Open main menu
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jameslwoodward!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

This archive covers 2009-2010


Better source request for Image:Saddleback Ledge Lighthouse Maine.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Saddleback Ledge Lighthouse Maine.JPG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the help desk or me at my talkpage. Thank you. High Contrast (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Hello, Jameslwoodward!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 910031c9929d42b9ad5365f5cebafbd7

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Pegasus Bridge 1944.jpg


May I know why you removed the date category ? Isn't that picture dated from June 9th 1944 ? Teofilo (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply. There was a comment posted on the village pump, last summer, (or was it one year before ?), from someone complaining that it was uneasy to browse Wikimedia Commons when searching for history pictures. I tried to figure out what I could do to improve that and began sorting the pictures of the battle of Normandy. There was a lot of confusion with many people tagging pictures as "D-Day", while they could have been taken one month later or a few days earlier (during training in Britain). So my first task was to carefully select pictures taken on June 6th and put them into a special category. Then I expanded that sort of sorting and now I think I have put all the 1944 pictures we have into "by day" categories (when the date is known)(but not only : they are also categorized by country, or by battle, or other various topics). Teofilo (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Started gallery

Hi Jameslwoodward,

Are you sure about this ? –Krinkletalk 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Thank you for asking. Positive? Absolutely not. Reasonably sure? Yes.
  • Pro
    • See this which is a Google translation of this.
    • So, we've got an artist who has apparently been exhibited in 15 or 20 different countries. He appears to be notable.
    • He's willing to contribute some of his work, which is unusual.
  • Con
    • I'm troubled by the fact that he's doing it himself. (COI and NPOV)
    • He had an article on the Spanish Wikipedia which was deleted a little while ago -- my Spanish is non existent, so I'm not sure why, but I've asked the person who deleted it (who speaks English) for the reason.
    • Of course having a Gallery on Commons advertises his work, but that's true any time we post anything from a living artist.
I don't know anything about him, except that he asked me (by e-mail) for help, I found the biography above, and decided to help out. Any Cuban who can get his work hung in many places (including the USA) looks to me like a candidate for a little help. What do you think? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Zac walton

Beat me on the speedy tag by a second ;)  fetchcomms 01:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I find Commons patrolling more fun than Wikipedia -- myabe that's why there are never many yellow pages on Commons:Special:NewPages but en:Special:Newpages has a month's backlog. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Commons:Rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Creating the page was a mistake . I'm now following your suggestion. I was going to find out how I could delete the page anyway. AdMeskens (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I believe this plant is likely not to be an Orange Bush. But it is from Elvina Bay. It's possibly my error of identification. And I'm unsure what plant it is. My goal is to be accurate in the photos submitted to Wiki Commons. I asked if this photo could be deleted as it may not be correct. Poyt448 (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

James, thank you for your advice. Poyt448 (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hola, mi nombre es Claudia Anselmi y recibí su mensaje en inglés, el que no pude evaluar totalmente debido a que yo hablo y escribo bien en Español y Francés, pero el inglés no lo domino bien.

Pero es muy posible que yo me haya equivocado, pues hoy 20 abril 2010 es mi primer día en Wikipedia y en WikiCommons.

Mi página de Usuario en Wikipedia ya la tengo instalada, pero como para usar imágenes en Wikipedia debo registrarlas en WikiCommons, y yo también debo registrarme en WikiCommons, pensé debía dejar un saludo tal como hice en mi página de usuario.

Yo pienso poner imágenes relacionadas por una serie, o sea creo que es lo que se pide en una galería, pero por el momento aún no estoy preparada.

Gracias por su atención. Intenté borrar esa página y también una imagen que subí por error, pero no logré hacerlo.

Por si le sirve de algo, mi nombre de usuario es AnselmiClaudia, y la dirección de la misma es la que indico a continuación.

Paris gare de lyon

Bonsoir, merci de m'avoir signaler l'erreur oui c'est bien la gare de Lyon. (erreur sur le copié coller de ma part). --Parisdreux (d) 19:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

De rien. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CGAC, Santiago de Compostela.jpg

What do you think of File:CGAC, Santiago de Compostela Cropped.jpg?. Thanks --Iesmgb2 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


The image File:Tomeza, Pontevedra-Lavadoiro,jpg was incorrect (”,“jpg, not ”.“jpg). It had to be deleted. Thanks--Iesmgb2 (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion on naming of the file. I think I have done as you have suggested. --parithimathi 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


You keep tagging stuff & I'm going to have to talk to you about putting in an RfA soon :). Thanks for tidying up the junk - regards --Herby talk thyme 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bairro Uberaba

OK... was my mistake, thanks!!!Márcia da Silva Katzeir (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I just came across this after a couple weeks on break... Was the source of the photograph not known? I think I remember the image and don't recall any obvious copyright issues with it, unless the uploader had taken it from a copyrighted source. Any information you can give me would be appreciated. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you missed it, but it's a pretty clear case. The problem was not the photograph in any way, but that book itself is still subject to copyright, so any copy of it is a copyvio. As I said in my nomination, it would be clearly OK as a fair use on en:WP as an illustration the strangeness of the manuscript, but we don't allow fair use on Commons. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As best as I can recall the photograph, none of the text of the book was legible. Or am I remembering it incorrectly? Postdlf (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, it was perfectly legible. Take a look at your source. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 12:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if (and only if) the text of the book could be read in the photograph, then it was a fair use issue. Thanks for your time. Postdlf (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If you don't have easy access to your source, you could ask an Admin to take a look at the deleted file.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't the uploader, so I never had a source. I trust you if you say the manuscript's text was legible; I just wanted to make sure that was the reason it was deleted. Postdlf (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this is an excess of caution, but when someone says, "I trust you", I want to be very sure that I am not abusing that trust. My best recollection is that it was a photo of a single "page", clearly legible. I'm sure it was not, for example, anything like this shot of a long strip which wouldn't have bothered me at all. Nonetheless, I see a lot of images, and I can only say what I recollect, not for certain what it was. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 10:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Canals in Cambrésis

You assumed right, thanks. - Camster2 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Gracias, :-) --Paqribas (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.jpg

File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Perhelion (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How is you progress in converting to SVG? I see this JPG has non compressing, so it's the best possible quality but with a very huge size for one file. I think the quality of File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.png (max possible DPI) is completely sufficient. But if you like you could upload a better PNG (without interpolation and anti-alisasing) Can I be of any assistance in anyway? --Perhelion (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The images that have been put up for deletion

Thanks a lot for acknowledging my hard work. I just wanted to discuss the images that have been put up for deletion. I had spoken to some Wiki advisors, and they told me that I could upload images as long as they didn't depict anything not wanted by an individual in the image, and I've blurred all individuals not wishing to be shown, and left officials and other individuals who didn't mind their images being uploaded. Isn't that meant to be ok? - (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many issues that affect whether an issue can be stored on Commons. You mention one of them. In most countries (but not all), persons in public places have no right to prevent photos of themselves from appearing, so your blurring was probably not necessary.

Another issue, more important is copyright. Generally you can not show words written by someone else unless they are old or subject to an exemption. Both the letter from the British Government and the photo of the newspapers clearly violate the copyright of their writers. The photo of the Press Club sign and one other violate the copyrights of their creator. Note that I assumed that most of the posters which were photographed were made by MFI and ignored the fact that they were not, in fact, the creation of the photographer, as the permission given asserts. All of this can be better discussed at the several deletion requests. If I have not made myself clear, feel free to ask me to clarify. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your attention please :)

Just accept and transclude at the top of the req page here. Looks like you will get at least one other vote :) When you do get the tools it is customary to practice - check out the delete button on the main page and the block button on JWales (or maybe it's the other way around - I forget now). There are some very good admins indeed on Commons who will welcome your support and help you when they can. Thanks for assisting --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Forge

Greetings, Curious as to why the page I created "Mr. Forge" was deleted? All that was provided was Out of Scope. I am Mr. Forge, so the information provided is coming directly from the source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drike01 (talk • contribs) 08:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to admit it, but I don't remember exactly and, since I'm not an admin, I can't look at it. The template note I left on your talk page might help.
Mr. Forge was a Gallery. In Commons, Galleries are intended primarily to show off collections of images, which Mr. Forge was not. As a general rule, if you want a collection of your own images, it has to be on your user page, User:Drike01. You might create a subpage, such as User:Drike01/Mr. Forge, but Commons is not Flickr and generally it would have to be related to Commons's purpose.
If Mr. Forge is notable, then he could have a gallery on Commons, but it would have to be mostly images, with only captions and a sentence or two as an introduction. Commons is not Wikipedia -- articles belong there, not here. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 12:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. I have to admit, I am new to this. My sincere apologies. Please disregard and thank you for your understanding. I will have to congtribute thru Wikipedia and I will certainly heed to your advice about captions as well. Cheers -=- drike01

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drike01 (talk • contribs) 08:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
We were all beginners once, so it's no problem at all -- one of our strong policies is to be be kind to newbies. BTW, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ which adds your sig (with links) and the date. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Magnus Manske

Hi, I noticed you notified him about a few uploads. Please note that these were done by other people through his bots. You might want to notify the original uploaders instead. -- User:Docu at 15:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, of course, but it was a while ago and is, I think, moot now. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Notifying them might not be needed, but it is important to bear in mind that there isn't much Magnus (of "Magnus Manske Day") is going to do about them. -- User:Docu at 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Since BusinessWeek didn't do anything about it, the group that was doing the work didn't finish it -- so a variety of people didn't get notified. There are only so many hours in the Wikiday. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought the point of notifying the uploaders was that they could do something if they chose to. -- User:Docu at 16:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but as a practical matter what are they going to do -- sue over a missing attribution? Once Business Week decided to be unresponsive, there's not much to do. And, as I said, there are only so many Wikihours, and, to be blunt, I did more than my share of the ones that were notified. When I saw that no one else was pitching in (NotfromUtrecht did 18, I did 14, two others did one each), I decided I had other things to do. That may be a bad attitude, but we're all volunteers and sometimes a job just gets borrring. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Freddie slack band.JPG

Hi there,
I declined your speedy deletion-request, as the images is in use on dewiki. Please use a regular deletion-request, if you want the file to be deleted. Thank you, abf «Cabale!» 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you -- I should have looked. I just added the correct tag and cat.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Jameslwoodward, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons on There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators:#wikimedia-commons-admin.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion about the use of "since"

Hi James, thank you very much for your suggestions about a more correct way of labeling a deletion request. Now that you have made me realize this linguistic issue I can see clearly that my original intention and the others' perception were not exactly tuned. I will pay more attention on it and I will adopt the new method you suggested. Thank you again for your tips. Improving it's a neverending process.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Erik

Hi, James,

Commons does not actually have any rules about multiple user accounts. If a user prefers to upload content under a real name for credit purposes, and perform other activity under a psuedonym, that's perfectly acceptable, so long as the individual is not trying to engage in abusive behavior like sock-puppetting to stack votes, create fake consensus, or block evasion. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, I stand corrected. It does, however, create confusion, as it did in this case when one name is part of the other and the User used both for uploading a series of images. Thank you       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pump definitions

Can't think of a reference, but the fundamental difference is in the position of the seal, at the mouth of the bore, or on the moving bit. Globbet (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a dumb question, but sometimes engineering terminology isn't logical. Is it correct to assume that a "piston pump" has the seals on the piston, as in most gas/petrol, diesel, and steam engines, and a "plunger pump" has the seals mounted on the bore? Thanks,       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Globbet (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Passenger Liner AUSONIA.jpg

The photographer is not known; en:Stewart Bale is a company. Please undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It was a small family company. According to this:
the photographer was Edward Stewart Bale (1889-1944).
But that doesn't matter. The fact that we, at Commons, don't know who the photographer was is not what counts. You may be sure that the photograph itself actually has a stamp on the back with the photographer's name because photographers were and are very conscious of copyright, particularly in those countries where an anonymous or corporate work had 70 years from creation and a credited work had 70 years pma.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It was a large company - over 100 000 negatives. The boss did not make all these himself. The point is that you are second-guessing the archive stating that there were no restrictions. I find that rather arrogant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Pieter, I don't think "arrogant" is appropriate or fair. The fact is, the archive is in Canada, and anything before 1949 is PD there, so they may well say there are no restrictions. If it had been taken before 1923, it would be PD in the USA -- but would still be in copyright in the UK. Since it was taken in Liverpool, it's the UK copyright that matters, not Canada.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Presumptuous is probabably a better word. There is also a lot of second-guessing of the Bundesarchiv, and of Flickr Commons. I find that immensely self-confident of the participants here. Anyway, we are not getting anywhere. I will request undeletion, as I did with File:2P rezonator AFP.PNG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, Pieter, I try to be a pretty good guy. You caught me in error on Commons:Deletion requests/File:CerneAbbasHomer.jpg and I came right back with an apology and thank you. Similarly on the bridge sign in Kosovo a while ago. As for File:2P rezonator AFP.PNG, if you can explain to me what it is and what the drawing might be used for, I'd be happy to undelete it -- when I looked at it, it looked like a an acoustic schematic of no potential value. It's true we need at least another opinion on Ausonia -- as I think she's still in copyright because I'm sure the photographers name is on the photo.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your closure of the Ausonia DR; deletion was incomplete anyway. As to the filter (same image as File:2P rezonator AFP.JPG, in use), I am certain that pl:User:MPasternak knows his stuff. Lack of understanding should not be a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just popping in to say I'll look at this as soon as I can Jim. However please do not consider the user here in any real way polite or reasonable. I certainly see no need at all for the word "arrogant" for example. Kuiper has had a number of "final warnings" about his behaviour here so I would counsel him to take some care with his language and approach. --Herby talk thyme 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I am kinda new to Commons and i would like to ask you if the standard policies from the Wikipedia EN applies to the Commons too? Like the naming policy? The use of the official name in the article title? Thank you. Iadrian yu (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to help, but I'm not certain I understand your question. "Use the official name in the article title" -- do you mean lighthouses, where that is my personal policy on WP:EN? Or something else?
Some policies apply, some do not. That's not a helpful answer, but you'll have to be more specific.
Because Commons is a repository for images for many uses, the name of the image file is much less important than putting the image in the proper categories. The only time the image file name has any real impact is when a reader looks at all the files in a category -- then they are in a modified alpha order. If the file names are the subject names, then they will sort in the right place on the page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my vague question. I meant like the use of the official names for places/villages like WP:NAME and WP:PLACE from the English Wiki. For an example [2] or [3] This village title is by it`s official name/alternative name format(Gheorgheni/Gyergyószentmiklós), on the English Wiki this is against the naming policy, in the titles we should use only official names. Is it a violation on Commons too? Thank you for your answer. Iadrian yu (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand. You ask two similar questions -- about Category names and Gallery names. You should also understand that I am relatively new to Commons and others may give different answers.

Hello again, since you explained to me the naming policy, I have made some changes but one user [4] "folowed" me and continued his crusade[5]. Since this user enjoys edit warring can you please help and issue a warning somehow since he doesn`t listen to anybody but Administrators. If not, can you explain please what actions should I take. Thank you.Iadrian yu (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As you will see, I moved the one image to the English name. I've added the image and the two cats to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Iadrian yu (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Since he only continues his edit warring and this campaign on galleries where other users/administrators did`t interfere([6];) could he get a warning to stop doing this? Iadrian yu (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, while there is a policy that categories be named in English, gallery names are not set by policy, so I am reluctant to come down on him for the change you cite. I'm reluctant to get in the middle of a choice-of-language war. I might even argue that the gallery should be named

with a redirect from both of

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for voting--DieBuche (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations - your both! --Perhelion (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


I couldn't discuss that, because you invited me to that but delected before I could. The question is, although it was released in US, it is an italian film, US laws has no copyrights in any form on it, because it is not an 'american product' or something. So, I desagree what you have done. The license is clear to anyone. MachoCarioca (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

While you say Tango was an Italian film, it was released in the United States before it was released in Italy. Therefore it is, for copyright purposes, an American film and I suspect that it is still in copyright in Italy, because Italy respects USA copyright law.
But that doesn't really matter -- Tango, and all the other films in the category that I have checked were released in the United States (sometimes first, sometimes not), so they all have a United States copyright and, because Wikimedia's servers are located in the United States, we must obey US law and that copyright.
So, the only reason I left you a note was if any of the films were not released in the USA, then they are OK....      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you show any US copyright on it? MachoCarioca (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don1t think this thing here works as 'I think there's a copyright', ok? So, you pretend an italian product, with laws that keep it in public domain, can't be here because 'US copyright'. So, I'd like to know which copyright are on italian or greek or brazilian or russian films here, please. MachoCarioca (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me try to explain.
First, as a general rule, movies and other works can have different copyright periods in different places. Because Wikimedia's computers are located in the United States, Commons must obey USA copyright law and pay attention to the USA copyright. We also pay attention to copyright in the country of origin. see Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law
Now, if the work has never been published ("published" is the word used with all copyrights -- for a movie, it means "released") in the USA, then what matters is only the copyright in the country where the work was first published, because the USA period will be the same. So, a movie made in Italy, never released in the USA in any form, is subject only to the Italian copyright law.
But, if the movie has been released in the United States, then it is subject to USA copyright rules, which are complicated, see File:PD-US_table.svg.
In the case of Last Tango in Paris, it was first released in the United States in 1972 and therefore will be copyrighted in the USA until 2067. So, Commons can not touch it until 2067. (It was released in Italy in 1975.)
That is true of all other movies that have been released in the USA.
You also asked:
"Could you show any US copyright on it?"
The answer is yes, there is certainly a USA copyright notice in the end credits for all versions of the movie. It was required by USA law at that time and you may sure that United Artists was careful with it. But, be careful, because copyright exists without any notice. The facts determine it. A copyright notice is not required anywhere now and has not been required in the USA for thirty years.
I hope this is clear.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Name change of a category

Dear James,

Since you contacted me about a category I mistakenly created a few weeks ago, I would like to ask you a question. Is it possible to have the name of a category changed. I am referring to two categories in particular: 'Bayard(horse)' and 'Les quatre fils Aymon'. As you may be aware I live in a funny country, Belgium. The categories above refer to legends surrounding Steed Bayard - a horse which is known in Walloon and Flemish folklore alike. Therefore I would like to suggest to rename the above categories as 'Bayard - Beiaard (horse)' and 'Les quatre fils Aymon - De Vier Heemskinderen' Just as our national railway company is referred to as NMBS - SNCB. AdMeskens (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, again.... Start by reading my comments above under the topic "Hello" about multilingual category names -- start at the outdent in the middle. Since the Commons standard is to use English for category names, I would go with the existing name and add {{category redirect|Bayard(horse)}} on a new page named "Beiaard". For the other, following our rules, it should probably be Category:Four Sons of Aymon, with category redirects at the French and Dutch names. This is not elegant, but it is consistent. Note that following that rule, the lead category for your capital city is
both the French and the Dutch are category redirects:
as is
which is exactly what I would expect.
However, to answer your question, yes it's certainly possible, easy in fact. See Commons:Rename a category. Note that for half a dozen, changing the category in each of its members is easy by hand, for up to a couple of dozen, AWB will probably be quickest, beyond that ask for bot help. Note though, that if you follow up on your idea, someone is probably going to suggest that you go the way I have suggested. They might even insist.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. I'll follow up on your suggestions!
AdMeskens (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

EF 131

Hi Jim, you deleted File:EF_131_V1.JPG. The argument in the deletion discussion that this was a German plane is definitevely wrong. It was a Soviet palne based on a German design, refer to en:OKB-1 EF 131. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Juergen. The argument was that there was no information about place and time of first publication and that there was no evidence that it was a Soviet photograph.
I have restored the file. Please go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF 131 V1.JPG and prove your case for keep.
Next time, note that the DR was open for two weeks. It is not up to those of us who work on DRs to dig out information -- we don't have anywhere near enough time for that -- it is up to the uploader and others interested in photos to make the argument at the DR and, if necessary, change the licensing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jim, thank you! I recognized the file being deleted today, when it was removed from the German Wikipedia. Best regards --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions

Do you have much time for deleting old and bad images? Category:Media without a source has files that should have been deleted more than three months ago. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First batch - belatedly :(

I hope some of these are of use to you - at least the add to the stock and ain't bad :). A couple more to come. The old St Ives light looks interesting to me - quite a different era?

Feel free to get rid the gallery when you've reviewed it - just easier than links. On this the light does not show well but it is quite a nice image :). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll look at them and start writing -- don't hold your breath. I wish I did so well consistently. As for File:Scillonian III Penzance 285.jpg, it's a great image of the ship -- I'd almost be tempted to paint the light out as a distraction.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jim - I'll be interested in anything you dig up on the older light - I don't recall seeing one like that before. Dangers of the coast :) --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one. I'll likely upload another one or two of Godrevy but this one as stitch came out quite well and gives detail that more distant shots will not have. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem?

I personally took pictures of a set of euro coins of Malta. Therefore, I am the owner of them. Can be placed in Wikimedia and on any other site. You may not remove my personal page. Numizmat 675 (talk to me) 13:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that they are copyright violations. Maltese coins are clearly copyrighted, see Commons:Currency#Malta. If you want to discuss the issue, go to the Deletion request pages, not here:
As for your comment, "You may not remove my personal page," while we give some latitude to users on their User Pages and User Subpages, we don't allow copyvios and, in any case, neither of these is your personal page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing to do? This photo made me personally. And no more licenses are not necessary. So you can delete all of Wikipedia. If you have the right to require architects and sculptors. And as for the coin: you know how many sites do not observe the copyright? Lot! And nobody brought to justice. You can delete all that I uploaded I will allow you !!!!!!!! >Numizmat 675 (talk to me) 15:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Juliancolton#Commons:Deletion requests/Drawings by Paolo Steffan

Your input would be appreciated.-- 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to keep the history...

...... it is better to move the page in my eyes. Cheers, abf «Cabale!» 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would move a page rather than copy and delete if there was any history, but this was a brand new page which I came upon while doing new page patrol. Moving takes longer and none of us have enough time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ensemble Romanesca

Hi, I photoshopped myself in the photo. Both pictures (the orchestra and myself) are made by me. The latter ineed with a remote.

Regards, Femke Wolthuis

Pratap Simha

I do not quite understand why all this rush to delete a picture which I contributed and which was used for a relevant article in wikipedia. Naturally,the photograph was taken by myself, but obviously I did not create the picture which is by an anonymous Nepalese artist. If in future I see other of my contribution cancelled without previous discussion, I won`t bother to contribute anything at all. Your behaviour is contrtaproductive and thoughtless. Regards


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemensmarabu (talk • contribs) 15:01, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
There was no evidence that the work of the "anonymous Nepalese artist" was in the public domain. Even anonymous works have copyright and by its rules Commons must pay attention to that. A speedy delete is appropriate for a copyvio. If you believe the work is not under copyright, tell me why and if it appears valid, I will undelete the image. Or, you may file a formal request at Commons:Undeletion requests.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


This photo is screenshot from YouTube Film 11:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming File:火-bronze.svg to File:火-oracle.svg

I am sorry that I was tired to read your message clearly. I meant I would like to speedydelete the File:火-oracle.svg first, then rename File:火-bronze.svg to File:火-oracle.svg, keeping the File history instead of links shown in the File:火-oracle.svg page right now. Thanks for you help. Chanueting (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I should have thought of that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Invalid content File:CiberSheep.jpg

Thank you for your help and sorry for the mistake, I'm still learning. CiberSheep

No problem. I made many mistakes when I was starting out and I still make more than I would like.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How could you keep Jonas?

Your decision in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Jonas portrait.png is incomprehensible. Did you look at this? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Deciding whether a drawing is a derivative work is much the same as deciding whether a writing is a derivative work. It is clear that a writer can legally read one or more versions of something and then write a new version, perhaps even using some of the same words, and it will not be a derivative work, even though the facts are the same. Similarly, an artist can look at one or more likenesses of a person and draw an image which is not necessarily derivative. After all, if the artist is competent, he should be able to capture a competent likeness which will look similar to another competent likeness -- the face is the same. You seem to believe that an artist cannot create a drawing of a person unless the artist has seen the person in the flesh -- that anything less than that is a derivative work. By the same line of reasoning, no one could write history unless he had been there. We therefore disagree and my judgement (and that of several other editors) differs from yours.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This clearly is a derivative. You see to decide DRs by counting votes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the notice. I've given an extensive reply on the DR; in short, I don't believe that the Smithsonian's works are included in PD-USGov. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello. Why you deleted this file? It's a screenshot of an open-source game Teeworlds. (Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely...)Vort (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I went to Teeworlds and could not find any statement of the license except a copyright notice on every page. There was some discussion which leads me to think that it may not be quite as free as you think. I'd be happy to consider this further, but please find a formal statement of the license for me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is as I guessed. The following is unacceptable for Commons because the whole copyright notice would have to accompany every use of the image:

"3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution."

Magnus Auvinen decided, for whatever reason, to write a license that is not quite as free as what we require.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image (screenshot) is not a «source distribution». It`s a derived work as i know. (sorry for my bad english)Vort (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a DW of the source. I am not comfortable with its copyright status. Your best bet is to file an Undeletion Request and see what others think. Sorry. (and, don't apologize for your English -- it's fine -- much better than my Russian)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess that is a reasonable requirement that applies to most non-PD licenses. The game is currently free; the problem is that it had a potentially non-free requirement in its license before version 0.5.0 (see [7]). --AVRS (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have filed an undeletion request. I fail to see how a screenshot that does not distribute any part of the game's source code could be considered a source distribution of the game. — Tetromino (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rutherford crocodile.jpg

Hello Jameslwoodward, File:Rutherford crocodile.jpg has been deleted as a 2-dimensional work of art by Eric Gill. I can't see it anymore, but is that particilar artwork not a relief in stone? In that case it's a 3-dimensinal work and covered by FOP. Can you confirm this? Regards, --Gerardus (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. Took a little research.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I changed the cat to prevent a possible second time,--Gerardus (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, you deleted my uploaded image File:LMB-en.gif. This software of the screenshot is under the en:W3C Software Notice and License. Under which lisence should I reupload the image? GPL? Can you give me a talklback at en:User_talk:mabdul? Mabdul (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The requirements of the license are more onerous than permitted by Commons -- we can't require users to post a full copy with every use of an image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Name change of a category - another question

I accidently stumbled upon 'Category:Musée Royal de l'Armée'. Referring to my earlier mailing and your answer, I changed this category to 'Category:Royal Military Museum, Brussels. I've added a category 'Koninklijk Legermuseum'. Both Frenc and dutch categories refer to the English one. However 'Category:Musée Royal de l'Armée' cotnains about 500 images. Too many to change manually. The O bot apparently can change text in a file description, but I do not know how to operate this bot (if I am even allowed to). May I ask fot you help again? Thanks AdMeskens (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know either, Try a query at the Village Pump. If you need an admin to do it, find out what to do and I'll help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Arthur Sarkissian painting 02.jpg

Hello, Jameslwoodward. I just noticed you have deleted all the images of Arthur Sarkissian's work. I remember giving the uploader of these a bit of help when he was trying to write the article about Arthur Sarkissian on English Wikipedia. You are right in your guess that there is some connection between the artist and the uploader – the uploader is in fact the artist's son. However, the article he started on English Wikipedia has since undergone a lot of work by several editors, and I am satisfied that there are no conflict of interest problems with the initial work being done by the uploader.

I'm also satisfied that he has clearance from the artist to upload these images for use on Wikipedia. Please can you let me know what documentation would be required from him to get them undeleted. I'm happy to try to explain to him what he needs to do. I remember that when he first edited Wikipedia he found some of the technicalities about copyright rather confusing and left a lot of "Please help" messages on various editors' talk pages – it reminds me of some of the problems I get into when trying to edit foreign language Wikipedias when I cannot understand what somebody is telling me off about!

Once the images are undeleted, I'm quite prepared to work through putting them back onto the Wikipedia pages (I think they are used on the English and Armenian wikipedias, but I'm not sure if there are any others). Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, — Hebrides (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I tagged the subject with a deletion request, I did not actually delete the images, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur Sarkissian painting 02.jpg. Generally I prefer not to undo another active admin's work, so I'll leave a note for Wknight94. You need an e-mail from with an appropriate license, see Commons:OTRS      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. In cases like this where the images are clearly published and copyrighted, and owned by a living person, we need to have assurance that the copyright owner really agrees to release those images freely. If Mr. Sarkissian or his son would contact COM:OTRS, preferably from an e-mail address with the domain, the images will be undeleted shortly (please permit some time as OTRS is often backlogged). Restoring them to the Wikipedias will be very easy to do. Wknight94 talk 10:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


The job of an admin is to do housekeeping. When deleting an image, it is easy, but when keeping it, then housekeeping includes to leave the image in a way that it is actually keepable. Just removing a deletion-request is not enough when the image does not contain a proper source. That means not to rely on a script to do your work. The request for File:Her Husband's Trademark.jpg was a request to provide information. To just close the request and not doing what was requested is sloppy work. If you are not up to do more than the script does for you then leave it for somebody with more work ethics. -- Cecil (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, writing a short reason why you deleted or kept an image should never be too much work (even if it is just a "per user Y" to follow someones argument). This is essential information for the uploader, the requesting user and all that participated in the discussion. Politeness against other contributors alone should make you do it. -- Cecil (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whew. Because of your seniority, I must take your remarks seriously, yet the tone of them makes that hard.

I have the following comments:

  1. A DR is a Deletion Request, not a request for information. Therefore, I frankly ignored your general question in favor of dealing with the DR. That seemed obvious, as studios did not issue new posters ten months after the movie came out.
  2. I also chose to close the discussion because there does not appear to be a copyright notice on the poster -- most posters of that era did not have one. I could not find one on any of the images at the site you cited.
  3. Also, I can't imagine Paramount paying to renew the copyright, so it was probably PD three different ways.
  4. Therefore I chose to close the discussion without comment -- it appeared to be very obvious. It is my habit to go through the DRs on the first day they become eligible for closure and close the easy ones without comment, comment on the hard ones where I have something to say, and leave the others alone. If I made a comment on every one, I couldn't do as many, and someone has to close them -- we are woefully behind in many areas.
  5. As for your wanting information, I think the best way to get it is not to put us through the trouble of a DR, but simply post a note on The Village Pump. If you had done that, you might have gotten an answer -- surely more people would see that than the subject DR.
  6. Finally, as far as I know, there is no source of such information -- IMDB lists over 250,000 feature films. There is really very little information on most of them beyond what is in the actual movie. This one is shown there as having been released in the USA in February 1922, in Finland in 1924, and nowhere else. The latter is hard to believe, so I have to conclude that the information is simply lost.
  7. You would quite right to say that I could have put that information in an edit summary -- but, again, it was a simple closure of an obviously OK image, and I didn't look it up until now.

Finally, I think "sloppy" and "more work ethics" are out of line. If I had been in your position, I might have said something like:

"I would have appreciated it if you had answered my request for information rather than just closing the DR without comment. Comments on a DR are often helpful to everyone involved."

I expect, and shrug off, personal attacks from IP users and a few of our notorious regular users, but getting one of this strength from someone of your seniority has me wondering why I am giving Commons two or three hours a day. Perhaps you should remember that we are all volunteers and that suggesting that I should "leave it for somebody with more work ethics" may well get you the "leave it" part without necessarily having my replacement do it any differently.

I certainly make mistakes, as do we all. But I don't think the no comment closure of the subject DR was a mistake. I don't think that we can spare the resources to give more than the script comment on uncontested closures. My colleague admins seem to agree, as most closures are the simple script "kept" or "deleted".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ad 1) If you have ever worked in the section for 'no source, no author, no permission' than you would know what would have happened with this sloppy transfer if I would have put this tag in instead of a del.req.
ad 2) I cited a webshop. Naturally there are no copyrights in it or if then those of the webshop. The whole reason of this request was to get a reliable source and not some webshop.
ad 4) And now you want to tell me you are faster and can deal with more requests when afterwards you have to write explanations to people who are asking you about the reasons on your talk page? Your talk page is context-less and not reproduceable for someone who visits the del.req. days, weeks or even years later. Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. You are saving a few seconds by not writing down valuable information to get disturbed later and leaving later visitors clueless. And yes, I call that sloppy, because that's what it is.
ad 7) To cite you I didn't look it up until now. And now start thinking. What's wrong with this? You decide about something without even looking it up. That's wrong on so many different levels. Just because something seems obvious, it not always is obvious. How many requests are you doing without even checking them? There are people out there: uploaders, contributors, re-users. They let us know when they think something is not correct, and instead of looking it up you just close their request, their note without any thinking. What is this admin-job for you? A speed competition? Who can close the most deletion request in the least amount of time? Just because there is a backlog, does not mean, it is an excuse for speeding up the process in a way that you don't even look at what you are doing anymore.
And for your information: my second comment was not about making no comment at "my" deletion request. I made it after I checked out your last 50 contributions and noticed that you don't do decision reasoning at all. At least not in those quite a lot last ones. You made 2 or 3 times a comment, that you did something else with the media/category/..., but never you gave even the most simple reason for why you are doing something. An admin should also be a guide, should be someone that does not leave a potential newbie in the dark.
And to your comment My colleague admins seem to agree: you have probably heard this saying before: If your friends would jump of a bridge into death, would you just do it too. Just because a few others have the same low working morale, it does not make it right. Why do you think so many contributors think so bad of admins? It is not only because we delete their contributions, it has a lot to do with the little respect they receive. -- Cecil (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dietary reference values image and waterwheel

Hey Jim, I see that you deleted the dietary reference values image. However as I proposed at the deletion request, there were some options to adress some of the objections; in particular I proposed this: "An alternative would be to have a graph with various lines, 1 for the BMR, and 2 for 2 PAL's (low and middle; see ) However even then, the BMR is still composed of the female/male average, so I'll need approval first (no point in making graph if its again voted for deletion anyway). Else, I'd rather see it removed here, then there isn't any data for children at wikipedia, but I rather not show incorrect data (the UN data for the original graph is contested by other references)."

I would like to know the opinions of those that put up the initial objections, that way we can look into whether it's possible to improve the image, and the opinions would also be welcome for Appropedia. If the preposition was suitable, I can finish up on the next version of the image and upload it (after undeletion).

Thanks, KVDP (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I also saw that you deleted File:Undershot_water_wheel_schematic.png .Is it possible to undelete this image; just tell me what I need to improve upon it; as I understand it, the wheel needs to be mirrored to correct the paddles, and the waterlevel needs to be hightened to the same level as in front of the wheel.

KVDP (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kristof: While I applaud your willingness to provide drawings to Commons, I very much don't like the fact that most of them are simply wrong. The several users that are in the process of going through your contributions have provided guidance in the cases where we thought you could improve the drawing and keep it here, but most have been beyond help. I think that the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dietary reference values.png answered both of your questions above. Briefly, File:Undershot water wheel schematic.svg is OK, but would be better if the paddles were radial rather than skewed -- radial paddles are easier to manufacture and do not give up efficiency in an undershot wheel.
Doing good technical illustrations is hard. Our son makes his living doing them -- after his college training, he took a one year course in order to become skilled at making illustrations of computer systems -- and only computer systems. I myself trained as an engineer, many years ago, and after fifty years of experience can understand most electrical and mechanical systems, but I still find drawing them hard. It is apparent, both from your drawings, and your CV, that you simply do not have the training or experience to understand most of the systems that you have attempted to illustrate. Such understanding is crucial, because only with it can you decide which parts to keep and which to omit, and only with it can you avoid the many mistakes which you have made.
I hesitate to suggest that you simply stop making new drawings and stop defending the bad old ones, but I am close to that. Each DR is time consuming. In fairness to you, we have provided long explanations of the problems with many drawings. Each of those explanations takes editor time away from other things. While a couple of editors have suggested that we simply block you in the same way that we would block a persistent copyright violator, I would not support that. But I do suggest that you pick your subjects very carefully, choosing only ones that you thoroughly understand and that are not speculative or innovative in any way.
A suggestion: You have many hand drawn sketches in your gallery. A few of them are in use because nothing better is available, but they don't show off your computer drawing skills. Some of these are worth drawing in your choice of Paint programs. If you would make the effort to post a linked list of them here, I would go through them and comment on which to redraw, which to redraw with changes and which to delete. As an example, I would be happy to work with you to improve your mooring series. They are crude and not quite right and the world could certainly use good drawings showing how it's actually done. Or, another example, File:0 degree wind sailboat coarses.JPG. Aside from the fact that in English it is "course", not "coarse", I don't understand the drawing, but a good polar diagram would be a good thing to have. Or, there's File:Fully closed IC engine cooling system.JPG, a perfectly good drawing (although the pump should be mounted on the engine, I would simplify it by eliminating the clutch, and I would put fins on the exterior pipe), which just needs cleanup. And so forth....
Dear Jim,

The discussion didn't quite answer whether the new graph I proposed would be accepted (the proposal removed allot of own averages, but 1 average remained, and I was uncertain of whether this could be accepted or not). I sense though that this too won't be accepted, so I'll simply leave it at Appropedia.

As for the other image, I do think that it's possible to fix it upon your suggestions; note that the file I mentioned is File:Undershot water wheel schematic.png and not File:Undershot water wheel schematic.svg (this file is btw still in use, despite being removed. I feel that improving it would yield a more understandable image than the svg-file, and it's also more coherent with the other water wheel types. Regardless, I leave the decision to you.

Finally, indeed many of my (older) images are hand-drawn; the reason for this is/was that drawing images by hand is something I rather do because it doesn't require me to sit behind a computer, and in the past I also didn't draw as fast with computer programs, making the whole ordeal even more time consuming. In essence, I draw images not so much because I like doing so, but rather because some articles at wikipedia really need them (and are unclear without them), and if I do it, then atleast it gets done (aldough I don't always attain the same quality as a more professional image creator). Regarding the redrawing of the hand-drawn images, I would definitly not commence on this untill I finish correcting my more recent, still incorrect images. Regarding this, there are some images I still want to finish soon: The first one will probably be correct once I remove the second regenerator (if not state the extra improvements). The file needs to be undeleted first though. For the latter two I am first asking explicit permission to zephyris, and perhaps he can check and upload them. KVDP (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I not qualified to comment on the Stirling engines -- I don't understand them well enough. I tend to agree with those who did comment, however, don't try to draw something that you don't understand -- perhaps you should read my comments above again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags by country

See this edit, now it's ok. I nominated this page for deletion because it was automatically categorized in Category:Flags by country as page, and when you click on it, it automatically redirects you to same category. --Smooth_O (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed the deletion discussion on File:Ramadan_Abdullah_Mohammad_Shallah_3.jpg. Somehow I missed responding. I request that you supply me with the source URL to this image. Reading the nominator's justification I am not confident in their reasoning, and wish to view again the original picture. Geo Swan (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramadan_Abdullah_Mohammad_Shallah_3.jpg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Bridge

Thanks Jim. I was aware of the policy and have been trying to follow it. It appears as though I slipped up here. Sorry. Thank you for fixing it and for your offer of advice. I will endeavor not to make these kinds of errors. Although I'm not new to WP I have not worked all that extensively with Commons until the past few months. I have some pics to download now that the weather is nice. I have been doing a lot of categorization work on the rivers. River pictures get scattered all over the place; one never even knows they are there. Sometimes things change even between sessions. I did get your email but it froze up my system as soon as I tried to access the links. I'm just going to delete it. I accept your judgement, which I am sure is excellent on these matters. Don't hesitate to pick me up on anything else you see wrong. I think the message system is probably going to be adequate for communication; I visit Commons a lot lately. If I have questions I will contact you. It's the old paradox, if one knows enough to have a question one probably knows the answer. Probably not that bad but typically one cannot question what one does not know. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I see you sail a lot. If you are going to tie up it Newburyport Harbor send me a message.Botteville (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
By all means feel free to ask questions. I noted your work on the Rivers of Massachusetts -- keep it up. Note also that I (and most, but not all, people on Wiki) like to keep conversations in one place, so I would have expected a reply on your talk page, because that's where it began.
Newburyport is problematic, thanks. Our current vessel is Fintry, sister to Dornoch, Harlech, and Lamlash. When we go north on Fintry, we go straight from Cape Ann to Cape Elizabeth. My sailing is confined to racing on someone else's boat out of Marblehead.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Received message. Reply where expected. I got to go now. Happy Fourth.Botteville (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GOES234520080893IOA2s.jpg

I don't mean to bug you, but it looks like you forgot to click "delete" on the above DR. Could you please do the honors? Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I check for that by reloading the page every four or five actions -- sometimes the script hiccups...      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Head of Charles subcategory

How are you buddy? I think this one is right up your alley so rather than changing it and possibly going round with you about it I am just dropping it in your lap. Do with it as you see fit. No need to discuss with me about it. I will not look for an answer, other than to see what your solution will be. There's a subcategory under Charles River called Head of Charles. You would expect the pictures there to have been taken in the vicinity of the head of the Charles. Not so. All the pictures without exception were taken in the vicinity of the boathouses opposite Harvard, far downriver from the head. The key to the secret seem to be the "head of Charles regatta" of 2007. I have no idea what that regatta purported to be. There is one picture there from it and it is not at the head of the Charles, which happens to be a little stream in a meadow far to the southwest. In my opinion unless any pictures are to be found of the head of the Charles or anything that might pass for it, or was temporarily labeled it, this is a false category and should be removed. Or, if all the pictures of the aforementioned regatta can actually be identified, then it should should be changed to head of charles regatta and anything not in the regatta dropped from it. Remembering that you feel the categories on these rivers are important enough to contact me about with words such as "rollback" I have decided to let the senior man on Commons handle this personally. If I find any other such administrative matters I will as you suggest not hesitate to communicate. After all, we are all interested in improving the encyclopedia. I presume that, as administrator, you will make the best decision. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First, admins are not God and except when their special rights are needed, have no more power or stronger votes than others, including you.
Second, the Head of the Charles Regatta is a major annual event, run since 1965, the largest two day regatta in the world. If I were you, I would change the category name exactly as you suggest.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Ponte D. Maria Lagos.JPG

  • I didn't knew that I could reupload a file on top of the old one, thank you for that info, I'm sure it will prove itself useful. Thank you very much for your time! Ajpvalente (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Kirko en Kierling.JPG

[8]: Same File under correctly name File:Maria Gugging Kirko.JPG. Bwag (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Hosanna Black top.jpg

Sorry for doing such a pathetic job with that last nom... I know what I'm talking about but did a bad job of communicating. Anyway, are you able to delete this as well, same reason - or does it have to go through the normal process? (Same link, further down the page) PageantUpdater talkcontribs 16:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryal Museums

Yhanks Jim. My intentions were good though.

AdMeskens (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

How are you, buddy. I finally have a question for you. I noticed a plaque photographed by Phelan got deleted as a copyright violation. I'm wondering now what I can photograph. Street signs? Captions on monuments? Public signs? Signs identifying historic buildings? Building numbers? Building identifiers, such as "town hall"? What? How about a guideline or two beyond the 1923 rule? What is a placque anyway? Does it make a difference who erects it? Thanks. By the way I will at some point finish those river categories. I jump around a lot.Botteville (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First, you should know that there is not a solid consensus on this on Commons. There is a more solid consensus on the WP:EN National Register of Historic Places Project. And, like most copyright issues, it is country specific -- since you're in the USA, I'll stick to that.
  • Street signs, simple identifying signs, building names, building numbers, and the like are OK unless they have logos or other potentially copyrightable material.
  • Plaques get trickier. File:GH Bent MIlton MA 02.jpg is OK because, as a National Park Service plaque which was presumably written by an NPS employee, it is in the public domain.
  • But, at Fort Banks Mortar Battery I photographed two similar information plaques and cited them as references, but did not upload them because they were provided by local historical/preservation associations. In general, anything that has writing more complicated than simple identifying information is a problem unless it's Federal.
  • Captions on monuments -- same rule. A gravestone, for example, that has only name, dates, and a word or two is not a problem. But one that has more of an epitaph could be a problem unless the quote is PD-Old. If the monument has a caption that is nothing more than names and dates, it's not a problem.
  • Note that the monument itself has a copyright which must be respected in the USA and many, but by no means all, foreign countries. That's what Freedom of Panorama is about. Sculpture does not have Freedom of Panorama in the USA, so is off limits to Commons unless PD-Old or otherwise. That's why the only works of the American sculptor Alexander Calder that are on Commons are from Germany, Israel, and other FOP-Sculpture countries.
  • Buildings also have a copyright, but in the USA, Freedom of Panorama does apply to buildings, so they are not a problem here.

The Commons references are:

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right it is complicated. I get the general message that I cannot reproduce for public use through a photograph any copyrighted creative work. Most of the things I am interested in appear to be totally public. I assume that if a number of unidentifiable distant humans appear in the photo of a beach I wouldn't have to approach each and every one to ask his or her permission but if someone is close-up and identifiable I would not be able to use that. I presume the town of Newbury's sign identifying lower green is a non-copyrightable public sign. As the signs from Parker River National Wildlife Refuge are federal, I presume that is OK. I suppose a lot of photos might be all right until they are tested in someone's mind. Anyway I will use judgement. I suppose the probability of being wrong increases with the number of photos you upload. Phelan loaded several hundred before someone picked up on the placque. If one really wanted to get ridiculous about this one would not be able to photograph any cities or towns because the buildings in them might not be over 70 years old. I wouldn't be able to photograph Newburyport harbor because the boats wouldn't be 70 years old. Apparently I'm OK on historic houses: they are over 70 years. Well if anyone questions the photo you admins can remove it. I'll understand so we don't need to make a big issue of it unless it appears I don't get something. Thanks for the info.Botteville (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of clarifications:

  • In the USA (and most other countries), it's not 70 years old, it's 70 years pma (post mortem auctoris - after the death of the author) or, in the USA, before 1923. Other things -- no renewal, for example, can make this shorter.
  • Buildings are never a problem in the USA -- Freedom of Panorama applies to them here.
  • People are never a problem in the USA if they are in a public place or can be seen easily from a public place. They can be a problem elsewhere.
  • Boats are an interesting question. Hull designs are certainly subject to copyright, but the current Commons position is that all vehicles are permitted, see Commons:Image casebook#Vehicles.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor note: In the US, 70 years pma only applies to works first published after 1977 whose authors died after 1977, or works first published after 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course. That's one of the many things I covered, perhaps a little too briefly, with "Other things -- no renewal, for example, can make this shorter."      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming page of my personal photogallery

Hello Jim,
thank you for renaming my personal page with photogallery, it's OK. It was Files by User:Midi7 and now, it is User:Midi7/Files by User:Midi7. Could you rename it again? I would like see the name of page for example only User:Midi7/Files or User:Midi7/Images. Names of pages on Czech Wikipedia are in this form. I think it should be done the same. But if it doesn't do this way, it won't be problem. Thaks for your reply and sorry for my bad English. --Midi7 (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your English is a lot better than my Czech -- no apologies are needed here for language -- none of us writes all the languages. Pick whichever you want -- it's no problem -- User:Midi7/Files or User:Midi7/Images or, you could have User:Midi7/Fotografie (that's from a machine, maybe there's a better word in Czech).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think User:Midi7/Fotografie is best name of this page. It is Czech word too. Can you rename it? --Midi7 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  Done Sorry, I should be more careful to be clear -- "Fotografie" came out of a machine translator as the Czech word for "photograph" -- although it is obvious to an English speaker what it means, it's not an English word.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Everythink is OK. Thank you. :) Midi7 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


...for correcting me. I'll be more careful. --Blacklake (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Vincas Mickevičius-Kapsukas en la monumentejo Grūto parkas.JPG

It seems you closed the DR on this as a delete, but the file never got deleted. Oversight?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that I actually deleted the file above or below this and closed the wrong one. I have removed {{delh}} and delf, and added the DR back to the log for June 19.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lighthouses by name

Hi James, we have a problem here. The whole idea of the "by names" categories is that we have a flat list of all names, so with that (approximative) name, we can find out if we have them, we don't make a duplicate, and where they are. In the case of lighthouses, when you are sailing, you don't necessarily know in what country or territory you are (especially in complex situations with many Islands and territories). The Category:Lighthouses by country takes care of deeper geographic categorisation, so the subcategories here are redundant and counterproductive. --Foroa (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but -- Category:Lighthouses by name had, before I started, about 1300 subcats. The ones that start with geographic words -- Point, Cape (and the same in other languages) are sometimes sorted in the category by the main name -- see Cape Campbell Lighthouse and sometimes by the defining name -- see Cape Forchou Lighthouse, so that with 1300 sub-categories in the whole list, it's very hard to find any given entry. So I think that shortening the main list by adding sub cats for the major countries is a good idea, essential in fact.
As for "In the case of lighthouses, when you are sailing, you don't necessarily know in what country or territory you are", I disagree strongly. If you don't know where you are when you're sailing, you're in real trouble and unlikely (I hope) to be referring to Commons to find out. So, I guess, I don't see why we don't obey the usual Commons rules and make sub-cats when a main cat gets too big.
Finally, Category:Lighthouses by country by no means gives you a useful list of the lighthouses by name -- they're spread through subcats and ultimately in File Name order rather than any useful sequence.
Unfortunately, I'm almost done with the alphabet, but I'll stop while we discuss this wherever you would like -- perhaps WP:Project Lighthouses? If, after discussion, the consensus is to do it your way, I'll be happy to do it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: If a category was called "All categories by country" and had thousands of members, would you create subcategories? For example, would you create a subcategory "Music categories by country" to contain all music-related categories by country and remove those from "All categories by country"? What would be a good naming convention to discourage sub-categorization? We're looking for an ideal name for non-hierarchical "flatten" categories. Right now these are "by alphabet" and "by name" which leads to confusion. Rocket000 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about this since yesterday and think there is merit in both approaches -- if we are all OK with breaking the rule at Commons:Overcat, then I think we should have a USA lighthouse in both

I would also suggest that people put both sorts in, as in

  • [[Category:Punta Delgada Lighthouse]] and
  • [[Category:Punta Delgaga Lighthouse|Delgada]]

to make it as easy as possible to find it in the category list. The point, after all, is to make it easy for everyone, not just Commons admins like the three of us, to find things. If our rules, particularly Overcat, get in the way of that, then let's modify them. I suggest we have a new template, similar to {{metacat}}, maybe {{flatcat}}, that told editors that all eligible entries should be in the parent and that it was permitted to create subcats with the entries in both.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone already made {{FlatMetaCat}} ({{flatcat}} would be a good redirect). On en.wp they have something called Distinguished subcategories. Rocket000 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The intention was and still is to have a flat cat, like category:people by name and category:Ships by name. If you subdivide it further per country, then people will further subdivide it, so it will become completely redundant with the others, much worse than overcat. So I better delete it completely to avoid wasting all our time.
But what is important is to use correct sortkeys in it in order to get rid of language dependent things in the name such as point, cape, ... With AutoWikiBrowser (AWB), one can correct all that in a couple of hours. If you want a list per country, province, state, and so, catscan is a very simple solution without having to waste our time with redunadnt structures. --Foroa (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
However, we can make both of them flat categories. For example, both Category:Lighthouses by name and Category:Lighthouses in the United States by name can be treated the same way. Category:Lighthouses in the United States by name itself would not be placed in Category:Lighthouses by name, since it's not a lighthouse. Adding it would imply there's a hierarchy when there's not. I personally think this is category overload and not very useful (there's always catscan if you want a list), but if someone's willing to do the work... I think us maintenance workers are a little too focused on categorizing categories when it's the content that really needs sorting. :) Rocket000 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Good point. I think I take a slightly different point of view -- that what we want is to make it as easy as possible for naive users to find images. Since categories are virtually free, within the limits specified by Commons:Overcat, I would not limit categories, but rather encourage them. Can we agree then that Category:Doubling Point Light should be in:

as well as its others, but not in

If so, I will do an AWB run within the next couple of days, cleaning up my changes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the name question -- Cape, Point, etc. -- both the American and British light lists alphabetize the name as it reads, so we have (from NGA Pub 113)

  • Cabo de Ajo
  • Cabo de Creus
  • Cabo de Formenter
  • Cabo de Gata
  • Cabo de Irta
  • x
  • x
  • Cap Verga
  • Cap Vert
  • Cap-d'Arme
  • Cape Aikaterini
  • Cape Cavallo
  • Cape Columbine
  • x
  • x
  • Cape St. Paul
  • Cape Three Points
  • Capo Bonifati
  • Capo Caccia
  • Capo Carbonara

My preference would be to do it that way -- not sort by the main name. That is consistent with many, but not all atlases and is certainly easier. Alternately, as I suggested above, we could put them in with both sorts.

Finally, there is the language question. Commons policy is that categories are in English, so we have

Should categories for individual lights be the English name of the light? Or the Light List name, which will generally be in the local language in both the British and American Light Lists, see above?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The top level category has to remain flat. In the end, it will contain hundreds of country categories that are completely identical and redundant with the Category:Lighthouses by country categories. You cannot isolate the biggest cats for the big countries and leave the rest in the bunch. --Foroa (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Category:Doubling Point Light should be in both those categories if we want to keep them (I have no objection if you think they may be useful). I consider flat categories to be independent of the main hierarchical tree. So I would also put it in Category:Lighthouses in the United States, or actually in a subcategory of that such as "Lighthouses in <state>". This would make Category:Lighthouses in the United States by name a so-called "distinguished subcategory" as I mention earlier. I also agree with the order as you presented. Keep it simple. As for the language issue, that's a though call and I'm not familiar enough with this area to say. Rocket000 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Foroa: As you know, I don't agree that this is redundant to the by country cats. The by country cats are not, by any means, flat -- the US is by states, the UK by its constituent countries, France partly by provinces, Germany partly by states, etc. So you can't easily find a specific lighthouse by name unless you know more about it than just the name.
So I value the flat cats. I just think that a flat category with 11,000 entries is too large to be useful (11,000 is the number of lighthouses that Rowlett follows). So, I'd like to have -- and I think we have agreed -- a flat category Category:Lighthouses in the United States by name, that will eventually have about 1,000 entries of all the USA lighthouses. There will be similar flat cats for the other major lighthouse countries. And, there will also be the overall Category:Lighthouses by name which as I said above, I think will be less useful with its 11,000 entries.
As you prefer then. I created the oher by name categories as you cannot be selective and need to have a world wide system. One cannot say, some of the names go in a country level cat, others remain at the "lighthouse by name" level. --Foroa (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That way, someone who wants to search for a lighthouse by name but doesn't know what country it is in, can use the big list. I think that's unlikely, but I grant that you may be right. Someone who knows it is in, say, Sweden, can go right to Category:Lighthouses in Sweden by name and find it in a much smaller list.
Rocket000: Yes, of course, Doubling Point is actually in Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places in Maine which is a sub-sub-cat of Lighthouses in the United States.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Lighthouses

I have already stopped. Sorry, I just wanted to help. I didn’t knew you were using a bot. Hope have not disturbed your work. Best regards, --JotaCartas (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Writing to organisations for more information

I've commented here and here at two deletion debates you commented at. I'm thinking of writing to the organisations concerned to get more information. Is it possible to put the discussions on hold until I hear back from them (it would be confusing for them if I pointed them to a deleted image), and are there tips anywhere on what exactly to ask? I found those discussions because I was researching the general situation with modern (or older but not public domain) memorials and as there are several such organisations I'm planning to write to, I was wondering whether people were writing to the organisations concerned to get more information or not? Would you have any advice? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! You will notice that I commented on your comment at one of the DRs -- suggesting exactly what you have just volunteered. The procedure is outlined at Commons:OTRS and we will need either
  • permission from the artist or
  • permission from the foundation with their confirmation that they own the copyright.
Although the latter is possible, it's unlikely, so I would go for the artist if I were you. As for the DR, just put a note on both discussions that you are asking for permission and ask for a delay of a month. They're on my watch list, so if by some chance another admin deletes them, I'll revert it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping that there was a version of that permissions form designed specifically for freedom of panorama concerns. Ideally something that makes the distinction between the photograph and the object being photographed. In particular, phrases like "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws" don't really seem to apply to statues and other three-dimensional works. The issue is that photographs of these works are derivative works. Some artists will want to restrict even that, but some will only be looking to stop three-dimensional copies being made, not to stop photos of their work being freely licensed (and they are not giving people permission to go and modify the statue!). Is that sort of distinction possible? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point. Why don't you raise it at Commons:Village Pump where it will get much broader exposure than here?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing categories

I also noticed that some of the pictures in Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial are probably OK, but will need to be put in a separate category to avoid being deleted when someone gets around to enforcing the tag at the top of the page. Note the comment by SYSS Mouse at the end of this debate. I think it is only the sculptures by Gaylord that are a problem, not general shots, but may have that wrong. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The tag is a warning, not a call to delete every image in the category. As it says, if FOP applies, permission has been obtained, or the image is related to the category but does not include the problematic material, it is OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems misleading to me because Gaylord was the designer of the statues, not the overall memorial designer. It is rather ironic, though, that the inscription on the memorial is "Freedom Is Not Free". What there should be is a category for pictures of the statues (with this tag on it) and a category for the memorial as a whole. The article says "design and construction managed by the Korean War Veterans Memorial Advisory Board and the American Battle Monuments Commission" It is also not clear what should be done with images of the wall part of the memorial: "Behind, to the south, is a 164-foot-long black granite wall, created by Louis Nelson, with photographic images sandblasted into it depicting soldiers, equipment and people involved in the war." Have a look at this article for more on who was involved in the design process. Shall I raise this on the Village Pump as well? I'll do so later today if needed. Some of the sources I've found need to go into the en-wikipedia article. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed {{NoUploads}} because you're right, it applies to a specific artist, not to a collective work such as this. The remaining note covers the subject pretty well. I think the wall is also off limits and the photo of the reflection probably a DW.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I started a village pump section here. I'll do the same for the section above, but let you find that yourself if you want to. Thanks for the advice. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello, James. Can you rename File:Pamje e Preshevës.JPG into File:View of Preševo.JPG, as that is on English, place real name, and it is better? --Tadija (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we now delete empty redirect File:Pamje e Preshevës.JPG, as no articles leading to it? --Tadija (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also   Done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


The fact that there is no article on a Wikipedia is no argument for deletion. We else had to delete 90% of our files. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have to set the standard somewhere. I agree that the discussion at Commons:Scope does not give us good guidelines, but I believe that if a person is not notable enough to have an article on any WP, then I have to question why we have their image on Commons.
He's a 26 year old classical pianist who has not produced a commercial CD -- there is no Amazon listing. His last recital appears to have been in 2008. So, I think, not notable. Do you really disagree?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(Journal des suppressions de page) ; 15:58 . . Jameslwoodward (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « File:Baufle maurice.jpg » (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Baufle_maurice.jpg)

Je souhaite savoir pourquoi l'image de mon oncle à été effacée, cette une image des archives familliales. En attendant votre réponse. Cordialement. BAUFLE Pascal 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ma francais n'est pas bon -- Est-ce que Anglais OK? Francais est possible, mais pas facilement.
All photographs and other works have a copyright. As a general rule in France, the copyright is good for 70 years after the death of the photographer. From the appearance of your uncle, and his election dates, this is a photograph taken around 1935-1940. It is possible, therefore, that if it was taken in 1935 and the photographer died before 1940, that the copyright has expired. It is more likely, however, that the photograph was taken later than that and that the photographer died after 1939 -- seventy years ago. So it probably still has a copyright.
It appears to be a professional photograph, so the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. This is true even though your family has owned a copy of it for many years. So, we cannot have it on Commons unless either:
  • You prove that the photographer died before 1940 or
  • You get a release from the photographer or his heirs. If you think this is possible, I would be happy to tell you how to go about it.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Itasha Tomoyo Sakagami - Clannad.jpg

Can you paste me the upload description? I wan't to upload it to the german wikipedia, since it is legal in germany. --Niabot (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand the situation, but I think the car is in Akiba (Tokyo), Japan. German FOP applies only to things that are in Germany, not things that are in Japan.
If it were the way you would like it, then we should locate the Wikimedia servers in Germany and eliminate all FOP problems for buildings and sculpture everywhere in the world. Unfortunately, that is not the law and if you upload it to WP:DE, you will be infringing.
However, WP:DE is not my concern, so
go to it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
German law doesn't care where the pictures are taken. A german photographer may take pictures in countries that don't have freedom of panorama and can publish them inside germany without any legal problems. Same goes for pictures from people that are living outside germany, but publish it in germany. This is called de:Schutzlandprinzip. --Niabot (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) PS: Same as for chinese journalists, that can avoid chinese copyright restriction, if they upload the image outside china.
I won't argue German law with someone who is fluent in German since I can't read it -- but, if that were the case, then, as I said, Wikimedia would base its servers there. The Berne convention requires countries to honor each others' copyright laws. Thus German law will defer to Japanese law in this case. China is not a good example of anything when it comes to intellectual property rights.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama is an special case in Germany, that allows it to host such images, while other images (personal rights) wouldn't be allowed. Japanese law would not apply, since it would be a process against an german citizen. A much better place would be Switzerland, since it has even more freedom regarding to artistic works and freedom of panorama. --Niabot (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yun Family.jpg

I see you've deleted my uploaded photo Yun Family.jpg. I suggest that the person who made this deletion request was not plausible. Under Korean Copyright Law stated in PD-South Korea, any works that are 50 years after the first publication are in the public domain. This photo was published in 1952. The same applies for the Photo of Syngman Rhee which was published in 1956. The person who made the deletion request did not answer my question in the talk page and only vague reiterated his opinion. I would like to ask why this photo was deleted. Thanks!!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffy123 (talk • contribs) 10:48, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
The deletion request, linked above, describes the reason -- the file is said to be under copyright and the source site requested the deletion. The deletion request was open for a full week and neither you nor anyone else made any suggestion that a keep was appropriate.
I also note that your reading of {{PD-South Korea}} is incorrect. Both the template and Commons:Licensing#South Korea say that copyright in South Korea runs for fifty years after the death of the photographer. The date of publication is important only if the work was anonymous. There is no evidence here that it was.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thompson Maksimir 17.6.2007 2.jpg

I am a bit surprised at your decision to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thompson Maksimir 17.6.2007 2.jpg as delete. Could you cite the policy for your decision to delete – as well as for your decision to close the issue without discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Discussion" is not up to me. I recognize that that many more people will see a deletion than will see the DR, but nonetheless Admins considering closing DRs cannot generate discussion on their own. This DR had been open for eight days and, on the face of it this was a simple choice, with only the nom's comment.

My decision was fairly simple. There was no adverse comment. I have children and grandchildren of my own and know that teens sometimes do things that they will later regret. I felt that these boys should not have to carry this around with them for the rest of their lives. Although we are told by the uploader that they are in a public place, there is no solid evidence of that.

I should, probably, have looked for a talk page note, where I would have seen the notice of the previous DR. In view of that, I am reopening the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of some bad images from my bot

Could you please delete the images listed here User:Diaa abdelmoneim/Images for deletion. The images got uploaded through a mass upload by my bot and are of no educational value or infringe copyrights.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Juliet Landau

The images are low quality; it would be the work of a second to replace them with the high-quality images I have had provided through OTRS after 59 emails worth of work spanning 34 days. Hell, even I'm willing to do it. Is there any way I can get you to consider this appeal should the use on other wikis be altered? Ironholds (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons is a repository for a variety of images, not just glamorous, professional images, but off-hand, informal ones as well -- the kind you will not find at IMDB or celebrity web-sites. I am very reluctant to delete a properly licensed image of a notable subject.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shock Reflection.jpg you wrote "Generally we prefer JPEGs to GIFs, so I have deleted the other of these two identical files."

By identical file did you mean File:Shock-Reflection--jpg.gif and was the image data of the two files bitwise identical?

I suspect the original file was an 8 bit GIF (or possibly an 8 bit TIFF) and the uploader had mistakenly converted it to a JPEG before uploading. I am asking the uploader here if this is the case. The reason I suspect this is that the JPEG losslessly compresses to 33 KB PNG file, or a 40 KB GIF, and that the uploader's webpage has other 8 bit images in the form of PNGs. -84user (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I did no investigation other than what I noted. The file is unused and, I suspect, will never be used, so I didn't spend a lot of time on it. If you'd like to make a suggestion of a better move on this and its sister file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thermal Instabilities..jpg, I'd be happy to do what you suggest.

Hi, the uploader has replied to my query at User talk:Herbert.oertel#Recent deletion requests three days ago and provided clarification in German. The situation is somewhat complicated, but it appears that we should first undelete some of the GIFs (for example File:Shock-Reflection--jpg.gif) and re-examine each deletion request more carefully. Could you do that please?

The uploader's original images were in Encapsulated PostScript which he converted to JPEG, but the conversion failed in some cases. Therefore he wishes the following files to be deleted, saying he will upload them properly converted at a later date (I have fixed a couple of his typos here):

He also requests deletion of these PNGs without categories:

Now, some of the JPGs were marked as duplicates of associated GIFs. My opinion is that the GIFs should have been kept and some of the JPEGs deleted, in accordance with the uploader's original request. My opinion is also that we should wait for the new uploads before deleting any unique images. Because this is complex it would be helpful if a German-speaking admin could help (I can read German but not write anything too complicated or technical in it). -84user (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sri Lanka-CIA WFB Map (2004).png

I undeleted this file because it should have been being used in the 2004 edition of the CIA Factbook on Wikisource. Should a new map be released, it's important that the original still be available on Wikisource. Let me know if you have any concerns. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine -- just a routine deletion of a file that was unused when I deleted it. If we need it, by all means keep it. I'll switch the DR closure.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the offer! Unfortunately, I must decline — I have enough to do at en:wp, and I begin grad school in a week, so I expect soon to have much less time. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The thought occurs to me — I doubt that I would risk being desysopped per the inactivity portion of the de-adminship policy, but I'm sure that I'd perform far fewer admin actions than I do at en:wp. I'd probably only use them when I found them necessary for what I wanted to do, rather than going places such as COM:AN and looking for jobs that needed to be fulfilled. If you think that such a low level of activity would be welcomed in a request for administratorship, feel free to nominate me; I'm not going to make a Shermanesque statement. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Master of Library Science, and going for an M.A. in history as well, at IU-Bloomington; their library school has this very convenient setup with various other graduate programs that enables one to do multiple masters' degrees concurrently with less overall classtime. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with this image?

File:TheMercantile.jpg was deleted because of no evidence of permission. Would you please check to see if it lacked a permissions template or if there were some other problem? Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:KTo288#What am I missing?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that is confusing. Thanks for restoring and for leaving the note. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:NYC UN Gift of Italy.jpg

Regarding this deletion, why can't these images be moved to the English Wikipedia like things are moved to Commons from there? Thanks, Dismas (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Fair use applies, and someone is willing to write the necessary words for it, they could be moved to WP:EN. If you want to do that, please give me a list of the images you want to move and I will undelete them here temporarily.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Spacexdragon.jpg?

I see no reason to delete the image and I found no discussion explaining why it was deleted. --Craigboy (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spacexdragon.jpg is pretty clear -- the image belonged to SpaceX, not NASA and therefore was a copyvio. The deletion request was open for a day longer than the week minimum required and there was no comment except the nominator. If the decision was obviously wrong, then give me a reason here and I'll be happy to undelete it promptly. If the reason is not obvious, or requires discussion, then use Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 07:12, August 22, 2010
It seems to me that there is no evidence that SpaceX has produced the image, further more the image had been posted on the NASA website (with NASA taking credit for the image) for over four years. It looks like the image was taken from a NASA sideshow as the source link provides a similar looking image but with info concerning the RpK proposal. Link --Craigboy (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I just took another look at the image. It has a prominent SpaceX logo in it. I have no reason to believe that NASA would produce an image including the logo of a private company -- much more likely that the took it from SpaceX material. If you still disagree, then go ahead and file an undeletion request, but be prepared to cite a source that clearly states that NASA created the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Останкинская телебашня (Ostankino-Tower).JPG


Closing this deletion request without stating any additional information is bit nasty. All participiants of the discussion share the opinion that this structure is not a work of art. You obviously did not read this. I ask you to re-open this request or state clear reasons why you decided to delete those images. --High Contrast (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you are a native German speaker, I will guess that you are fortunate to live in one of the most enlightened of nations on this subject -- here in the USA, we have only gone halfway (buildings but not sculpture). I don't like the FOP rules (or, rather, lack of them) in France, Iceland, Russia, etc. any more than you do, but we are stuck here with enforcing them.
The arguments made in this case were, roughly:
  • It's not a building -- although primarily built as an antenna tower, it has restaurants, shops, and public spaces, which make it a building. But it doesn't matter. All architecture has a copyright and any large structure is architecture, see see most English language dictionaries including the OED.
  • It's not a work of art. There is no requirement that a copyrighted work be beautiful, or a work of art. The only requirement is originality -- that it not be a copy of something PD.
  • It's not original. Please. The shape, the various detailing, including the multi-legged base (see File:Socle ostankino tower.JPG and the several bulges for restaurants, shops, and services make it unique, and original.
"Cars, locomotives, rockets" and other engineering works don't have copyrights, so this shouldn't. That argument would have been good a hundred years ago. Architecture is a relatively recent addition to the list of things covered by copyright, but it is explicitly covered now in most countries, including the USA and Russia. Cars, locomotives, and rockets aren't.
  • It is a functional structure, therefore not covered by copyright. Most architecture has a specific function. Would you argue that the Vehicle Assembly Building is not architecture? Or the John Hancock Center. The former's only function is putting together Space Shuttles. The latter's function is as residences and offices. There is nothing in the law that says that a structure that functions as a residence is covered by copyright, but a structure that functions as an antenna tower is not.
I am sorry that I offended you by closing the discussion without comment. You're an Admin -- you are surely aware of the growing backlog of DRs and other things needing Admin attention. Unless we can somehow recruit more Admin help, Commons is going to be in serious trouble with a large backlog of images that we should not host. One way we can deal with the backlog is to work quickly -- if I had to put a comment on every DR I closed yesterday morning, I would still be at it today. Some people don't like that -- they think we should offer a comment on every one, but we simply don't have the Admin hours available to do anything like that.
We have not been particularly good about obeying the lack of FOP in several countries, and several of our users are cleaning this up at the moment -- notably in Iceland and Russia. As one of the Admins who does a lot of DR closing, I see the same arguments over and over again, mostly from naive users who have no understanding of FOP or even of copyright. I am afraid that I read this one that way. I should have noted the presence in the debate of a more sophisticated user and spent a little more time with it. You, as a colleague among the most productive of Admins, deserved better. My apologies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the freedom of panorama problem. What I wanted you to do is that you should stated comments on deletion debates especially when most of the discussion participiats see this building as a pure functional one that is not eligible for copyright. Because you are a new admin and fresh in the Commons-business, I wanted to tell you that comments are highly appreciated on deletion requests especially when result is contrary to the discussion. --High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree:
  • I should have made a comment on this DR closing because there was a sophisticated User involved.
  • It would be good if we could make a comment on every DR closing
  • But there simply isn't time, so:
  • Uninformed users will not get a comment most of the time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry but it seems ou forgot "a few" files in this chapter. (expand the list). regards. --JuTa (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done -- Thanks for pointing out my oversight. That takes care of my administrative actions for the next 24 years.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
A little thank you for all the work you've been doing processing deletion requests. I know it can be a thankless job sometimes so I want you to know it is appreciated. I just hope it's awhile before you get burned-out like most of us do from time to time. :)
Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be a mindreader. I've been thinking a fair amount about the fact that we need to recruit more help -- backlogs are growing and I know that if I ever started adding DRs instead of closing them, I could easily create hundreds. That led to thinking about how most Admin tasks are pretty thankless -- and some, like new page/gallery patrol are invisible. We don't seem to hand out as many barnstars here as on WP:EN (I've only given one here) and that that might help, both with burnout and recognition -- for example, look at the numbers here -- you and I are in the top twenty, but the top three amaze me. So, more barnstars are good, and thank you very much for putting one here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion requests

Confused, what do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see what you mean; I hadn't realised that it was possible to do such a thing. Sorry for making all the extra work for you. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Didn't you mean to delete this ;) ? --DieBuche (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katedra Chrystusa Zbawiciela w Moskwie 2.jpg

Sorry to disturb again :) I seems ou forgot to close this DR. regards --JuTa (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's two in one day -- I need to slow down a little.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Jameslwoodward, hello. I'd like to ask a question about the image I nominated for deletion (it's the one with the two Croatian boys wearing neo-Nazi t-shirts). That was nominated for deletion almost a month ago now. Admittedly, I'm new to Wikimedia commons, and I'm not really familiar with how things work here, but that seems like an unusually long time. I was wondering if you could give me some idea of what's likely to happen here and when? Thanks. UserVOBO (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are half a dozen Admins (including me) who routinely go through deletion requests eight or nine days after they are made and close those where there is a clear consensus, which is most of them. Those that are more controversial, such as yours, take longer, up to two or three months, before an admin will make a decision. Since I contributed substantially to the discussion, I am disinclined to close the deletion myself, until a month or so elapses.
By the way, it is helpful when you ask a question like this, if you supply a link to the image in question.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File:The Bronze Killer.jpg

You deleted it, but uploader is author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the author will generally (but not always) own the copyright to the text of a book, he or she will almost never own the copyright to the cover -- that will usually belong to the publisher, or, possibly, the cover designer.
And, by the way, if you had a problem with this DR, why didn't you raise it while the DR was open? Is it possible that you are just trolling my deletion log, looking for deletions you think are problems?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As you probably know, I was blocked. Do you prefer that I make an undeletion request? This cover is basically text only, and not elegible for copyright. You seem more concerned about your deletion log than about illustrating the encyclopedia or the contributions by users. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know you were blocked. My deletion log is very public and I am happy to have it so. If I worried about my deletion log, I would not close DRs and put up with the various reactions that I get, some of which are valid, many of which are not.
As for the book cover, see Commons:Image casebook#Book covers.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant - this is the author, not someone who bought a book. But as you are clearly unwilling, I brought this to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#File:The Bronze Killer.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eu strasbourg b6dn202 1644.jpg

Hi James, thanks for processing so many deletion requests. In that particular case something seems to be wrong: Out of the series one image was kept, but the dr tag is still on the image desc. --Ikiwaner (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Why did you deleted the "UEFA_-_Champions_League.svg"? -- User:Ciuccino 11:58, 5 Sept 2010 (UTC)

As explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:UEFA - Champions League.svg, it is a copyright violation. The trophy, as a sculpture, has a copyright. Therefore a photograph of it is a derivative work. These is no evidence that we have a license permitting us to host the photograph.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  Hello, Jameslwoodward. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/Qazvin Azad University images#Qazvin Azad University images.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Madame Tussauds London


Thank you for clarification about Madame Tussauds London copyright status. I will upload some of the pictures. It make take some time since currently I am not at my home city and away from my archive. I added a note at talk page of category about DR. Btw if you have an idea about the appropriate license template, can you drop a note on my talk page or talk: Category:Madame Tussauds London? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I uploaded some files. The number of usable files was much less than I remembered. As I expected deletion requests started immediately. File:Madame_Tussauds_London_00801_Nevit.jpg --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. I think that the sculptures of lasting figures -- Van Gogh, Einstein -- are more likely to pass a DR than Shrek, who is probably a passing -- on a decades time scale -- thing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

JS Kabylie

Pourquoi as tu enlever des images parfaitements valable des trophées remportés par la Jeunesse sportive de Kabylie que j'ai inclus dans le parcours international du club? ( 19:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

The creator of the trophies owns the copyright in their design. Photographs of them are a derivative work. Without permission from the creator, we can not have them on Commons.
Le créateur des trophées possède le copyright dans leur conception. Les photographies de les sont œuvres dérivée. Sans la permission du créateur, nous ne pouvons pas les avoir sur Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Stamp deletions

You deleted several stamp related images,

but seem to have missed the primary one, File:FRL-4H.jpg, still left on this deletion nomination page. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I didn't actually work on the primary page -- I just closed the other five -- but you're right that it needed to be done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Request

I'm flabbergasted that it not a sufficient reason to delete a picture that was uploaded in error because it was thought to be something that it isn't. This is not a photograph with a bad name. It is a photgraph which is not what it says it is and may not be interesting. In any case, it is also ridiculous to expect me to do futher research in order to justify a photograph that I uploaded in error. I can tell you that the photograph is of a "VOR ground station." I'm not inclined to reasearch what category it belongs in because it is not interesting to me. I would not have uploaded the photgraph had I known it was not really a missile silo. I'm finished with the photo. If Wikimedia Commons wants to keep a photograph that is erroneous then so be it. Suppose I had uploaded a picture I took on the street thinking it was a notable person and identified it as such, but subsequently discovered it couln't possibly be who I thought it was, would I be aked to give it a different name instead of deleting it? Dwight Burdette (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, cool it.... We have many users who put a bad file name on something and then think they have to delete it rather than rename it. They are often happy to know that it can simply be moved. Your notable person example is not applicable -- the antenna is notable and deserves a place on Commons.
I appreciate your telling us what it is. Since we have a number of better images in Category:VHF omnidirectional range, I have acceded to your request and deleted it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Akli11

Pourquoi as tu effacer mes contributions je ne comrpends pas? Expliques et donnes moi une bonne raison? La plupart de ses photographies sont datées de plus de 20ans ce qui signifie que je n'ai pas besoin d'avoir une licence pour les mettre. Tu as bêtement supprimer mon travail et j'aimerais savoir pourquoi! Et parles moi en français s'il te plait, je ne comprends rien à ta requête de plus scaner une image photographiée de plus de 20 ans est parfaitement conforme aux normes de wikicommons. Lis attentivement le réglement de wikicommons et tu comprendras ton erreur. (Akli11 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

He said the same thing to me and I tried to explain it to him, but maybe you'll have more luck. Rocket000 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Rocket000 -- Thanks. I see your French is not even up to my FR-1 (which should really be FR-0.5), but I'll try.
@Akli11: I note on your user page that you speak and write English, so I will start with that, although I will also try in French to honor your request above. My French comes from my university studies, 45 years ago, and it is very weak.
@Akli11: Je note sur User:Akli11 que vous parlez et écrivez l'anglais, donc je commencerai avec cela, bien que j'essaierai aussi en français d'honorer votre demande au-dessus. Mon français vient de mes études d'université, il y a 45 ans, et c'est très faible.
A general rule for copyright is 70 years after the death of the photographer. That is good in most countries. Since a photographer could easily live another 50 years after taking a photograph, even an image that is 120 years old may still be under copyright in most places. All of the images you uploaded were much more recent than that and were apparently simply taken from other places on the Web or scanned from other people's photographs.
Une règle générale pour le copyright est 70 ans après la mort du photographe. Cela est bon dans la plupart des pays. Puisque un photographe pourrait vivre encore 50 ans après avoir pris une photographie, une image qui a 120 ans peut être toujours sous le copyright dans la plupart des pays. Tous les images vous mettez Commons beaucoup plus récentes que qui et simplement ont été apparemment pris des autres lieux sur le Web ou scruté des autres photographies des gens.
I suggest that since you have three different Administrators all telling you that your uploads are unacceptable, that you learn from this, instead of trying to tell us to read the rules. We all make mistakes, but I don't think these deletions are errors.
Je suggère que puisque vous ayez trois Administrateurs différents tous vous disant que vos téléchargements sont inacceptables, que vous apprenez de ceci, au lieu d'essayer de dire nous lire les règles. Nous tous faisons des erreurs, mais je ne pense pas que ces suppressions sont des erreurs.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:RUI T.tif

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you forgot to delete File:RUI T.jpg when you closed the DR. –Tryphon 14:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  Done Thanks. I thought underscore = blank, but I guess not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No you were right, underscore == blank, but look at the extension :) –Tryphon 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Duh. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I see that this deletion request has been closed for some time and I was thinking that perhaps those deletions could be finalized. If you have no objection, can you do it please? Thank you. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  Done I had it on my reminder list for two weeks, but we're almost there, so why not -- thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg

Could you please undelete File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg so that I can fix the license tagging. I have no idea how it was tagged here, but it is plainly {{PD-Canada}} and (and perhaps {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} but that's harder to say). Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  Done See my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My disagreement there is unlikely to surprise you I think. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi, could you delete these files?

Thank you. Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why not just move them to the correct name? If you don't have Filemover rights, I can do that. Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/09/10#File:Kit_left_arm_WHITEII_1112.png DRs all here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I already created new correctly named files, so renaming the old files is no longer necessary. Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello. Can you assist? I was going to upload en:File:Foerster.jpg here, but it tells me that a file of that name was already deleted. Can you tell me if it was the same file? If it was, why was it deleted? I am guessing it will be a different file, but better safe than sorry. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be the same file, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foerster.jpg and the source shown there. The issue appears to turn on who took the photo -- if it was Ignác Šechtl (1840 - 1911), as claimed on en:File:Foerster.jpg, then the image is PD and the deletion was in error. However, the source page claims copyright by Marie Šechtlová. I'll guess that she is just claiming copyright in the digital file -- our policy, as you probably know, is to ignore such claims. If, however, she actually took the picture and died less than 70 years ago, then the deletion was correct.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll reupload. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I can just undelete it, but you'll then have to clarify the copyright issue.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you have a look at File:Foerster.jpg? Czech and Slovak copyright terms are both the usual 70y PMA for "natural people" and 70y post publication for others. The archive site does indeed claim all rights here, but if we're to take the verbiage on the PD-art tag at all seriously there's no issue here. Or so I think, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe think it's OK:

  • that Ignác Šechtl (1840 - 1911) took the photo
  • PD-Art applies
  • Marie Šechtlová is claiming copyright in the digital file, which we don't recognize

The only way it isn't OK is if, in fact, someone who died after 1940 took the photo.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your DR closures

I understand there are many admin actions to be done quickly, but please could You include in the closure summary something more than "Deleted." or "Kept." This especially for discussions that are not in unison with the closure action. It is hard for other users later to agree/disagree with the validity of the closure when no reasoning is given. feydey (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As you say, admins must work quickly -- there are far too few of us and the backlog of DRs is growing. In the last six months there have been approximately 175,000 administrative deletions from Commons, half of which were done by only nine people and 90% by only fifty.
However, you are the second person to make this comment, so I will certainly move further in the direction you suggest, as I tried to do the last time it was made.
I almost never leave a comment if the closure appears to be routine -- a DR that has been open for more than the minimum seven days with no opposing comment. On the other hand, I almost always leave a comment if the deletion has some valid discussion -- with, of course, validity judged by me. In particular, I tend to ignore people who cry out for fair use, or "how do we illustrate this article", or that the lack of FOP is silly and should be ignored. The problem is, of course, that I see hundreds of such comments, and tend, I'm afraid, to lump them together.
I would appreciate it ifyou could point out a half dozen closures where you think I should have made a further comment -- it would be helpful in shaping my policy. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balancedannihilation9.jpg

Thank you for having processed the request. However, you seem to have missed this part:

note: the above also applies to File:Balancedannihilation12.jpg Comte0 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, both files should have been kept or deleted. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  Done - Right you are, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the page for Michael Robert Yeager google it hes real


Did ou just forgot this image in Commons:Deletion requests/Buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson or was it your intention to keep it? regards --JuTa (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete the page

Why have you deleted the page for Michael Robert Yeager he is a real actor do you want to see his sag card

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actingman520 (talk • contribs) 17:15, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary, it was out of scope. Commons is a repository for images and other media, not articles or biographies. A Commons Gallery is a collection of images -- the deleted article had none. Even if the subject had been John Barrymore, the form of the piece condemned it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

three files of sculptures made by Bart Welten

Hi Jim, I noticed that you have deleted 3 pictures of sculptures made by Bart Welten. I want to ask, why did you do this?

  • Vrouw_met_kind_Bart_Welten_(prive_bezit).jpg

This sculpture is owned by my aunt and I have taken this picture with permission of her(also for the publication on Wikipedia)

  • Maria_met_kind_Valkenswaard_Bart_Welten.jpg

This sculpture is owned by a private collector and I have taken this picture myself with permission of the owner(also for publication on Wikipedia)

  • Meisje_met_paraplu_Bart_Welten_foto_Collectie_Regionaal_Archief_Nijmegen,_GN5077.

This sculpture doesn't exist any longer but I have a written permission of the owner of the picture (the collection archive of the city of Nijmegen) that I may use this picture. Do you want to see? I hope that you can help me. For a beginner on wikipedia (like me) it is very difficult to understand to whom I have to turn to with this.

If it matters: Bart Welten was my uncle. He doesn’t live anymore. His children know about and approve my work about him on Wikipedia. Kind regards Joost Tibosch (joosttib)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joosttib (talk • contribs) 10:28, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your good explanation. I am sorry that the nominator and I did not explain the problem more fully. In almost all countries, including the Netherlands, an artist's heirs or assigns have a copyright on his works for seventy years after his death. Therefore, a photograph of a work is a Derivative Work and, if unlicensed, is a copyright infringement. In some countries, including the Netherlands, photographs of some artistic works are permitted under a rule that we call Freedom of Panorama. In many countries that have FOP, again including the Netherlands, the work must be permanently located outdoors in a public place for FOP to apply. FOP did not appear to apply to these images, so I deleted them.
It is important to note that the copyright rarely belongs to the owner of an ordinary work of art -- it almost always belongs to the artist (I should note that different rules apply to commercial art), so your permission from your aunt, the owner, and the city in the three cases is not relevant.
What might solve the problem is the artist's children -- if they are his heirs, they probably own the copyright and, if they do, they can give permission for the work to appear on Commons. Our procedure for that is found at Commons:OTRS. If you do that, I suggest you have them make the permission very broad -- to include all of Bart Welten's work -- because I note that there are other images of his work that may have the same problem, depending on where they are located:
If any of these five are, in fact, permanently located outdoors in a public place, it would be helpful if you would put a note in each of the descriptions where it applies.
Finally, a little housekeeping -- please sign your name, not by typing it out, but by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts on talk pages. It is quicker and easier for you and makes it easier for the reader to find the images in question and look at your other work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I understand the problem now. A little bit stupid that I didn’t think of this. I have got only one question: if the heirs gif permission for a certain picture, does this permission apply for only that specific picture (in the specific resolution)? Joosttib (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They can word the permission any way they feel comfortable, from:
  • "We hereby license the image xxx.jpg as now present on Wikimedia Commons under a CC-BY license"
  • "We hereby license all the work of Bart Welten to which we hold the copyright under a CC-BY license"
or anything in between, or any other acceptable license. If they are receiving royalties from sales of postcards or posters of his works, they may want to be more limited -- if they do not, and do not plan on it, then they might issue a broader permission. They should understand that if they do this, that someone else may publish postcards or posters of the licensed images without any payment to them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion Carnegie

Technically you are 100% right. No FOP in France. This FOP makes it a perfect candidate for fair use in En Wikipedia as, de facto, copyrighted images in no FOP country cannot be reasonably replaced by free/libre images.

Roughly speaking 50% of the pictures under should be deleted immediately and a selection of them reuploaded as fair use into wikipedia for illustration purposes.

A very good example would be for example: Take them from Commons and upload them under fair use in EN Wikipedia.

Instead of just deleting images, is there any automated to way to transfer them back to wikipedia with a fair use tag? I don't understand why the En Wikipedia is redirecting upload from flickr to commons. Apparently the easiest way is to do it manually on a case by case basis. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know -- and I have not investigated -- there is no automatic way to automatically move images that are about to be deleted from Commons onto Wikipedias were they are in use. The only thing we have is a bot that cleans up after the fact by deleting the link. A problem with an automatic move is that, at least in theory, the Fair Use argument must be written separately for each instance where it is used. I would think that this might be something that would interest the Wikpedias whose languages serve countries that have no FOP -- France, Iceland, and Russia are the most active problems that I see. If I were you, I might bring it up at the equivalent of Commons:Village Pump in each of those languages or at the WP equivalents.
This problem is important for any Wikipedia as the picture of a French building has to be taken from French soil. Automatically, all the pictures are copyrighted and not uploadable to Commons. Not only France but also Spain, Belgium and Italy. Take a simple but interesting example:
Victor Horta vs
You could delete them immediately without even asking for consensus as copyright infrigement is blatant.
The removal from Commons without alternative off all the pictures of these UNESCO buildings will break dozens of pages in EN Wikipedia and hundreds across all the Wikipedia.
I understand protecting Commons from law suits is important and that all theses picture should be removed but it should not come at the cost of vacuuming out Wikipedia of valuable encyclopedic content. Could you help me with the Commons Village Pump as I am not really into Commons procedure. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Although protecting Commons from lawsuits is certainly important, more important is to protect our reputation as a reliable source of copyright-free images for the world. Although I sympathize with your desire to protect the integrity of WP articles, Commons is woefully understaffed with volunteers and protecting Commons's integrity must be foremost in the minds of those of us who spend most of our Wiki time here.
Village Pump is a discussion system which has pages in around forty languages, each with a name appropriate to the language. They are all separate -- there is no crossover of content. If you go to Commons:Village Pump and click on a language, it will take you to the appropriate page. Although they are each nominally in the appropriate language, it has been my experience that we are, as a whole, ployglot enough so that a posting in a different language will get attended to.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:SerdechnyG

  1. Any examples, please
  2. Rule, which regulate such procedure
  3. Criteria of flickrwashing

Thanks. -- George Serdechny 05:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained at great length at the captioned DR. You must provide appropriate license information for all files you upload to Commons. This was lacking on all these files. If you think the deletion was incorrect, feel free to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing was explained. I ask you to cite the rules or at least the rules in project, and give the examples of similar situations, solved in such way. Yet I have a doubts about your competence and understanding of Commons guidelines at all. -- George Serdechny 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You are not the author of the files.
  • You have not provided any evidence of permission to use them.
  • The fact that they are on Flickr is not relevant -- Flickr does not check for copyright violations.

There were five editors involved in this DR. Two of them are Administrators. All five are highly experienced editors, with a total of 99,000 edits between them. While any one of us might make a mistake, all five agree that the action was correct. I have no patience for any more discussion. If you think the deletion was unjustified, bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests. If you think I should not be an Administrator, you can bring it up at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I will. In case if you don't provide me with:
  1. Any examples
  2. Rule, which regulate such procedure
  3. Criteria of flickrwashing. How do you know what Flickr does and what it does not? Is it your your own thoughts or what?
    (by the way, e-mail to OTRS was sent few days before you deleted these files - still no answers) -- George Serdechny 21:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey James, can you revert the File:Soap_Detergent_manufacturing.JPG for a day or so? Once I see it's online I can upload a new version of it (which would solve the copyright-stuff). I already have the new file ready so it would only take a minute. Thanks in advance, KVDP (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I don't understand. If you have a new version to upload, just upload it -- there's no reason to see the old one -- or what don't I get?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, if I upload the new version as is, I'd need to take a new filename, and I also lose all previous data (old image: useful as reference), image description and I also need to take a new filename. I rather simply update my previous version but since it's already deleted, it first need to be reinstated.
Seems like I could upload the image under the old filename after all. Sorry about this, uploaded the new image under the old filename. 08:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

KVDP (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I saw you removed this file that was being used in several Dutch and English subjects that were related to several syndromes, like 1q21.1 deletion syndrome, 1q21.1 duplication syndrome and TAR syndrome. The comment in the history said Copyright violation. In my opinion the informationbox with the article stated where the picture originally came from, it stated that the picture had been modified by me. The author of the article has been informed about the fact that the subjects existed and they know that the picture was a part of the subject. In fact, I have contacted all authors doing research on the subject and asked them to help me to make sure that the wikipedia-subject always has the latest information available. Nobody complained at my address about the use of the picture. So, what is the problem? I would like to have the picture back on all subjects. Regards,SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily undeleted the file. It still has a {{speedy}} tag, which I have not removed as it still appears to be an unauthorized copy from a non-free source. Wikimedia Commons does not wait for complaints from authors -- if we see that copyrighted material has been uploaded to Commons, it will be deleted on sight. The procedure for using this file would be to get Commons:OTRS permission from all of the authors of the article from which it came. Without that it will be deleted again. The fact that you modified it is irrelevant -- after your modifications, the image would have two copyrights, that of the original and your own copyright on the changes. While you can license your derivative work to Commons, you cannot license the original on which your work was based.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but the author of the picture and all the authors mentioned in the subjects have been informed of the existence of the subjects by me, in person. Nobody made any objections on my address or anyone elses address. So, it appears that you are the only person who makes a problem of the situation. And for what reason? And how about a little conversation before we start to remove other peoples work on wikipedia and wikicommons. We are all equal around here. And it is not a pleasant situation that some people start to act like they are some sort of a wiki-God. I'd expected that nowadays a philosophy like "some pigs are more equal than other pigs" would only work with Chavez or in countries like North-Korea. I am a reasonable person, you can talk to me. Regards, SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that you do not understand our policy and procedures:

  • According to Commons's deletion policy, clear violations of copyright may get a {{speedy}} tag, which, as the history of the file will show you, was applied by another user, not me.
  • Admins regularly go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and make deletions when they feel they are appropriate. So, in cases like this, two different people have looked at the file and decided that it was a copyvio.
  • In point of fact, it is a copyvio. The fact that no one has complained is completely irrelevant. It is our firm, well established, policy to enforce the applicable copyright rules even if it is highly unlikely that anyone will object. We do this to protect Commons's reputation as a source that the world can depend on for copyright-free images. This image came from a non-free source and does not have permission of its authors. The fact that you have discussed it with the authors does not meet our requirements. As I said above, the procedure is clearly laid out at Commons:OTRS and you must follow that procedure if you want to keep the image on Commons.
  • I should also add that you need to calm down and not make personal attacks -- Administrators are all volunteers. We are all subject to discipline if we act inappropriately, but that is very rare, perhaps two or three times a year. If you believe I am acting like "some sort of a wiki-God", you may bring a formal complaint as described at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. If this image is deleted, as I believe it will be without OTRS permission, you may ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you have put your finger on the right spot: I do not understand your policy and procedures. There is a difference between the Dutch and the English version of Wikipedia that is remarkable. On the Dutch version of Wikipedia a lot of discussion is going on, on the talksites when there is a seperate opinion on items. People notify eachother on seperate opinions. On the English version of Wikipedia things are being changed without any notification towards eachother with policy messages like "Remove primary source, pls see WP:MEDRS and WP:RECENTISM", "sorry, this is a featured article, additions need sources that meet WP:MEDRS, not just wikilinks" or "This follows our manual of style, see Wikipedia:FURTHERREADING". Another issue is that on the Dutch version of Wikipedia people try to help eachother further if there is something wrong, in a way like: " I've changed this/that for that reason. If you need any help on that part let me know. The English wikipedia is more like: This is the link to the procedure, find things out for yourself. Everything is so formally legalized, with numerous procedures and every newby is expected to comply with wiki-law. I do not like the way I am being treated here. I am just a common dad of a family that has two people with one of the rarest syndromes known worldwide, with a total of about 100 recognized patients. I know my way around in the autism/schizophrenia business due to that fact and the specialized items I had to read to understand what was going on within my family. I just want to make sure that parents who have a similair situation know about this problem, because I had to do such an enourmous job to find the right information. I never had a problem with wikipedia while my page was only in Dutch. Problems started when I started to translate the site to English and the wiki-police entered the room. To be frankly, I do not find it funny anymore. I have had my share...SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you also do not, apparently, understand that this is not WP:EN, this is Commons, "a database of 7,469,769 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute." Although English is our lingua franca, you will find people of all nationalities here and all languages -- I am limited to English and a little French, but you will find the latter above. Fifteen Commons Administrators, including two of the most active, are native Dutch speakers.
As for being helpful, maintenance of Commons requires about 30,000 Administrator actions per month. Although we are trying to recruit more, we have only about 260 Administrators. Fifty of us actually do 90% of the actions. Therefore, there is simply not the time to do more than what is required by our policy -- no consultation in advance. That is balanced by an elaborate and deep system of fixing mistakes after the fact, ranging from Commons:Undeletion requests to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard to discussion space in approximately 40 languages --Commons:De Kroeg in Dutch.
You will note, I hope, that while this was, by our rules, an obvious case of copyvio, calling for speedy deletion, you have gotten from me considerable patience and thorough explanations of what is required to keep the image on Commons. I say that not to pat myself on the back, but to illustrate the willingness of most of our administrators to bend over backward to be helpful when required. The criteria for Administrator here are quite different from those on WP:EN, including patience, civility, and a willingness to work with contributors even when language is a barrier.
I am sorry that you do not find this fun -- although I could say that it is not meant to be fun, it certainly should be enjoyable. We must, however, have rules, and our home page motto calls out "7,469,818 freely usable" images. The image that started this is not freely usable -- it is a copyvio. Even after all of this, it is not clear that you or its authors understand that its being hosted on Commons means that it may be copied and modified for commercial use outside of Wikipedia. If it is to remain here, it must have an OTRS permission.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello, can you delete this image again, since it has been re-uploaded as File:MAT 056.jpg by the same user? Ednei amaral (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin H. beat me to it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason to delete

On my user page I have asked why a Scrabble file was deleted. Since you was the one to delete it, I'll better ask you. Please answer in simple English. I will be glad to find the answer on my user talk page. --Knut (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jameslwoodward,
I have cleaned up some IP-nonsense on your talkpage. I hope, that was okay for you. Kind regards, abf «Cabale!» 04:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks -- I tend to be curious about such things, so I took a look at it anyway. I guess I wonder whether it's appropriate to remove stuff from another user's talk page, even if it's just nonsense. If I were not an Admin, I'd have to ask you to show it to me. Also, since it's part of the record of bad stuff from this IP bad guy, I might blank it but not delete it. I don't feel strongly about it, though. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubai FoP deletions


I have reviewed your decisions at File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 3.jpg and File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 2.jpg and I thought your decision was a fair one in what were dead locked deletion requests, hence I do not intend to challenge the results. There are a few other deletion requests on my uploads, two made by myself on FoP concerns and a few others by the same IP which nominated the ones you have just reviewed, so I look forward to those being resolved. CT Cooper · talk 08:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think almost all Admins try to be fair and balanced, but thank you. A subtle point -- DRs are not votes, not even votes with some votes stronger than others, but rather discussions to try to reach the truth. I did not see either of those above as "dead locked" and in both cases one of the people making comments had missed something -- de minimis in one case, and the buildings on the side in the other. You might look at your other images in this series with those things in mind before they come to closure.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with the consensus process on Wikimedia projects. I would hardly call what happened a "discussion", with a one liner copy and paste nomination and me being left to respond on my own. In fact I didn't really have anything to respond to, since the nominator didn't explain what exactly in the image was problematic, and my best guess is the Burj Dubai - not the reason it was deleted. Ironically the one which was deleted was only nominated because I pointed out to the nominator he had missed one. I think the entire issue is a lot less clear cut than is being protrayed, there is a great deal of interpretation that has to be made with de minimis, those buildings inclusion as I see it was incidental, as it was a picture of the marina, and I stand by that position, though I do recognise what is worth pursuing and what isn't, and I have decided in this case that it would be easier just cut out the problematic content. CT Cooper · talk 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User Categories

Back in February 2010, you sent me a message recommending that I make user categories. Unfortunatley, I suck at making them. ----DanTD (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

OK -- can I help? I see you're created two user galleries, which can be better looking and better organized, but aren't as automatic -- your choice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have four. One general, one of New York, one of Florida, and one of stuff that doesn't belong to me that I moved to the commons(User:DanTD/Files Uploaded by DanTD, but created by somebody else). ----DanTD (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you confusing Categories and Galleries? It's an easy mistake and the caption at User:DanTD/Files Uploaded by DanTD, but created by somebody else suggests that you are confusing them. It looks like you want to create, for example:

and perhaps

all three of which could be subcategories of

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)



can you move or rename these files? -> Kit_body_SOUNDERS_10t -> Kit_left_arm_SOUNDERS_10t -> Kit_right_arm_SOUNDERS_10t -> Kit_shorts_SOUNDERS_10t

it would be very nice...thank you. Luxusfrosch (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  Done -- In the future, the best way to get this done quickly is to use the {{rename}} template -- that way any Admin or File Mover will do it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Palm Jumeirah from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg

I thought this discussion may be of some interest to you. This is another UAE building image of mine that I nominated for deletion since I didn't think it would pass de minimis, however to my surprise all the feedback so far has been in favour of keeping the image. I brought up your deletion of File:Burj_Al_Arab_from_Le_Royal_Méridien_Beach_Resort_and_Spa_in_Dubai_3.jpg as an issue since I'm concerned about consistently, and because of this I would like your views on the issue. Do you think that like the deleted image this fails de minimis and should be deleted too, or do you think that this image should be treated differently for some reason and kept? CT Cooper · talk 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my comments have left you unclear about this -- and that, perhaps, my closing the subject as a keep may further confuse the issue. My rule of thumb is that there is a problem if a single building is a significant part of the image, not measured by area covered, but by how important it is to the composition. Ask yourself the question, "If I wiped the building out of the image by cloning the background around it, would it ruin the image?" If you took any single building out of the subject, someone who didn't know the skyline wouldn't miss it. In the case of File:Burj_Al_Arab_from_Le_Royal_Méridien_Beach_Resort_and_Spa_in_Dubai_3.jpg, if you took out the buildings on the right, you'd have an unbalanced image without any center of interest. The only thing left would be a distant Burj Al Arab and the beach, so the image would not be pleasing.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought of it in that case more as if you cropped out all copyrighted material, would you be left with anything useful? The answer in that case was no, but I was happy to be told this was not the way to think of it and have one of my uploads saved as long as it was on solid reasoning, which I what I got in the end. I actually nominated the image for deletion before you ever intervened, so it wasn't anything you did which made be nominate it. In any case, I shall apply what I have learnt from this to future uploads from Dubai. I believe File:Burj_Al_Arab_from_Le_Royal_Méridien_Beach_Resort_and_Spa_in_Dubai_3.jpg cropped would look similar to File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 2.jpg with the centre of interest being on the marina. I will try and it see if I get a good result before uploading anything. Anyway, may I ask for a second opinion on File:Atlantis, The Palm from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg (my nomination) and File:Burj Al Arab from a beach in Dubai.jpg ('s nomination), my opinion on these is delete and keep respectively, and I haven't heard an argument yet which has made me change my position. With File:Atlantis, The Palm from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg, while it is a far out shot, it is still the case that if you took out Atlantis you would be left with nothing much useful, so I believe de minimis doesn't work here. File:Burj Al Arab from a beach in Dubai.jpg is in need of a re-name, but the focus of this image is on the beach with the boat, umbrellas, towel e.t.c. with the Burj Al Arab incidentally in the background, hence de minimis can be applied as if you took out the building as you would be left with an image which is just as useful. CT Cooper · talk 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  Done Not easy and I don't feel strongly about either.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. CT Cooper · talk 12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Please undo this deletion. The photo is an Official White House portrait and is property of the White House, a part of the U.S. Federal Government.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I see no reason to change the deletion, which was based on the facts and reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1stLordStanmore.jpg. The fact that it might be an official White House portrait and property of the Federal Government does not change its copyright status. Only works made by Federal employees are free of copyright.
If you still disagree, please post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter anymore. Someone uploaded it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh? What file name, please?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Église St-Nicolas - Cellefrouin.xcf

Hi, James. I notice that you closed Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Église_St-Nicolas_-_Cellefrouin.xcf as "delete", presumably based on the nominator's claim that it was "Unreadable and unused". However, the deleted file was not unreadable; it was a perfectly fine XCF file, which our file format policy explicitly allows.

Admittedly, since the file had only one layer, I'm not sure why it was uploaded as XCF instead of PNG or TIFF, and one could even argue about whether a lossless version is even needed given that it doesn't seem to provide much value over the JPEG version in this case. But I don't think either of those counts as a proper deletion reason, at least as long as no other lossless version exists.

I'm not really sure what the best way to handle this particular file would be: it could just be undeleted, or perhaps left deleted but a PNG version uploaded instead (with appropriate attribution, of course). Or, really, just leaving it deleted wouldn't be much of a loss. But I thought I should mention this to you, so that you'll know to be more careful of such files in the future. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. Indeed, I took the nom's comment and the fact that I had never heard of an XCF and didn't do my homework. All I can plead is that Admins make around 30,000 administrative actions a month, so we work fairly quickly and take a lot on trust. I saw an undisputed request for delete which sounded reasonable and away it went.
I'll do whatever you think is best, but if there is a duplicate JPEG, that would seem to settle it -- I see no reason to have the image in two formats and I think it will be far more likely to be used as a JPEG. And thanks again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It's hardly surprising that most people don't know what XCF files are — it's an obscure format, we only have about 200 of them, MediaWiki doesn't thumbnail them and most browsers won't show them either. (Actually, it seems Firefox on Linux does display them, which rather surprised me.) Basically, to most people they just look like broken files. I know well how backlogged DR is and how much work it takes to try and keep up with it. It should be me thanking you for doing that work. And, at least, if you ever see another XCF file on DR you'll know what it is. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Since I see in the article that the GIMP developers don't recommend using XCF as an interchange format, we have only 200 of them, and they are mostly not recognized, I wonder if we should outlaw them here?     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
XCF and TIFF are the only layered image formats we allow, and layered TIFF isn't that widely supported either. XCF also supports things like masks, paths and text layers which TIFF doesn't, and which are useful for saving editable versions of images. I think they do fill a useful niche, at least for now. (As an aside, it shouldn't be too hard to implement XCF thumbnailing as a MediaWiki extension. One more thing to do in my copious free time, I guess...) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to poke a dead chicken..

..but I should have been clearer at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Immigrant_familyFinland.JPG about why the image is possibly illegal (in my mind, it is now definitely illegal). The interpretations of the law presented by the users sounded harshly incorrect, but I was too busy to investigate it further back then. Now I did, and it appears that the section of the Penal Code that User:Apalsola and you quoted was the wrong one. The image would not be illegal based on your (and many others') incorrect interpretation of the law, because the image was not contemptuous in nature and you read the wrong section of the Penal Code. The correct section of law in this case is in the same Chapter 24 of the Penal CodeEnglish but Section 6: Illicit observation, and it is pretty unambiguous about legality of this type of a photo:

(1) A person who unlawfully watches or monitors with a technical device

(1) a person in domestic premises, a toilet, a dressing room or another comparable place, or
(2) a person in a building, apartment or fenced yard that is closed to the public, as referred to in section 3, where this violates the person’s privacy, shall be sentenced for illicit observation to a fine or to imprisonment for at most one year.

(2) An attempt is punishable.

Section 3 defines a public premise as:

... a public office, business premises, office, production installation, meeting place, other similar premises or another similar building, or the fenced yard of such a building, a barracks area or another area in the use of the armed forces or frontier guard, where movement is restricted by the decision of the competent authority

I could bet that the image was either from the yard of an apartment house or a kindergarten. An apartment house's yard, even a shared one, could be easily seen as a private domestic premise. A kindergarten is a closed public premise and kindergarten yards are generally fenced. I would be really surprised if this image was not illegal. Why the user wanted to reupload the image to Commons after it was deleted in fi-wiki and still show it around on his user page escapes me; apparently he seems to believe it is okay, but he is reading the wrong section if he thinks so. I will write an explanation to him why it was illegal and hope he will understand. --Hydrox (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As you say, it is a dead issue since I deleted the image. The public/private issue was not raised by anyone in the DR, including you. If we had believed that the people were in a place that was not public, it would have been a very quick delete without any reference to Finnish criminal law -- our own policy requires consent under those circumstances.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


[The following is copied from an e-mail]

Hi, on 24th September 2010, user '99kerob' requested that file D&d.jpg was deleted because it was copyrighted. On 6th October 2010, you deleted it. Why? This is the club emblem of a local amateur football team on the Isle of Man, which was created by the club. This need re inserting onto our Douglas and District Football Club Wikipedia entry now, much to my annoyance. Please explain. Dave Mathieson, Douglas & District FC Secretary and Web Administrator.

[copy ends]

It was not clear from the information provided that the user who uploaded the file had the right to do so -- therefore our holding the file was a violation of its copyright. Generally, uncontested deletion requests that have no other comments are deleted more or less automatically. While this might seem unreasonable to you, note that maintenance of Commons requires about 30,000 administrative actions per month. While we have 265 Administrators, the bulk of the work is done by a small fraction of that number.

If you want it undeleted, please have the owner of the copyright use the procedure at to provide us with permission and let me know on my Commons talk page (where I have copied this) when that is done.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for reopening the discussion and taking time to reply. As there was a french demand of illustrating villages, I took on holyday such pictures. I liked Pieter's postcard argument and I keep it in mind as a practical criterium. I'll do that fronton cropping and file it under another name. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, I had two pictures of the fronton, one with and one without the school. Apparently i uploaded the one I shouldn't have choosen and now uploaded the other one: File:Ledeuix (Pyr-Atl, Fr) fronton.JPG. The lesson has been profitable. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I don't pretend to have certain knowledge of anything, especially when the law is in a language I studied many years ago, so polite discussion is always welcome. Sometimes I learn things. In this case, you pointed out the "notable" in the Licensing article, which probably needs attention. I also like Pieter's postcard argument and will keep it in mind for future FOP DRs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You undid bot's activity. For me, the discussion has had its utility. You may close, now, or later. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. For the record: the postcard argument has originally been used in a dutch parliament discussion. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Buildings under construction and FOP

Hi Jim. I have read your conclusion on deletion requests such as this one. I'm disappointed with two things :

  1. you express your opinion on the matter, fine. But instead of participating in the DR and let someone else arbitrate, you chose to conclude and immediately deleted the file, leaving no place for a debate or at least for someone to prove you could be wrong.
  2. apparently, if I judge by your conclusion, before deleting you didn't take the time to read the DR I was refering to, since you are making the same mistakes as other contributors there. The case of building under construction had been extensively dealt with in this DR and the result of our researches are there. Basically:
    • A building is indeed copyrighted, and long before the first excavation. But this copyright is not infringed by this kind of pictures. Only a similar building, built by someone else with no consent, would infringe it.
    • The visual aspect of the completed building is another type of copyright which is tightly tied to its artistic originality (something that must be proven first, but which I take for granted with skyscrapers in UAE). It is only this copyright that may be infringed by a picture. As long as the final aspect of the building is not clearly apparent, there is no infringement. It is not a matter of pourcentage of completion. See the BK DR for other details.

I have carefully tagged as "delete" a lot of other pictures that were obvious copyvios, according to the lack of FOP in UAE. It's unfortunate you didn't pay much attention to the pictures I tagged as "keep", or at least you that you didn't let the time for a real discussion to take place if you disagree, because those were not so obvious cases, believe me. I won't fight to have them back; I just hope you will be more cautious next time. Thank you anyway for dealing with the DRs, as this is not a grateful task. — Xavier, 22:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a complete, well reasoned, and polite comment -- far too often the subject of FOP raises people's hackles beyond that. I have tried to write my reply to a similar standard. I should also say that since I am arguing against a position you have taken, some of this might feel a little like a personal attack -- I have tried to argue only against the position, but forgive me if I get too close to the person.

(1) You say that I offer an opinion and then give no opportunity to debate that opinion. An Admin's job is to offer an opinion -- the ultimate expression of that opinion is a keep or a delete. By our rules and methods the closing Admin always gets the last word. I simply explained my opinion.

In making that explanation I made a mistake. My first point was that I believed that the subject image showed a significant portion of the final exterior and therefore was a copyvio, even by the standard that says that an image is not an infringement unless the building is complete. I should have left it at that. My comment on the must-be-complete standard was probably ill-advised in that context. My apologies.

(2) As for that standard -- we disagree. First, I need to emphasize that I don't read Arabic, so my comments are based on USA and French law, both of which I think I understand. It is very possible that these do not apply to the UAE, but I don't think anyone has explored that. Since both a prominent Common Law country and a prominent Code country use similar rules, I suspect the UAE law is similar.

I should also say that I have read all of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. This is not the first time it has been cited as a precedent. While much of it is ill-informed, a lot of hard work went into it, not the least of which was yours.

You say,

"Now, the next question is what is copyrighted exactly ? Any expression of a creative work that makes a building unique: the blueprints, the overall shape, the exterior cladding, etc."

A little later you assert,

"It is alleged that those pictures are subject to architecture artwork copyright. Citation needed here. The final building is copyrighted but I see no reason why every stage of its construction would be."

It is these two comments that I find problematic because the whole long argument at the BK DR is based on them. Later in the DR they are quoted as fact, yet, as far as I can tell, they are your opinion.

First, there is nothing in copyright which requires that a work be unique -- only that it not be a copy. This is a vital point. If I put a zillion monkeys to work on keyboards and one of them types out a modern best selling book, word for word, my selling it would not be a violation of copyright. The best example of this is the Phoenix Techologies’ creation of a non-infringing equivalent of the original IBM BIOS -- briefly, Phoenix gathered together a group of talented programmers who had never seen the IBM BIOS and gave them explicit instructions on exactly what the new BIOS had to do. Inevitably the limitations of very small size and strict functional requirements meant that there was substantial similarity between the IBM BIOS and the Phoenix BIOS (I have heard that it was about 90%, but I can’t document that). The resulting code was not a copyright violation and the PC took off, fueled by independent manufacturers.

Or, in the USA, very simple buildings are copyrighted. Architects routinely publish books of plans of houses and other small buildings and enforce their copyright against anyone who builds their buildings without paying their fee. There is very little that is original in any of these -- two of the plan books look very much alike -- but as long as one doesn’t copy another, it has its own copyright.

There is nothing in copyright law that requires that a work be artistic. A child’s scribbles are covered by copyright. So is any writing longer than a very few words. So I have trouble with our colleague’s frequent assertion that simple buildings are not covered by copyright. They certainly are in the USA and, I think, in France (see below).

Finally, look at the law:

Article L112-2: Sont considérés notamment comme oeuvres de l'esprit au sens du présent code:
(1) Les livres, brochures et autres écrits littéraires, artistiques et scientifiques;...
(7) Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie ;
(10) Les oeuvres des arts appliqués;...
(12) Les plans, croquis et ouvrages plastiques relatifs à la géographie, à la topographie, à l'architecture et aux sciences;... [10]
Article L112-2: The following, in particular, shall be considered works of the mind within the meaning of this Code:
(1) books, pamphlets and other literary, artistic and scientific writings;...
(7) works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography;...
(10) works of applied art;...
(12) plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture and science;...

There is no “architecture artwork copyright” -- French copyright covers creations of the mind (“oeuvres de l'esprit”), including all architecture and all works relative to architecture. Not only “exterior architecture”, “unique architecture”, “artistic architecture” or “exterior architecture” -- anything that comes out of an architect’s mind is copyrighted -- interior, exterior, structural design, whatever.

The US law is similar.

I rest my case.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Circa Vitae - Circa Vitae.png

You should have a look at its talk page, now thing are not so clear to me :S ─ GallaecioE logo? 05:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. See my comment there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


new evidence - you are wrong ! the author of the foto served in the danish army. In da.wikipedia he is listed as commander of the Livgard in 1960 read here :

so please restore my file --Gonzosft (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't read Danish, so I am at a disadvantage
  • The image file -- your upload -- says "Author =Unknown".
  • The caption at the source says "Hildesheim", which is in Germany.
  • There is no date, although, since it is a Kriegsmarine radar, it is probably 1935-45.
  • You now claim that the author is a Dane, but there is no such information at the source.
Please tie this together -- how did you find out the author's name? Why do you connect this 1960 man with a WWII photographer? I am willing to listen, but so far you are not very convincing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • the new evidence cannot be edited into the the file desciription, because the file is deleted at the moment.
  • me too cannot read danish, but i am able to use google-translate - you should try it.
  • if you understand so little, why you claim for deletion ?
  • the radar was not established before 1943, they Germans not even dreaming about it in 1935
  • "Hildesheim" is the covered name of this battle station in Danmark. a listing of all battlestations is here : [[[11]] and a map is here [[12]], for those who could read danish
  • in May 1945 the germans just retreated from Danmark. No allied soliders ever liberated it. So only danish Soldiers could document the leftover Hightech of the REICH
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzosft (talk • contribs) 17:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
OK, now you have convinced me -- I have undeleted the file. Please update the source and other information. And, yes, I use google translate, but it certainly cannot be trusted for subtleties -- it gives only a very rough sense of what is being said.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:RT-15 (SS-14).JPEG


As the deleting description you wrote: "that means that the Soviets supplied the image": where is the proof that the soviets supplied the image? Thing like "released" or "released to the public" in this case were never the core of this discussion. The problem was the question if this image can be distributed under a US-Gov licence or not. To overcome this something must be stated that clearly shows that the copyright holder of this image is the soviet union and some US governmental organisation. --High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please! You're an Admin -- you know that the burden of proof is on the uploader, not the Admins. I don't have to prove that the Soviets supplied the image; people wanting to keep it must prove that it is properly licensed.
In American usage, the words "Courtesy of X" almost always mean that X supplied the image for use where found-- it does not say anything at all about the license except that one can assume that X gave permission to use it in that place. So, unless it can be shown that the Soviets gave the US government rights to re-license the image, it is a delete. Remember that the US government publishes many things that have copyrights because they belong to someone else -- the NASA site is full of them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, it seems several things have been understood wrongly. It is right that the person that deletes the image must not prove anything, but if you say this image is "supplied" by the soviets and you use this for your deletion notice, then you have to explain where you have this information from. Because there is no proof for that and you didn't provide any, too. First, the uploader, in this case me, can and has proved that this image is in the public domain (see this argument: ...image is in the public domain: The Security and Privacy Notice (2.) says "Information presented on is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified." The Terms of Use (3.) says "Copyright information can be found in the XMP data area in the data field labeled 'Rights'. The have a final clarification we must contact the US DoD or Secondly, you are right with your argumentetation of what "Courtesy of X" means, but using this argumentation would mean that this image must be kept, because this book called "Soviet Military Power" is a official publication of the US military and it is in the public domain with all its illustrations (can be seen in this pdf file of this publication [on the top of page 2]). I see, that you have confounded "Courtesy of Soviet Military Power" with "a work by the soviets" but it is a work by some US Gov source. --High Contrast (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha. You are correct -- I did not understand the reference to Soviet Military Power. I have looked through the book briefly and I do not find any indication that it is PD -- I remind you again that the US Federal Government, particularly the military, publishes much material that is not PD because it comes from a source outside the government. The NASA web site is the best example we have on the Web. The best example I know on paper is almost all nautical charts published by NIMA (formerly the Defense Mapping Agency), because they are based in part on information from foreign government charts.
I note that the referenced copy of Soviet Military Power is the 1988 edition. The photograph is from the 1984 edition and is not in the illustration list for the 1988 edition -- I cannot find any reference to the SS-14 in the 1988 edition. I also see that a variety of illustrations in the 1988 edition are noted as copyrighted.
I think that another problem we have here is that there is a confusion between copyright status and secrecy status. These words:
"Information presented on is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified"
for me, speak to secrecy status, not copyright status.
So, I think we have a case of "not proven". If you still think you can prove it, please lead me through it, step by step, as I am obviously missing something.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of everything you were talking about above. Forget about the source, it is only the page where the best quality of this file can be found. Sorry for stating the "SMP 1988"-link: here is the correct one, first read page 3 of the pdf-file [lower tenth of side 3] and then page 27 of that page. The image caption refers to no other source, so PD-USGov applies because the remark on page 3 applies then and this means that the SS-14 image comes from any US-source. This is certainly an evidence for this file being in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I agree. It is too bad that the 1984 edition does not have the same kind of list illustrations as the 1988 edition, with individual copyrights called out, but I think your evidence, together with the copyright acknowledgment at the very end of the document (which shows three individuals, none of them obviously a Soviet source) makes it reasonably clear that this is a PD image. I have to wonder, though, where the DoD got it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, they just stole it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
All is fair in love and [cold] war.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Aqui fica registrado o descaso de pessoas que se baseiam os donos da Wiki e tomam decisões arbitrárias e levam ao lixo o trabalho daqueles que só tem uma intenção, contribuir para o crescimento da Wiki. Pessoas como está me fizeram abandonar o projeto após varias e varias contribuições com textos e imagens e digo, que assim como eu, a cada dia a Wiki perde colaboradores por serem vitimas de pessoas sem percepção e dialogo, que pensão serem os todos poderosos. Fico triste, registro aqui a minha insatisfação, pois perdi boa parte de meu tempo neste projeto para que venha uns e do nada acabem com todo ele. Vocês levaram a Wiki a falência por não terem respeito com os outros, cuidem de suas miseráveis vidas e não atrapalhe aqueles que ainda contribuem para o projeto Wiki, porque eu depois desde descaso não o faço mais. Deiwyd (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently a complaint about Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Deiwyd, which a quick review suggests was entirely appropriate. A similar diatribe was left for Herbythyme, Sj, ‎and Wknight94.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) ‎

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mackenzie Cairn.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going through them now. Some will stay, most will not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is illustrator H.Rousseau the painter Henri Rousseau?

Seeing your comment on the artists, is the illustrator-engraver H.Rousseau the same person as the painter Henri Rousseau? I can't find anything about that in the painter's biography or on the web. Greetings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't spend enough time on it -- you're right that we don't really know if it is

You're certainly correct that there is no indication that H.J.E.R. started as an engraver -- quite the opposite.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting search. H.R. and E.Thomas are a duo in Album du Centenaire and also in the Gettyimages; so for those there is identity. Henri Emilien Rousseau (1875-1933) is more probable than the painter, but could he (coming from outside Paris) have been illustrator in Paris in 1887-1889 at age 13 or 14 ?. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Born Cairo, 1875. Good catch. Certainly his parents could have moved to Paris, so that's not a problem. He could have been an apprentice engraver by that age, maybe.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
See also fr:Henri Emilien Rousseau and seasrch. His carreer does not support the hypothesis, although he signs Henri Rousseau. The other Henri J.F. Rousseau he was rather secret about his private live. Born in 1844, he started painting late, in his fourties. At the end of his live he did illustrations for Le Petit Journal, The style of his paintings is precise, as engravings are. But the question is still open. Its answer could be interesting... --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, both of them died before 1940, so for our present question, they are safe. The question is, is there a third H. Rousseau who died after 1939? I would be willing to bet there is not, so I think your book is all safe (except, perhaps, Valnay).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It is D. Valnay, the oldest print I found is dated 1870 [14]. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den Shī shì shí shī shǐ .ogg

Removing this file was done far too hastily. The poem in question is likely not copyrighted due to the fact that the author died long before the concept of copyright existed in China. Even if this argument is later found not to hold, what we have here is clearly fair use and easily fulfils the fair use guidelines. For one reason or another a single user has started to unilaterally remove instances of this poem from Wikipedia without even attempting to discuss the issue. Often those removals have broken articles badly and removed clearly non-infringing content, especially in the non-English Wikipedias. This constitutes vandalism regardless of the intentions of that user. At the moment the status of the poem is being discussed in the article en:Shi shi shi shi shi in the English Wikipedia. 23:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the author died in 1982. That is within the term of copyright in China according to Commons:Licensing#China.
Second, the performance -- the reading -- also has a copyright, which will last for seventy years after the death of the reader.
Third, You claim fair use -- but fair use is not applicable on Commons. We are a repository and, by definition, a fair use rationale cannot be made for a repository -- it is specific to the use to which the work is put. Thus fair use is not a permitted argument on Commons.
Finally, the deletion request was open for a week. The only argument for keeping it was made by the uploader, RicHard-59. You did not enter that discussion (if you are RicHard-59, then you are guilty of sock-puppetry, a serious violation of our rules.) The removal was, therefore, well within our rules and not by any means "far too hastily".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


You're insane. Nothing more. A vandal fighting against creativity. Hugo.arg (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2

Greetings! I hope you consider reopening this deletion request. I think you were a bit hasty in closing it. The only valid argument for deletion was presented by Dcoetzee, but you closed the very next day. You could've given it at least a couple more days so someone could reply. -- Orionisttalk 14:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please. The DR was open for more than six months. During that time you did not make a comment. Dcoetzee did not offer any new argument, just summarized comments previously made by Eusebius, Jeff G., and others. The essence of the problem is that the EU rules forbid commercial use and modification, both of which we require.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand why you're frustrated, but so am I. We discussed the request thoroughly at the village pump here (I might've lost track of where I was discussing, otherwise I would've at least voted!) and I thought the matter was largely settled, I'm surprised it wasn't closed earlier as "keep". The earlier arguments were focused on moral rights, however, Dcoetzee shifted the focus to derivative works, and no one had the chance to comment. The fate of many images is connected to this request, what are a few more days for a six-month wait? -- Orionisttalk 14:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Solely because I believe in rewarding politeness, I've reopened. Make it good.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed! I really appreciate it! -- Orionisttalk 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

When adjusting color

Hi. I've been doing a lot of adjustments to the color and exposure of the earlier photos I took when I began to cover public events, before I learned how to edit photos. When I do this, as here and here for example, is it okay to upload over the original, or is it more like a crop, in that uploading a separate one is needed? (I'd really rather not have the awful versions of so many of my pics right next to the good ones, but wanted to know what you thought.) Nightscream (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in both cases, even if you had not been the original uploader, I would have made the changes over the old version, not in a new file. If I -- not the original uploader -- were making the color correction to Alessandra Torresani, I might have asked you, or dropped a note on your talk page saying that if you didn't like the correction, please just revert it. Consultation is always good -- Commons is a cooperative effort.
Going even further, I think that all of us would give the original uploader more slack in replacing his own original image with an improvement. Although we give up control when upload an image to Commons, we still have some moral rights. With that goes the right to make somewhat more aggressive changes to your own uploads than you might make to someone else's image.
And, BTW, I think you went a little too pink with Torresani -- the original was yellow, but you went too far, in my opinion.
I hope you are aware that each save of a JPEG introduces a generational loss of quality, so in a five step process such as with Kevin Maguire, going from A to E in one step is very much preferable to A > B > C > D > E -- that is one reason we keep all the versions easily accessible.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for creating the sandbox page. I moved it to Commons:Avoid overwriting images with new uploads, with shortcut, COM:OVERWRITE, and tagged with {{Proposed}}. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's good, thank you, but how / where do we get it into the Help/Information structure so that people actually know it's there?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Steel Highway Scans

I've withdrawn the nomination on the category, as indvidual images have proven to meet Commons criteria. However, It would be reasonable for an experienced contributor to work with the uploader to resolve some of the issues that exist with individual images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that initially I thought you had vastly overreached, as my experience with Andy Dingley has been good. As it became clear (without too much research by Mbdortmund and me) that some were OK, but several were not, I began to agree with your tagging all of the images -- as you say, the problem is not with the category, but with some of the images. So, apologies for thinking you were the bad guy here. I have gone through the whole category and added DR tags to ten images. The rest appear to be OK as corporate or unknown photographers and therefore PD-UK-old.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, it doesn't take Admin rights to close a DR or CFD you opened and later want to withdraw without controversy.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Thanks. That said, I often prefer an admin to close on the basis that I don't know how to do the template magic to do a close at the moment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a minor nuisance, but it's not hard, see [[15]]     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Statue of Santa Monica in Santa Monica

I think these pictures can be undeleted, because while the copyright was registered, it wasn't renewed (I've checked years 1961 & 1962 for artworks). Trycatch (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  Done, thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your kind question on my talk page - I have answered it there. Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Pretty much everything on Special:Contributions/Naxoshk has been tagged as no-evidence-of-permission since September 28. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Done Thank you. For cases like this -- blatant copyvio -- that we want to take down as fast as possible, it might have been better to put your note on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. That was a hard job -- I wanted to download about 2/3 to my hard drive.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cofradía del Botillo

Disculpa por no escribir en ingles pero no me defiendo bien en ese idioma.

He observado que se ha borrado una imagen [16] por razones de "autopromoción" y no tener nada que ver con el Botillo ¿?.

En esa imagen (cedida, la imagen original, por la Cofradía del Botillo , de ahí el escaneado)se podía ver al Campeón del Mundo de motociclismo Dani Pedrosa [17] posando con la capa y el sombrero que son distintivos de esa Cofradía.

La Cofradía del Botillo [18], es una asociación cultural y gastronomica que promociona (con el beneplacito del Consejo Regulador del Consejo regulador Botillo de El Bierzo) el Botillo tanto dentro de España como fuera. El resto de las fotos que acompañan ese artículo atestiguan su relevancia social, en ellas aparecen tanto políticos de relevancia nacional en España, como personajes famosos en España que han sido nombrados cofrades (miembros).

No veo muy lógico borrar esa imagen y más cuando en el resumen se relataba quién era la persona que se encontraba en el centro de la imagen (Dani Pedrosa).--FCPB (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[Machine translation:]

It excuses by write not in English but do not I defend me well in that language.

I have observed that an image has been erased [7] by reasons of "autopromoción" and to have nothing to do with the Botillo ¿?.

In that image (yielded, the original image, by the Brotherhood of the Botillo, from there the scanned) the Champion of the World of motorcycling could be seen Dani Pedrosa [8] siing with the layer and the hat that are distinctive of that Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood of the Botillo [3], is a cultural association and gastronomica that promotes (with the beneplacito of the Regulating Counsel of the regulating Counsel Botillo of The Bierzo) the Botillo so much inside Spain as was. The remainder of the photos that accompany that article they testify their social importance, in them they appear so much political of national importance in Spain, as famous personages in Spain that have been named members (member).

I do not see very logical to erase that image and more when in the summary who was related was the person that was found in the center of the image (Dani Pedrosa)

[end of machine translation]

That is all fine, but the photograph is obviously scanned from print media, probably a magazine, and there is no evidence that you have any right to license it here as CC-SA-3. That is also true of the other three images in the series 1, 3, and 4. Unless you have a good explanation, they will have a {{delete}} soon.
If you can provide evidence that you have the rights to these files, please do so here and I will make the necessary corrections.
If you still believe that this deletion was incorrect, you may file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike MCWherter Photo

I am asking since you prevented me from being able to upload this image Mike McWherter that you go and do it for me or quit blocking me from being able to do so. Thanks in advance.IBS101 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find it. There is nothing for IBS101 in the "deleted user contributions log" and my deletions log does not appear to have anything named anything like "Mike McWherter" today. Since your account is new today, I didn't go farther back. If you give me the time, the exact name of the file, or my exact edit comment, or, preferably, all three, I should be able to track it down and give you an explanation -- or a fix, if it's my error. And thank you for the polite request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe you don't get anywhere in life being mean spirited and politeness needs to be mandatory not obligatory. I fixed the problem I had, which was someone uploaded a copyrighted image of him, and they put a block on the file name I was going to use. I just put 2010 to get around the issue, and here's the file if you want to look at it File:Mike McWherter 2010.jpg and File:Mike McWherter 2010 cropped.jpg.IBS101 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many of our new colleagues haven't figured out that polite gets a whole lot more cooperation than rude. Anyway, I'm still not sure how I fit into the McWherter file problem, but no matter, welcome to Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Text logos deletion requests

Hi, I noticed that you kept Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teleca logo.png, and that's all well. However, the image used a self-cc template, which is obviously incorrect. I changed it, but maybe it would be fitting if whoever closed the deletion request with a comment like that changed the faulty licence. Just a comment for the future. /grillo (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. My point of view is that the fact that it is PD-textlogo makes the question of Own Work moot and I prefer to assume good faith and leave the Own Work. The uploader could certainly be the designer of the logo. The fact that it had been kept after a DR is on the talk page. I agree, though, that it might be better for me to have just changed the template. I'll keep it in mind the next time this issue comes up. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that in 99 cases of 100, people who upload logotypes together with a self cc license just choose the first license in the list without reading what it actually means, just to not get the image deleted. Either it's some clueless representative from the company who has been ordered to upload it from a just as clueless boss, or it's some clueless but well meaning user who wants to use the logotype on language versions of Wikipedia that don't utilize fair use (this is very common on Swedish Wikipedia). Therefore, the probability that it's the uploader owns the (non existing...) copyright for it is very low. Of course, since it's in the public domain, you could always argue that it's an own work... Sorry for rambling a bit, I just got to get this out of my head somewhere :) /grillo (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, on third thought, you're probably right. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiastic new user uploading copyvios

DenverLady (talk · contribs) appears to be finding images on the Web and uploading them here as own work. I think she just doesn't quite understand what's appropriate here. I left her a nice note on her enwiki page, but have nominated a couple of images here where I found sources for deletion. I think everything she's done is a copyvio, unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, with maybe one exception. Unfortunately, none of them appear on Tineye, but I've hung DRs on all but one and deleted the speedy. It is frustrating when, as you say, you get an enthusiastic new user who goes to town without understanding the rules, or, perhaps, thinking she can get away with it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Her edits on enwiki show more enthusiasm than care too, but I'm inclined to believe that she can be educated, particularly if she can just go ahead and take some pictures on her own. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted Image -Discussion

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:P.M._Kunhiraman_Nambiar_and_wife.JPG - Can you verify the last comment by me, as this picture is not fitting in Indian copyright law..??--Kalarickan | My Interactions 14:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't completely follow your reasoning in your last comment. My keep was based on:
  • The Indian Copyright law provision for Work for hire which is similar to the US rule. There would need to be an explicit retention of copyright by the photographer, otherwise the uploader's family would own it.
  • The uploader's claim that the negatives were transferred as part of the transaction. Although I don't know Indian practice, wedding photographers in the USA will generally give up all rights for payment of a substantial fee -- now, of course, those are just digital rights, but at the time this was taken, the transfer of the negatives certainly must have included transfer of the copyright -- otherwise no one would be able to make new copies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. I think that an agreement is necessary to claim work for hire (US law's)
  2. As per the absence of an agreement the person who photographed (Focused subject) will hold the copyright (As per the Indian copyright law (Chapter 17, Clause (b)Copyright PDF) and the uploader's claim will come as clause (c) only if clause (b) is not applicable. In this image the 2 persons on the photos are the copyright holders (clause (b)) and will be able to publish after 60 years from their death. So a question of owner is not coming here...Can you verify this and kindly advise if i am wrong.--Kalarickan | My Interactions 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the important point here is that the photographer transferred all of the negatives to the Uploader's family. That very strongly suggests that there was an agreement, written or oral, that the copyright was transferred. Without such a copyright transfer, the parties would be in the ridiculous situation that neither could make additional copies of the wedding photos -- the photographer because he no longer had the negatives and the family because they didn't own the copyright. I'm sure that any court in the USA, given those facts, would agree that the copyright had been transferred to the family. I can't speak to courts in India.
As for your cite above of the Indian Copyright Act at IV 17(b), I think you misunderstand. It provides that the person who hired the photographer, not the subject of the photograph, owns the rights. Since that was the Uploader's family, of whom he is heir, he owns the copyright by that line of reasoning also. As I understand it, the two subject's of the photograph were guests at the wedding -- if that is correct, they have no standing in the copyright at all.
So, assuming the Uploader has correctly described the facts, both lines of reasoning say that he is the owner of the copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
So it means that commons need to believe in uploader's words or some evidences for the same, I have a doubt that whether tomorrows uploader's will start claiming the same indian law for any living/dead persons photograph...and this has been taken by a mobile cam and can think in such a way that, he just captured the image while he was looking some old wedding album...and this is a fair use image..(As long as the same image not available on website, and original copyright owner is not identified with details)..anyway if this image not violates anything its okay to stay there..Kalarickan | My Interactions 08:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
One of our guiding principles is "Assume Good Faith" -- that our editors are honest in their descriptions of images and their creation. There is no way for me to prove that I actually took all of the images that I have uploaded as mine. Certainly there are some abuses of that. But there is no other way.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes! I agree with this...Kalarickan | My Interactions 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Statue images in Brookgreen_Gardens

This may of course turn out to be mild paranoia, hence the direct approach rather than a DR, but I'm not sure some of the statue images are Commons compatible.

As you seem to be a very experienced reviewer of media, I'd appreciate a second opinion before I start filing DR's some might consider overly 'disurptive'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally you shouldn't worry too much about being disruptive unless you do, say, 25 DRs all at once and they turn out bad. I generally will do four or five and then see the reaction before doing too many of anything.
As for these, you're right to be cautious. While the lack of FOP in the USA for sculpture seems very straightforward, our complex changes in copyright law have made it much less so. Another user put {{speedy}} on a number of US sculptures -- they were changed to DR and are being debated as we speak, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Images_of_statues_in_the_United_State.
Take a good look at File:PD-US table.svg which is a pretty good shot at laying it out. Many, perhaps most, sculptors did not put a copyright notice on their work, so it is, therefore, PD. Our best known example may be Category:Alice in Wonderland (Central Park), but there are many more. So, if it is before 1963 without notice and renewal, or before 1977 without notice, it's a keeper. After 1977 it gets even harder, but the registrations and renewals from 1978 to date are on line. And anything after March 2, 1989 has a copyright, so it's a goner. Of course all the usual rules apply to the images themselves.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello Jim, can you please block my account? I have to decrease the time consuming work here , and my understanding of this project is decreasing also. Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but let me understand correctly -- you want me to block so you won't be tempted to log on, or is there some other reason? Do you want me to block both your account and your IP address or just the account? If I do both it will be hard to change your mind, although you could leave me a message on WP:EN. Do you want your talk page blocked or not? For how long? -- Needless to say, I'm sorry to see you go....      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello James. Firstly I beleive you did removed completely those images largely based on comments by others rather than your own research or work. I respect you and wikipedia do not mistake me. Simply I ask, doubting all a user does in wiki can result in termination of itself. When there is no clear proof of whatsoever, no one can come to conclusion what you did is not at all fair. I indeed said that prove me those are violated and against - I accept. But when it was still on board discussion - deleting it altogether is an act of power of administrators. Myself being the uploader has the whole burden in support of what I do. The same applies to administrators when they deal their cases. Since you removed it alltogether you hold the reponsibility. How can you delete it all when there is no evidence to prove it was violated by me. James understand the seriousness here.

This is very bad and unjustified. Please better understand on what basis I say here. I am ready to accept if I made a mistake here. I am giving you all the freedom. I am open. But without any proof, simply by judgement on past/mindset - deleting it all is very very bad. These incidents slowly making me to loose all those good respect I had on wikipedia. Try to reach me James. Dont show me all rules/regulations and try to escape. Do you know as a uploader how much effort and value I/we add to wiki. Simply in One word - Precautionary Principle - you removed the purest work. I am not running away or hiding myself. Prove me; and you take all the right. Without this deleting it has deleted the goodworks by true editors in wiki. Keep in mind. Please re-post it back.

Keyan20 (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no way for us to know, with absolute certainty, the status of any image, so, unfortunately, Commons must rely on the truth of its Users. Generally we do.
Your record is not good, so we look harder. In this DR, in the paragraph under "clarification", you admitted that two out of the five images were not yours. You had claimed them as "own work" when you uploaded them. Yet in the last paragraph, under "Clarification again", you claimed that all five were yours, except for one of the others. So, in one DR, we have
  • a claim that images #1-3 are yours and an admission that #4 and #5 are not
  • a claim that images #2-5 are yours and an admission that #1 is not.
So, which is it. What are we to believe?
You quote the Precautionary Principle at me -- but the Principle says clearly that when in doubt, we must delete.
You also say, "How can you delete it all when there is no evidence to prove it was violated by me" -- as you say earlier, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the images are OK, not on the Admin. On Commons, all images are guilty until proven innocent by the Uploader. I, and others, have trouble believing you. Six people spoke against you in this DR. None spoke for you.
If you still believe this was wrong, please continue the debate at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Maps legends

Hi, i'm making some order in Category:Maps, so i moved this File:Scale from NOAA Chart 13272.png, but i made a mistake in categorize. The right one could be Category:maps legends, but if you find another similar category please, move it by your own. Thanks. --Ciaurlec (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Category:Cartography may be better, but you must be careful. You moved it into

Category:Maps legend which doesn't exist.

You say above:

Category:maps legends which also doesn't exist.

The category is actually:

Category:Map legends

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arzo village church.jpg

I have responded your question about File:Arzo village church.jpg at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arzo village church.jpg Tobyc75 (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you delete the non-free logo uploaded by Extremoduro and Nookone77? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wallpape FCM Bacau - Copia.jpg andCommons:Deletion requests/File:Acm.png. Thanks! Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See also this logo's:File:Real Madrid.png, File:Villarreal CF.gif, File:Valencia CF.jpg, File:Getafe CF.png, File:ฟุตบอลลีกแชมเปี้ยนชิพ.png.Ionutzmovie (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted those above. Commons Admins do about 30,000 deletions per month -- asking for special attention outside of the usual process just slows us down, so no more similar requests, please.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Now that was quick. You had a file of mine deleted there. The user who proposed the deletion commented that I was "well known for his unorthodox material" and the other one called it "personal fantasy", both of which I only read today and found a bit harsh, to be fair. I wasn't aware I had any sort of reputation, let alone that one. It was less surprising to find out that the two users are one and the same guy, whose accounts have since been blocked indefinitely. Now mind you, I didn't find the map very good in the first place and am not sorry to see it gone. But it might be worth having another look at the one-and-a-half chaps and their "joint" deletion requests. Best, Trigaranus (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And whoops again. I did feel that user name was familiar. Well, there you go. Lovely folks around. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who this file was originally uploaded by, but chances are that they were simply involved in a dispute on the English WP with the great Sock extravaganza. Could you do me a favour and reinstate that one? Trigaranus (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have reopened both
for further review. I'd appreciate it if you were to comment at both.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

File deletion requests

Hi, I uploaded some images that do not belong to me a while back. I nominated them for deletion in September but no action was taken. These images are not mine nor am I the copyright holder. --MicroX (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am skeptical -- please tell me the whole story -- where you got them, whose they are, etc. And please respond on Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:MicroX. Thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I responded. --MicroX (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jazmin's photos

Hi I don't know if you recall- you can refresh your memory on my talk page, about a really talented photographer named Jazmin or Jazmillion? Something like that, who I am not sure has a registered account here. It appears so, a name all in red, having never been used. I've uploaded close to 700 images over the years, and his photos are among the very best. I was contacted via email by another person saying that they are assisting him in getting "the ball rolling" here. Since you said you'd be willing to show him around Commons, and sort of mentor him, I thought I'd tell you, since I am going to answer the email, OK? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember the conversation and, yes, of course, I'd be happy to be helpful. If you find out the User Name, let me know -- it was going to be User:Jazminmillion, but that account isn't registered.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waste_fired_power_plant_with_material_recovery.jpg

Hi James, You appearantly deleted File:Waste_fired_power_plant_with_material_recovery.jpg .Given that I uploaded a new version of the file (which had no copyright issues), I was wondering whether you can reinstate it ? It's still important for a few articles, despite that it now contains less information (extra information is now accessible via links instead) KVDP (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just taken another look at it and in my opinion, it is problematic in several ways:
  • It's just an outline drawing of a large industrial building, with no detail specific to its title.
  • You say "The schematic is made from a snapshot of King Humphrey's AEB 3D model", without including that in your source information or giving us any copyright information on it.
  • Your description is not sensible -- how do you do this: "additional waste can be brought to the plant from other areas, or rebuild on a new location" without enormous cost or additional pollution from distant transport.
Take it to Commons:Undeletion requests if you like, but I will oppose it there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the schematic: yes it's not the prettiest of pictures, but then again the model is still being improved (80% finished). I will upload a next version once King Humphrey finished with the new version of the 3D model. Also, additional info regarding it's operation is still available from the links in the description and finally it's mostly meant to simply add some colour to the text of the wikipedia articles, for this its suits perfectly.
I did include the reference and link, and given that all models at google warehouse are open-sourced/free to use, there is no issue regarding the copyright.
regarding the transport issue: if emissionless vehicles (ie electric, ...) are used there really isn't an issue on the supposedly extra pollution from the transport
KVDP (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not the place for further discussion of the image or its politics, but I will say that electric vehicles are by no means free of emissions -- how, after all, is the electricity produced? There are those who believe that an electric vehicle using power from coal fired power plants is only marginally better than a gasoline vehicle. I doubt that we will eliminate coal fired power plants wroldwide in this century.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, You'd closed this as deleted, but I still see the file on and here, could you check please? SpacemanSpiff (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks. Sometimes I forget to hit one of the buttons required by the script that handles DR closures.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I come to Commons only when there are copyvios on and the same ones get moved on here when I delete them there. Can you take a look at Perumalnadar (talk · contribs), Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs) and Hellosooraj (talk · contribs) as they've been warned quite a bit and it doesn't seem to have much of an effect. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't get involved much in controlling bad actors -- most of my time is spent on closing DRs. I note, though, that a couple of my colleagues who do watch out for bad actors have warned these people. If you are still concerned in a month or so, you might put a message on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will do that. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi James. I've found a nice resource for images on Australia's lighthouses, in the National Archive of Australia website. I would like your advice if such images can really be used freely. The website provides a year, so I think {{PD-Australia}} applies. I uploaded two example File:Bay Rock map, 1921.jpg and File:Archer Point plans, section and elevation, color, 1882.jpg. What do you think? --Muhandes (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about Australia except what the template says, but it appears you should be fine with anything prior to 1940 and maybe prior to 1954.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Mukesh Ambani12.jpg

Do you know if an OTRS email has been received for this? THe source website has the copyright tag on and I don't see an OTRS ticket no. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know -- I'm not an OTRS reviewer, so I can't tell any more than you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Beer bottles

This is not a copyright violation. Here the label of a beer is shown. This is not an artistic display. Such labels should be present in a lexicon. Take a Look here Category:Beer bottles --Usien (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not speedy delete them because you are an experienced editor, but I don't think they are within policy. They would certainly be copyvios in the United States and I know of no reason why they are not copyvios in Germany. Depending on what happens with them, we will probably also nominate most of Category:Beer bottles for deletion.

By the way. When you include a category in a message make certain you write:
  • [[:Category:Beer bottles]] (with a : before "Category")
and not
  • [[Category:Beer bottles]]
If you do the second, it will put the message page in the category and not show the link in the message. I have changed yours above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Informationen zu Rechtsfragen im Zusammenhang mit Firmen- und Produktlogos:

--Usien (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

three files of sculptures made by Bart Welten

Hi James, a few weeks ago in [[User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive4#three_files_of_sculptures_made_by_Bart_Welten|your archive 4]] you explained me that I needed permission of the heirs of the artist. I am glad I have those autographs now. The licences i've got are 3 jpegs of the origionals where can I send it to? 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please send them to Be sure to include the following references:
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vrouw met kind Bart Welten (prive bezit).jpg
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria_met_kind_Valkenswaard_Bart_Welten.jpg
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meisje met paraplu Bart Welten foto Collectie Regionaal Archief Nijmegen, GN5077..jpg
OTRS has a backlog, so it will take several weeks, but if they are not undeleted by the middle of December, let me know.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much 21:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I just saw that you deleted this picture. Seems I missed the discussion about the deletion request. Is it possible, that you upload it on German Wikipedia. In Germany we have the de:Schutzlandprinzip, which allows the use of this picture. --Paramecium (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted it temporarily for you to take it to WP:DE.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I uploaded the file at de wiki. Greetings from Germany, --Paramecium (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the quick work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of PD-ineligible

RE. this: Yes, if you look at your edit history, you should see, as I did, that it took you 34 edits to respond. Yeah, I figured a mass DR was easier, but you have experience with 'em; I don't. I hear you when you say takes a lot longer to nominate a Mass DR than half a dozen singles. Thanks. I've just found [19]; didn't before. Seems the permission links do provide evidence of release into the public domain. --Elvey (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


I got refered to you, for a speedy end of deletion discussion of this file. Could you do so please ? Thank you --Gary Dee (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  Done Happy to help. Next time, first just put a {{rename}} on it, rather than a {{delete}}. Second, anyone can close an obvious keep -- it doesn't take an Admin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the deletion tag i put first, and then i saw the rename too late. But i prefer the Admin-way, as i am not that common here. ;) --Gary Dee (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Work of Kurt Aepli

[copied from e-mail -- the writer is User:Robert Ackermann]
Dear James Woodward,

I see a string of photographs of Kurt Aepli's creations have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons November 11 and 12.

This is my first project on Wikipedia, and I am keenly aware that I have a lot to learn in this respect. I therefore appreciate your patience with my limited technical know-how. That said, Mr. Aepli's successor at the School of Arts in Zürich, Switzerland, Mr. Peter Widmer, took months to track down Mr. Aepli's son, carry this material together from his estate and to prepare it for presentation with me.

This article, including its photographs, is an effort of Mr. Widmer and myself to keep Mr. Aepli's legacy alive. I myself was privileged to work with him during his last active years. I am sure you agree that this is about nothing less than cultural history of Zürich and the jewelry trade during the post-war years, which has been the object of envy in much of the world. Mr. Aepli was one of this city's driving creative and educational forces of that period.

How can it be that these photographs could have been tossed just like that?

How can these photographs be reinstated and the contribution be made less vulnerable to such manner of damage?

Your attention advice are much appreciated.

Yours truly,

Robert Ackermann, G.G.

-- This e-mail was sent by Robert Ackermann to Jameslwoodward by the "E-mail user" function at Wikimedia Commons.
[e-mail copy ends]

I am sorry that these images were deleted when they might have been kept. Commons works very hard to ensure that all of its images are free for use and therefore they are all constantly subject to review. You ask, "How can it be that these photographs could have been tossed just like that?"
They were deleted after public deletion requests which lasted a week. You received invitations to participate in the processes on your talk page. It is very understandable that you joined Commons to accomplish this project and have not been watching your talk page since then, but that is the way the process works. The two discussions took place at:
There was no comment against deletion and every reason to do so, namely that they infringed Kurt Aepli's copyright in his work. We had no reason to believe that there was any permission for any of them.
If you had put the comments above into the deletion requests, we would have held the matter until you had followed our procedure for such things, namely that the current owner of the copyright send a permission as shown at Commons:OTRS.
You should probably point out to the copyright owner that such permission will, by our rules, include irrevocable permission to make and sell posters, postcards, and other reproductions of the works worldwide.
Once we have received OTRS permission, they can easily be undeleted. A note will go into each image file showing a reference to the OTRS record and a note will go into each image's talk page showing the deletion request closed as a keep. A subsequent deletion request, while possible, is unlikely, and would not last long unless there were good reason -- evidence of forged permission or something similar.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Léon Silbermann

You did suppress Léon Silbermann as out of scope of the project. This man is the well known author of "Souvenirs de campagne", an unique testimony of a private in the colonial army of France around 1900 (Dahomey, Madagascar, Vietnam, Boxers war). So I did create Category:Léon Silbermann to link his book (DJVU file for Wikisource project) to military in France. I hope to get a picture of him. If yo think it must be destroyed because there is a single image, go to Category:Marcel Bigeard (colonial army of France around 1950) and destroy Bigeard as well. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Galleries#When_to_create_a_gallery clearly says:
"A single image on a page is not a gallery."
Commons is a repository of images. I have no doubt that Silberman is notable, but a gallery is for "a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons". One image -- and that only the cover of a book -- is not a structured and meaningful collection.
Creating the Category, on the other hand, is a good thing, thank you.
The fact that there are other violations of the rule is not relevant. Fifty active Commons Administrators make about 27,000 administrative actions a month and we certainly miss many actions that we should make.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
So, it was not a single image, it was the DJVU book, with display of the Title page. But no matter. If category is OK, Silbermann and his book are now linked where somebody can find it. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. A gallery does not help anyone to find an image -- that is the job of categories.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete help

Hi Jim, can you do one more image upload set delete? They are all uploaded in sequence, listed at:User_talk:Tomruen#Help_batch_deleting. Tomruen (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please double check -- I think that everything there was gone at 13:07 30 November (UTC).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


This is a debate? [[20]] Tomruen (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was open for two weeks -- which is double the required time. We have no mechanism for forcing people to make comments and it's probable that dozens of our editors saw the DR and chose not to make a comment. I think you will find that most Admins tend to close DRs that have no comments other than the nominator if it appears to them to be the right thing to do. That's particularly true when the nominator, Eusebius, is a senior Admin with tens of thousands of such actions under his belt.
The important question is, "Did we miss something?" -- should I take a special look at something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The communication failure was that I uploaded files to, and I think a bot moved to commons, so I had no watch there. Scondly there are about 50 such animations uploading (collected here: en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_solar_eclipses/SEAnimations), so deleting one without consideration for all is rather inefficient, although it got my attention! Lastly, I have some email contact with the author awhile back. If better permission is needed, then that should be attempted! Basically I saw some were uploaded, and I uploaded the rest and copied their licensing option. Tomruen (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So, if you can get him to give permission -- see Commons:OTRS -- we can easily undelete. If not, maybe you should tag the rest with {{delete}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
When I get around to it, I'll try to find the communication from a while ago, or as a second approach contact Fred Espenak from NASA and see if he has current contact. Tomruen (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Language of Love deletions

Re: this. Thank you again for your neutral assistance on this! I would appreciate having the date that those two photos were taken and the name of the photographer. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Both images say:
  • Author = Emil Eikner for Southerly Clubs
  • Date = 2008-12
Note that that is the date shown in the description of the photos -- it is the same as the upload date, so it is possible that the uploader put the wrong date in the field.
Thank you for your polite acceptance of my bad news -- it is rare that an undeletion request, particularly one that had some friction in its history -- ends with such a polite response.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you sir for this very encouraging reply. Your kindness is greatly appreciated, especially with continuing new retaliation going on against me of this kind.
If someone would try to help Kuiper and me stay away from each other's work permamently, as I have asked officially, I would be very grateful. I'm sure other neutral editors can help me correct any errors I might make, or the Southerly Clubs might have made, without this constant, sickening persecution nightmare with Kuiper having to go on and on forever. Please let me explain that I have never once initiated any complaint about any of his work! I have only reacted when he has attacked mine or Southerly Clubs's for various more-or-less valid reasons, always with sarcasm, ridicule and personal insults from him leveled at me or other Southerly Clubs people. Truly yours, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
While Pieter Kuiper is not my favorite person by any means, he does do a great deal of good work. I agree with him about 95% of the time, which is about average for active editors. His attitude, however, leaves something to be desired. Without defending Kuiper, I have to say that when editors find problems with one of an editor's uploads, we will often look at all of the editor's work and mark other problems also. This can feel like persecution, but I'm sure you can see the logic of it. In this case I think Kuiper's tagging it with a DR was correct -- as he points out, the description falls short -- it is not just a Super-8 clip. Your explanation in the DR is good, and if you had included that information in the original description, you might have avoided the DR.
Kuiper has been blocked for his behavior from time to time, so he knows there are limits. Within those limits, I am afraid you must just put up with him. If he goes outside of them, several Admins will take notice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, sir, but he just leveled an atrocious ethnic slur at a German user and repeated that he meant just that, but not one administrator took notice, that I can see. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Where? (Please try to always give links as it saves a lot of time.)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Thought you were aware of this discussion which is so disturbing in so many ways. I lost sleep over it last night and will probably do so again tonight (Stockholm time). SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We're both a little behind the time -- Kuiper has been blocked for a month.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was blocked - but only for a few minutes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sir, please tell me if I am way out of line here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all out of line, but perhaps quixotic.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Catégorie: tag cloud script

comment créer cette categorie ainsi que Catégorie: art? --Jeandefoix (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Pas OK:

  • Catégorie:X
  • Catégorie:art
  • Catégorie:Art

Les catégories de Commons sont dans l'anglais, voyez Commons:Categories#Category_names.

Aussi, les noms de catégories commencent avec une majuscule:

  • OK -- Category:Art
  • Pas OK -- Category:art

Enfin, je ne comprends pas "tag cloud script". Qu'est que c'est?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Whowiki's work

Can you take a look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Concerned_about_Badzil_and_Whowiki please? I see you are deleting some of Whowiki's images and I have some concerns about that. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it an hour ago, undeleted one of the images to look at the issue and then deleted it again -- it is typical when an Admin looks at a deleted image that he or she will redelete it until a consensus is reached. It appears that Turelio actually deleted almost all of them.
Although your description --that a change in license is not permitted -- makes a strong case for undeleting them, both his comments and the wide variety of notable people suggests that these might not actually be Whowiki's images. They may not have been properly {{speedy}}, but they would probably be a delete after a DR. Best thing is probably to take the whole list to Commons:Undeletion requests and see. Here's the list as I see it.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest I don't care about the individual images, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't an editor flouncing and throwing a hissy fit, asking for all their content as I have seen some do on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Functional groups.jpg

I'd like to know how an in-use file is out of scope. You deleted the file referencing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Functional groups.jpg but specified nothing besides "deleted". Why was it deleted? I did not upload the file, but as an administrator on one of the sites using the file I could possibly have turned the content into text or LaTeX markup had I known the file was to be deleted. This is why I am continually frustrated that CommonsTicker is not functional. Now the book that was using that image is missing content. The books states "see image below" and I can not see the image to replicate it. – Adrignola talk 15:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it temporarily so that you can copy it. It is out of scope because Commons does not host images that consist solely of text that could and should be set in type, see Commons:Scope#Must_be_a_media_file.
"Wikimedia Commons hosts only media files such as photographs, scanned images, diagrams, animations, audio (e.g. music, spoken dialogue) and video clips, along with any associated metadata. Explanatory and other text is permitted on the file page only to the extent to which it advances Commons' aims and is not excluded educational content....
The following are not considered media files, and may not be hosted here:
  • Files which are representative merely of raw text (e.g. ASCII files, raw source code listings as mentioned above, etc)...."
Although our policy is that media files are automatically in scope if in use on another project, that policy does not extend to files such as this, see Commons:Scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project:
"A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like." [emphasis added]
As for my lack of comment, the nominator's comment was complete and correct. Ten Commons Admins make more than 16,000 administrative actions a month and are not keeping up with the work -- we do not add comments to straightforward deletions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the file. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi. As i checked a wrong spelling of Rigde instead of Ridge, see http://here here, there a several ones. Now, i would like to rename the Files correctly. Can you advise me please, how to do that ? Thanks -- Gary Dee (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It takes an editor with Filemover rights to rename a file -- you're a little new to Commons for that. You can just add the template {{rename|newname.jpg|reason for renaming}} to the file to request it. In this case, I've done
The other misspellings are in the descriptions and you can change those.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember someone telling me a while ago that it is possible to rename things on my own, but as you say, he probably did not know that i was kind of new. Anyway, thanks once more ;) --Gary Dee (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IPM Images

Earlier today I uploaded some images that were not permitted. This image is from the same source as some of them but the permission is different. I think it is OK to upload, but I'm just checking before doing so.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Image Use:(?) You must attribute the work in the manner specified (but not in any way that suggests endorsement).
Image Citation:(?) Florida Division of Plant Industry Archive, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. If I remember correctly, the five that I did not tag all had CC-BY-3 (which is CC shorthand for "Creative Commons Attribution Version 3.0"), which is fine -- it is actually less restrictive than the CC-BY-SA that Commons uses generally -- including all of your text contributions. "SA" adds the requirement that users share alike. "NC" -- non commercial and "ND" -- no derivatives -- are the troublemakers. Although Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses is not exhaustive, it's a good place to start looking when you run across a license you don't recognize. You might find this a little clearer, although it covers only the CC licenses.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I am not quite sure about the sense or the missuse of this file, as it is listed in several Illinois countys. Maybe that person, want to bee seen, and has a complex ?? Maybe you see a better sense in it (I mean there is an article of him as a personality, but what are these Cats in all those countys should be good for ??) :) THX --Gary Dee (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking back in the history often helps with questions like this -- the counties were added by a bot -- I don't know why -- and I have removed them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Jöpp, thanks ;) --Gary Dee (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Steel Highway scans

Thanks for your even-handedness in all this. I'm sorry to see them go, but if the authors are identifiable and dateable, then I guess it has to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I'm a railfan myself, so it was just a matter of doing what our rules say we must, and no more.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Procopius of Caesarea

I'm going to upload a small series of books by Procopius of Caesarea, and I'd like to create a gallery of files into that page... no matter, but I'll presume, I was not so wrong. I know that there's the excellent alternative of a page into Creator: namespace, but I thoght that a Procopius of Caesarea page could be a good intermediate step. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 12:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies -- apparently you got got caught in the middle of doing something that was OK. We see around one hundred new pages created every day and about 80% of them are out of scope, often short biographies like yours. There are three things you can do to avoid this problem:
  • Put a short note on the top, such as {{Inprogress}} which adds this:  In progress
  • Do all the work using "Show preview" and don't click on "Save" until it is an OK page
  • Do all the work in User:Alex_brollo/Sandbox or a similar user subpage and copy it when done.
Since there are several active New Page Patrollers, just telling me won't solve the problem.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions. I'll be happy to let all from you work efficiently. I'll build again the page after my uploads, and I'll post just a brie mention of author's biography and a good link. Really Commons is a complex project, I'm so happy about slow speed of wikisource! And I'd to study more Commons features and conventions... but time is always lacking. :-( --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember how much text was on the page -- if it would help, I can undelete the page and move it to User:Alex_brollo/Sandbox if you wish -- just ask.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bureau of Prisons Photos

I feel that you are making a serious mistake regarding the US Bureau of Prison photographs. I spoke at length with the person responsible for processing requests and permissions for use of BOP photographs. She said that some were taken by Federal employees in the course of their duties and others were taken by contractors. I sent her a list of the BOP photos in commons and she promised to research them individually, but she has not gotten back to me yet. The general inquiry email posted by KimChee is not reliable. The photo is in the public domain only if it was taken by a federal employee. Some photos on the website fit into that category and others do not. Please look at {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}, because we can't represent that the conditions of that template have been met, this is not presumptively a public domain work. (Please see the discussion at en.wikipedia) Thanks, 23:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I take Administrator action on around 1,200 files a month. While I remember having acted on a couple of mug shots, I don't remember any details, so I'd appreciate it if you would provide a link to the specific situation which you would like me to look at.
With that in mind, I do not remember taking any general action on prison photos. Certainly what you say above is perfectly correct -- that {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} is applicable only to images where, as it says, we know that a Federal employee took the photo in the course of his or her work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
But here when we contacted the BOP headquarters employee with specific responsibiity for responding to photo inquiries from the public, she said that she did not know if the photos were taken by DOJ employees or contractors and would check on individual photos for us. A list was sent in November and we have not yet received the answer. The BOP's website is unclear, and the response forwarded to you by KimChee from assumes the answer without knowing if they were taken by contractors. Having read that email, I wrote back to and asked for clarification, and they said that they have forwarded my inquiry to the Public Affairs office for a more detailed response. The photos in question were of prison buildings which could easily have been taken by contractors in the course of preparing construction reports. 13:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. You are quite correct, see my reopen of the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You are a gentleman and a scholar. 14:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jim, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MindMap_of_InformationSecurity_by_HollidayConsulting.svg. However it is unclear to me what you mean by 4 pixels high. Of course you cannot read it in the preview image on the file description page - but if you view it in full by clicking on it you can, can't you? I would like to understand what is wrong here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the original version, which ServCogni-HC replaced at my suggestion, when I called up the image as a PNG at the maximum Commons size -- 2000 pixels wide -- and then copied that into a paint program so I could look at it in detail, the type face was four pixels high. Hence my comment that it was, in that form, unusable on Commons.
With that said, I cannot reproduce the problem now, so I am not as certain as I was of it. I'm in the middle of a major system upgrade and am working with a new copy of Firefox, so my view options may have changed, or I could have screwed up. So perhaps there was a problem, perhaps not. If not, I wasted some colleague time, for which I apologize. In any case, ServCogni-HC thinks the later version is better, so maybe some good came out of it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jim, oh - that explains it. The 2000 px wide rendering is an arbitrary choice by our current Commons setup. I watched at the original image (the svg) in Firefox which you can do by clicking on the preview image. Then the font is clearly legible.
However, no need to apologize, you made (except this one and the "no text" thing) good points which are fixed now. Thanks for your explanation (2000 px) since I now understand what you meant. Cheers and merry christmas! --Saibo (Δ) 01:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jim, can you please delete my previous versions?! (I've / had no more time) Happy Holidays and Happy New Year your both! --Perhelion (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't usually delete previous versions fromt the file history unless there is something in them that we don't want non-Admins seeing. Remember that this doesn't save disck space -- we save them in any case -- "delete" just means non-Admins can't see them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

* * * :) * * *

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! I wish You all the best in New year!
--George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedro Rosello.jpg

The problem is, that the opinion was not about images from government websites but that the opinion was only about paintings hanging on the walls of the capitol. This is not such a painting. --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks. I rolled back my closure.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

please enlighten, Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vuur_5elementen_van_bastien.jpg#File:Vuur_5elementen_van_bastien.jpg

to prevent double posts: [[21]]

Missed a file to delete

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poster13.jpg, but missed deleting File:WPEditor.png, its derivative that was also nominated. Fences and windows (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help; made a stupid mistake

Can you help me? I just uploaded a photo of a musician, BUT, there were two problems I've noticed. First, it bears a watermark- can you remove those things? The other is worse! I uploaded the photo with the wrong person's name as the file name. Her REAL name should be Brandi Carlile, not "Belinds Carlilei". See: [22] which I messed up. Can you help to fix that? Please do answer on my talk page? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ponte Vdera

Hi. Once more me :D . Could you please rename this File from PonteVderaStream.jpg into PonteVedraStream.jpg please. The name is not written right. THX --Gary Dee (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done Two things, neither of them very important. First, rather than asking an Admin, just put {{rename}} on the file and a File Mover can do it in a stream of things, rather than as a one-shot.

Second, when you give a link to a file, please use

  • [[:File:PonteVedraStream.jpg]]

rather than

  • [ File].

The first way is shorter, but, more important, the way you used includes the language ("uselang=de") so that the page comes in your German, not my English. One of the good things about Commons is that each of us can work with the system in his own language, but we need to allow that to work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to remember next time. By the way, i aint german, i am american & luxemburish (dual citizenship), but can get along with german pretty well. --Gary Dee (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but given that the link was in German and your home page is on the German wiki, I made an assumption. I did not say that you were German. "Your German" speaks only of the language, just as "my English" does not make me an Englishman.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Jep. ;) --Gary Dee (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Galleries versus Categories

[the following is copied from an e-mail exchange]
Hi Jim,

I'm new in Wikimedia Commons and I have a few questions. I have thousand of pictures of animals already identified and I would like to post them in the proper place/species. For the time being I posted just a few of them but I doubt of some mistake.

I dont find the pictures that I posted in:

Pages in "name of picture" (where appear many pictures on same subject)

I find the picture that I posted only in:

Categories in "name of picture"

Thank you for your help. Ettore Balocchi

First, it's always better to communicate by putting a message on someone's talk page rather than by e-mail. Reasons are that the information is then available for others and that it's easier to reference a Commons or Wiki page. E-mail is generally reserved for communications that you want to keep private. Note that if you put a note on my talk page, I will respond there, rather than on your talk page. This keeps conversations in one place and makes them easy to read. It does mean, though, that you will have to keep my talk page on your Watchlist for a while. The easiest way to ensure that is to go to My Preference > Watchlist > and click on "Add pages I edit to my watchlist".
Now for your question. Commons has both Categories and Galleries.
"Category:Rome" is the category for Rome. Note that by policy, category names related to places are in English rather than the local language. It will contain, directly or indirectly, all the images that are related to Rome, provided of course, that each of them has the appropriate Category tag. The images will appear in alphabetical order by the name of the file, and, in large subject, like Rome, most of the images will be in subcats.
On the other hand, the Gallery "Rome" is actually a redirect to a Gallery named "Roma" -- policy encourages Galleries to be in the local language. The gallery is created by hand, one image at a time, by various editors. Each image there has been selected by an editor and placed in an appropriate section. The sections are also created, one at a time, by editors who think they are necessary. A Gallery is much like an article in Wikipedia, except that its emphasis is on the images, not the text.
For large subjects, like a city, both are useful. Categories give a place and search tree for all the images we have, but are actually a nuisance to use because you may have to search down many subcats before finding what you want. Galleries, on the other hand, show only a selection of images, but make it much easier to find an image or two of most important subjects.
In some subjects, the gallery and the category will have much overlap, in others the gallery will be a small subset of the category. And, of course, galleries are not mandatory, while categories are. [end of copied e-mail]
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler image question

Hi Jim, I noticed your recent closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hitler meets with Franco in Hendaye 1940.jpg but I don't feel like the copyright status was clearly resolved and you gave no reason. Can you provide some more explanation? It is of course 2011 now so the original nominator's reason for deletion is moot. Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I closed it as a delete because you, among others, pointed out that it could not be PD until today. I generally don't give reasons for obvious deletes and this one was pretty obvious -- since it was taken in 1940, it could not be PD last year. Whether it is PD now is another question.
Because of that question, I'm going to reopen the DR.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, I didn't notice you deleted it 11 November - I thought you deleted it just now because of an edit by User:AFBorchert. My mistake! Dcoetzee (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm confused -- I don't see User:AFBorchert in the history of the file or the DR. And Happy New Year, BTW.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, looks good now - Happy New Year. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jameslwoodward/Archive1".