me more than that few have issues. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done I opened several new DRs. I also commented on a couple of yours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Spammer blockedEdit

Hello Jim, I just blocked this spammer. Since it's an IP address I only issued a one-month block. Since you're a CU can you see whether it's a static IP or less and change its expiry time should you find it appropriate? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

request to the deletion of the deletion request of File:Demetrios I. Kantakuzenos Ahnentafel.pdfEdit


Hi James, I did this genealogy tree by myself during three years (2006-2008). It is an extremely large work containing sources from hundreds of genealogy-sites and books. It is absolutely impossible to give all the sources. For each family there is at least one source. The most important 8 Sources are already indicated in the article by "Literatur", "Weblinks" und "Enzelnahweise" (look the article

This file is for 8 years in Wikipedia. Why should be deleted just now? It is a unique work in Wikipedia. Many genealogists are very interested in it. A genealogy specialist can verify such a tree, even without all sources. But the genealogy specialists have proved it and didn’t found in this 8 years any mistake.

Please don't delete this file! Please delete the nomination to delete this file! Thank you!

(Dan Rascanu (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Please see my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Demetrios I. Kantakuzenos Ahnentafel.pdf. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictures deleted, Please reconsider.Edit

Mrs Liana Șerbescu is writing an article about her mother, Silvia Șerbescu, a leading Romanian pianist of the first half of the 20th Century. I am helping her for the technical part, and this is why I am contacting you on her behalf. She had inserted 4 photos, which were proposed for deletion. This proposition was met with a request to reconsider, with some argumentation.

Knowing that Mrs Șerbescu was researching the history of these pictures in order to document her claim, I was looking forward to an enriching dialogue between her and the Wikimedia moderators. Hence my disappointment to discover that the pictures were deleted on the very day on which she was able to supply some more constructive information.

In order to maintain the quality and the information value of the above mentioned article, we need advice on how to obtain the right to publish these pictures. Mrs Șerbescu has asked me to post her text, in the hope that the discussion will not be abruptly interrupted, and that it will be possible to reintroduce these photos. Her text follows between the two horizontal lines.

I must apologize for having supplied incomplete information about my photos of Silvia Șerbescu, my mother, which I wanted to insert in my Wikipedia article about her. Not being aware of the fact that Wikimedia Commons' strict policy also applied to the photographer’s copyright on very old pictures, I declared improperly that those photos were my own. In reality, since my mother’s death in 1965 they have belonged to my archive of documents, which made me wrongly think that I had the right to use them. Besides, I always put them at the disposal of people who wanted to write something about Silvia Șerbescu. Therefore, these photo’s have already appeared in many different publications, both on hard copy and on the Internet. So I would find it disappointing to have less rights on this material than other authors who have obtained it from me. No one has ever claimed copyright for the publication these pictures. Anyhow, after receiving your notification about possible deletion, I started making elaborate investigations about each of the proposed items. Here are the results.

1. Portrait of Silvia Șerbescu, about 1960. This photo was taken at Studio M. Bilinski in Bucharest, Calea Victoriei 38. The only clue about the photographer Bilinski I could find on the Internet was in a blog mentioning that even during the communist period in Romania, he was still allowed to have his own business. We often stopped in front of his shopwindow to admire the beautiful portraits exposed there. This studio no longer exists.

This portrait of Silvia has appeared several times in the media, for the first time in 1965 in my mother’s Obituary by prof. Theodor Bălan (“Însemnări. Silvia Şerbescu”, in Muzica 10/1965, 33). It is the most emblematic representation of the artist, because it is an introspective look into her inward world, full of great wisdom. The photo was published several times in different articles, books and on record covers, and there was no claim of any copyright owner!

2. Portrait of Silvia Şerbescu in Paris, between 1925-28. My mother was studying at that time at the Ecole Normale de Musique de Paris, as a pupil of Lazare Lévy and Alfred Cortot. For her publicity she needed a good picture. The most famous Studio for artistic photos was the Reutlinger Studio. One can see at the lower part of the right side of Silvia’s portrait the name of the studio: “Reutlinger”, and under it – “Paris”. On the Wikipedia site I could find more information about the founder of this studio – Charles Reutlinger, 1816-1881 and his descendants. The Reutlinger Studio at Bd. Montmartre 21, Paris, was very popular for its successful portraits of actors, artists, musicians, composers and dancers. This Studio ceased to exist in 1937.

I have two large portraits of Silvia made by Reutlinger. They are the only representative pictures of Silvia’s youth, a period of which there are no other witnesses left to remember her. I think that deleting this beautiful image would be a great loss for the posterity.

3. Group photo of professors of the Music Conservatory in Bucharest, with Silvia Şerbescu, Cella Delavrancea and Florica Muzicescu. This is a photo taken by some private person I ignore, after an exam of the piano class in the late fifties. It is an interesting document, because it shows some of the most important piano pedagogues of that time in Romania. An interesting detail is the presence of the young Romanian composer Dan Constantinescu, the first profile on the left in the second row. He was at that time a new assistant at the composition class of the Bucharest Conservatory.

4. The photo with George Georgescu and Aram Khachaturian was taken in Moscow on October 21, 1955, after a concert given there by the Romanian Philharmonic “G. Enescu”, with Silvia Şerbescu soloist. What I own is only a cutting from a magazine or newspaper from 1955-56, of which I ignore the name. I put this photo at the disposal of different authors writing something about Silvia Şerbescu and it exists in many publications. It is a precious document, because it shows Silvia Şerbescu next to two very important musicians and collaborators of that time: the Armenian composer Aram Khachaturian and the famous Romanian conductor George Georgescu.

In order to keep these photos on my mother’s Wikipedia entry, I am positively willing to pay the copyright duties whenever some claim arises. But for the time being I don’t to whom, and I consider it a real loss to deprive the history of music of such interesting documents only because of my ignorance.

In the hope that my humble plea will elucidate and eliminate the risen doubts about the appearance of the proposed photos of Silva Serbescu on Wikimedia, I am sending you my kind regards.

Liana.Serbescu (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. Another last question: I would like to add the picture of George Anghel’s bust of Silvia Şerbescu which exists in the Art Museum of Oradea and in the main hall of the Bucharest University of Music. There are two possibilities: to put a good photo which already exists on the Internet ([2]), or to use a shot I made myself which is of a lower quality. Which one is allowed without further problems?

We both thank you in advance for the attention and time you will spend on helping us resolve this problem.

Jpkent (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but all of this simply confirms what I said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Liana.Serbescu. The copyrights to the four images are held by their photographers or their heirs and they cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holders via OTRS. That is true even of commissioned works taken by portrait studios -- unless there is a separate written agreement which explicitly transfers or licenses the copyright, it remains with the photographer or the studio.

It is unfortunate that many images that we would like to use on WP cannot be used because they are orphan works, with the copyright holders untraceable, but that is a fact of life here.

As for the George Anghel bust, the bust itself will be under copyright until 1/1/2037, 70 years after Anghel's death, so any image of it is a derivative work which infringes on the copyright. Such images cannot be kept on Commons unless the sculptor's heir sends a free license using OTRS. If you want to use the image you cited above, you will also need a free license from the photographer, also using OTRS. Of course, if you use your own image, you can license it yourself, but you still need a license for the sculpture. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to say I find this a little bit confusing. If I look at the following page, I read in the licensing section: "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication.". I fail to see the difference with at least one of Mrs Șerbescu's pictures, No 2 in her list above, which was made by a studio that ceased to exist 80 years ago.

For the other images it would be convenient to be able to use the type of licensing found in the portrait of Cella Delvrancea, although I don't fully understand the two parts of the licensing statement, which seem mutually contradictory to me. In any case, it does not seem logical to me that two artists that were colleagues and were portrayed in similar circumstances, where the licensing issues are exactly the same, should be treated differently. There must be a way to honor Silvia Şerbescu's memory in the same way as Cella Delavrancea's. Jpkent (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In the first case, for that to apply the work must be anonymous (which your #2 was not) and it must be proven that it was published more than 70 years ago, which may or not be the case, but has yet to be proven.

As for your second paragraph, the Cella Delavrancea image is on WP:EN, not Commons. You may be able to post the images to WP:RO, but only if both WP:RO hosts its own images and Romanian law permits WP:Fair use -- many WPs do not host their own images and the laws of many countries do not permit Fair Use. I am not qualified to help you with Fair Use on either WP:EN or WP:RO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jameslwoodward".