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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

This archive covers 2011


Copyright question

Hello Jim, a happy new year to you!

Am I able to upload to Commons a cartoon from a book, Die Fusarien, by Wollenweber and Reinking, published in 1935? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And one to you, as well. That's not an easy question. Where was the book published?
  • If in the USA, if the copyright was renewed, it is still in force.
  • If in the EU and most, but not all, other countries, it depends on the death of the author of the cartoon -- copyright continues until seventy years after his or her death.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
In the EU, Berlin to be precise.
Wollenweber, H.W. and Reinking, O.A. 1935. Die Fusarien, ihre Beschreibung, Schadwirkung und Bekampfung. P. Parey, Berlin.
I don't know who drew the cartoon, but very likely they have not been dead for 70 years. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, you could argue that the cartoon is anonymous --if the original book does not give credit to anyone and you can shown that it was not drawn by the authors of the book, then since it is seventy years after the creation of the cartoon, it is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. That might pass a DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PEO pics

Can we consolidate these deletion request as one please? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I don't consolidate unless there are more than five images with the same DR -- that's about the point at which the significant extra work for the nominator balance the easier time for the persons discussing it and the closer. In this case there are two from one source and one from another.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There are many more that I have uploaded. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Now I understand. I appreciate your pointing it out. We can either let the DR we have go to closure and deal with the others later, or, if you prefer, you can add DR tags pointing to the DR with the same source to all the other files and we can discuss all of them at once.
I may be missing something about PEO Soldier, but on the face of it, this Flickr user marks his uploads "(C) All rights reserved" and there is no indication there that it is any sort of US Government site -- there are several Flickr accounts that are DOD and other agencies, but they are not "All rights reserved" and they say who they are.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Program Executive Office PEO Soldier is the government agency responsible for selecting contractors for equipment for military personnel. I don't know why they label their images All rights reserved but the media always publishes these images as public domain. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I see the web site and the link from there to the Flickr account. I'll also stipulate that many, maybe all, of the images on the Flickr site were taken by Army personnel. That leaves us, though, with a source that is clearly marked "(C) All rights reserved)". Since many government sites do not do a good job of distinguishing between images taken by Federal employees and by others, I can't just wave my hands and tell you the question is going to go away -- even if I delete the DR, someone else is going to find the same issue and raise it.
I suggest you get in touch with the people running the site and point out that their images and message can have much broader distribution if they change the Flickr rights to those appropriate to Federal images. That's logical and they ought to do it. Of course, what the Army ought to do and what it will do in a reasonable time can be two different things.
On the home front, I'll change my comments a little on the DR and see if we can get a dialogue going so we come to the logical conclusion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eletrobras logos


You deleted File:Eletrobras.png, but not others: [1]. Do you intend to delete them? Yann (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They're all a by different uploader, so I created Commons:Deletion requests/Eletrobras logos and tagged the lot.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Associació Guiatge Valenciá.png

Hi, thank you for handling the deletions on the specious Scout emblem tagging. The uploader uploaded one more, but I want your thoughts. I retagged it with threshold as simple geometrics, what do you think?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The "how simple is simple" question is hard, but I think this qualifies if anything does. Let's leave it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks and good night! And Happy New Year!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)



If you have the right to delete files from wikimedia commons please delete all my stuff, you have tagged for delition, immediately. Your supposition that I'm using these pages for selling my art is so ridiculous that I don't want to stay here even for a minute. My intention, sir, was to share the things I'm making with people who might like them. I live in isolation and have no chance to undergo museums' approval, and I don't care about it, but I'd like people to know my art and to use it freely. Some have alredy done it thanks to my presence on wikimedia commons. Now I want it to be immediately over.

Thank you very much in advance for removing all the traces of my presence here as quickly as possible. 4 Jan. 2011

Zygmunt Kubasiak

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygzak (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that we and our rules have given offense. Commons is a repository of images and other media files that are realistically useful for an educational purpose. Therefore, art and photographs which do not meet that standard are not hosted here. I am sorry that I erred in suggesting that you were trying to sell your art here, but, nonetheless, the fact that your art is not widely known probably makes it ineligible. We make the same decision on a regular basis with respect to little known rock bands, family photographs, and others.
As you are aware, there was a discussion open so that the community could decide whether to keep your work or not. Between the time of your message above and my seeing it now that discussion has concluded and the work has been deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jon S. von Tetzchner.jpg

Definitly in project scope, but I doubt own work -- Common Good (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lee35.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll photographs

Many photographs of Xie Kitchin taken by Lewis Carroll were published in 1980 by the Lewis Carroll Society and the Argosy Book Store, New York, in LEWIS CARROLL & THE KITCHINS, with a forward by Morton Cohen. This would seem to affect the copyright granted in 2002 and allow them to be published here. 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the book's copyright was registered, registration number TX0000604646 / 1980-12-05, it falls in the same box in File:PD-US table.svg as the 2002 publications. It is still the later of 70 years pma or December 31, 2047.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garça-azul-grande.jpeg

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, if you want the closing Admin to include additional images in a single DR, you should add {{delete}} to every image file and do the research -- not leave it up to the closer. File:Preguiça-anã.jpeg was in use, but as it turns out, came from a "(c) all rights reserved" file on Flickr.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard T. Cole

Hello Jim,

I am currently interning for Mr. Cole and he asked me to create a Wikipedia page for him. I have not created a page yet and like to do things with trial and error. The photo that I have been using was given to me by him to use. I would appreciate any advice that you have given me. I have not created a Wikipedia page yet and I feel that any progress that I makes gets deleted as soon as I make it. I think I have the answer and someone tells me that I do not.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by GRuskowski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerard: Thank you for asking rather than blundering ahead. I'll try to provide some guidance, in no particular order.

  • Please sign all your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That will add your signature and a time stamp. You may customize your signature at My preferences at the top of each page.
  • I think you know this, but Commons and the English Wikipedia (WP:EN) are separate parts of the Wikimedia project -- Commons is an image repository and WP:EN is an encyclopedia. User pages, talk pages, and other pages are separate.
  • Creating new pages may best be done on a User Subpage. This would typically be a page, either on Commons or on WP:EN, that was a subpage of your user page. Your user pages, which you have not yet created, would be User:GRuskowski in each place. A subpage might be User:GRuskowski/Sandbox and can be created without creating the parent user page. You could create the bio there and get comments from others before moving or copying it to the appropriate page in WP:EN mainspace. This is a good way to develop articles that are more than a few lines.
  • Commons Galleries, such as Michigan State University are for collection of images of a single subject. While there may be captions and a few lines of introductory text, gallery pages are largely images and not articles, which is what prompted my deletion of the page you created here on Commons.
  • You should know that the community generally frowns on people writing articles on themselves, either directly, or, as in this case, by proxy. While there are certainly people who deserve articles who do not yet have them, generally we prefer to have independent people write them, not the subjects or their staff. I do not know whether Mr. Cole qualifies for space on WP:EN, but your article will get a close look and I suspect it will ultimately be deleted. In writing it, follow the guides linked above carefully and be sure to document every fact with external, independent references such as newspaper articles. I note in passing that while the president of MSU, Lou Anna Simon has a short WP:EN article, the Provost does not. Also, the current president of Detroit Medical Center, Michael Duggan, does not. The absence of articles on people who were senior to Mr. Cole's positions suggests that his positions do not qualify him for an article, but that is only suggestive, not definitive.
  • File:Richard T. Cole.jpeg -- as I said in my note to you, this is apparently a professional photograph of Cole. While he may own one or more copies of the photograph, the photographer almost certainly owns the copyright to it -- very few professional photographers in the United States give up copyright. I note also that it appears on an MSU page that has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom. Therefore, in order to host it here, we will need to know who actually took it and, probably, receive a license from the photographer via our Commons:OTRS system. If it turns out that the photographer was working for the University (as suggested by their claiming copyright to it), then we will also need an OTRS release from the University. If you find the photographer and he or she indicates a willingness to provide a license via OTRS, please let me know with a note here -- I can undelete the image and add the tag {{OTRS pending}} so that you can use it in the interim.

If you have more questions, or if I haven't been clear, please feel free to put another note here. I am afraid that Professor Cole has given you an assignment that will prove difficult. WP:EN has a tendency to protect itself against those who would use its space to advertise themselves. This is most often small rock bands, but there are others as well. Cole is in the middle ground -- neither obviously a candidate for an article, nor obviously not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your input. While I am new to creating pages I find it very interesting. I will do my best to correct all of the issues that have been mentioned on the page. I do believe that Dr. Cole is deserving of a Wikipedia page. As I have already posted he has accomplished much for the people of Michigan and given his life to public service. Being the Chief of Staff for one of Michigan's governors, running one of Michigan's largest insurance companies, and being leading professor at MSU. I realize that not all professors at MSU have a Wikipedia page, but many do. Category:Michigan State University faculty

Thanks again, GRuskowski (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


First, don't blank talk pages -- even your own. They are a necessary history of all sorts of things. You certainly can't blank mine.

Second, as a general rule, when you want to refer to a category on a page, use

  • [[:Category:Michigan State University faculty]]

with the extra colon at the beginning, not

  • [[Category:Michigan State University faculty]]

The first one creates a link -- Category:Michigan State University faculty -- while the second adds the page (in this case, my talk page) to the category.

If, as in this case, you are referring to a WP:EN category on a Commons page, you must use

The extra colon is not needed because you can't add a Commons page to a WP:EN category.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DR - File:The Lost World (1925) - film poster.jpg

Could You go over this request again. I don't see a rationale to delete. Thanks, feydey (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs everywhere thank You! feydey (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to see from which articles the CommonsDelinker removed the image? feydey (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is tool (it's linked from User:CommonsDelinker page): [2]. I've reverted all the delinker's edits. Trycatch (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Trycatch -- I would have had to say, "I don't know".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing my (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Help desk

thanks for answering my question in the help desk. I have post a new one there, in order to keep everything together.
I’d appreciate it if you’d answer this too.
thanks again Entropy1963 (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed content

Hi Jim. I didn't actually "remove" the comments, rather archived the entire sections and started fresh, as discussed here. The older version just confused people, so I removed all extras and just posted the basic proposal: to rename some fields in the deletion menus... The older proposal can be found here. It would be nice though, if you could remove the mentioning of the old proposal, purely to reduce confusion... Also, just for your information, I have changed the order/wording of the list according to the facts provided by you... Sorry if I did anything wrong... Rehman 12:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see absolutely no benefit in your changes -- as I have said, they will simply slow down my work. I think you miss two points:
  • that this list serves many uses other than the speedy deletion of media files
  • that the DR closing script only supports the deletion of media files, so all deletions of non-file material come off the "General" section of the drop down. From that section, you have removed:
  1. Out of scope
  2. Orphaned or obsolete redirect
  3. User intended to create a category, but did not use "Category:" as the prefix
  4. Empty gallery
  5. Housekeeping and other non-controversial cleanup
  6. Page is promotional
  7. Author requested deletion or blanked page
  8. Canceled deletion request (e.g. accidentally nominated)
and perhaps others.
As for removing/archiving material, it is not our usual practice in the middle of a discussion to remove a large chunk of it, whether archived or not. I was fairly careful to be neutral in my description of your action -- I could well have ascribed bad motives to you -- after all, you removed negative comments from three very active Admins.
Finally, I say again to you, come back with this again in six months or a year. You're an active Admin, which I certainly appreciate, we need all the help we can get -- extrapolating from your beginning puts you in the top ten -- but please spend some more time in the role, doing all the different activities that are part of it, before you propose a change that is opposed by several other very active Admins and supported by none of them. I'd really rather spend my time working on our long DR backlog than fighting off proposals that don't have solid experience behind them.
And, by the way, as it says at the top of this page and suggests in my sig, I prefer to be called "Jim".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I guess thats was a quite bad move; am still learning, sorry. Anyways, coming to the topic, in your above list:
  • 1 - changed the proposal to add this
  • 2 - already exists in General7
  • 3 - merged with General5
  • 4 - merged with General1
  • 5 - for easy understanding of the creator/reader, this has been split into being any one in the "General", so that they may know what exaclty was the non-controversial housekeeping.
  • 6 - merged with General1 (may need rephrasing though)
  • 7 - merged with General4
  • 8 - merged with General1
And as I explained in this edit, yes, this is not just for speedy deletions, instead for the full drop-down menu.
The "General" section would be displayed when clicking "delete" on any namespace, while the others are just for specific namespaces...
--Rehman 14:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted -- I note that I'm not the only one who objected. You do say, though "am still learning, sorry". Why not, please, take some time to understand all the Admin uses of this list and then reintroduce the question. For example, housekeeping doesn't need more explanation -- it should be obvious from looking at the diffs, and you can always add a comment in the second box -- my major objection is that you're adding lines, and therefore slowing me down, for low probability events that can be easily explained in the second box. As I note in my list, housekeeping is 28 out of 1,400 actions. And so forth.
BTW, my wife and had the privilege of spending a week in Galle in the Spring of 1998. We toured as far north as Sigiriya -- I wish we could have stayed longer, but when you're sailing, your schedule is constrained by seasonal weather.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take your advice; will let the discussion go as it is now, and if it fails (most probably), will come back in a few months with a cleaner proposal, with a nice table, and nothing relating to any past discussion so no one gets confused. Like I said to Dschwen in my last comment at the noticeboard, I really really genuinely think this is uncontroversial; the modifying of existing lines. Perhaps we could simple modify the existing lines and discuss any larger changes (removal/adding) later? If that's ok, I can provide a list of what should be changed, and then you could see if it alright?
I didn't migrate to Sri Lanka until 2001, but from what I heard (and saw in pictures), back then things were really green, unlike the current polluted state. At present, only the national parks and reserves remain ultra gorgeous. If you like scenic landscapes and are interested in hiking along with free wild animals (Leopards, ect), I suggest you visit Horton Plains and it's hidden trail to Kirigalpotha, those are the best IMO. The Kirigalpotha trail is basically a 14km hike through this forest to the mountain's summit in the far background, and back, via another route. :) Rehman 00:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Per this, could you have a peek at this summary when you get the time? Thanks! Rehman 13:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, again. While I've got your attention, please take a look at my note at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#series_of_copyrighted_uploads. I think it is likely that Cavic is the photographer, so your delete of File:Erving Lipofsky.jpg was premature -- I just fell into the same assumption and deleted two of them before figuring out that there couldn't be so many prominent copyvios here and undeleted them.
Second, I applaud your comparison at User:Rehman/Proposals/Deletion criteria -- makes it very clear that while we differ, it is only by a little -- less than I thought. I ask though, could we have at least a week or two before you take any action? There's only so much time for working on Commons and discussions like this take part of it. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries, will wait for a week or two, thanks for going through. :) Per File:Erving Lipofsky.jpg, I have restored my wrongful deletion. Kind regards. Rehman 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lost World

Hi, since The Lost World apparently is PD, we can upload clips from it here, or what? FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Lost World (1925) - film poster.jpg didn't say anything about the movie, just that the poster was PD-no-notice. Or am I missing something?     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the copyright on the movie wasn't renewed: [3], so it should be fine. Trycatch (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my edit comment should have said, "I don't know" or something like it. My only point was that the poster decision didn't affect the movie.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, didn't see that it wasn't you who kept the film stills from the movie. Is there any policy against uploading entire films to Commons? I don't think I've found any here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know. There's a file size limit, although I can't find it. And, of course, someone has to do a conversion to OGG from a source that is PD -- I also don't know whether a digital remaster of the film would get a new copyright. I could argue that it should not, as there is no creativity in a remaster, but I'm sure the source would argue otherwise.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the size limit is 100 mb (I've tried uploading such files), but a film could just be split up in several parts if necessary. I've done that with other videos before[4], and copyright shouldn't be an issue with the version here: FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm not sure we should start archiving movies -- a lot of disk space. But, more to the point, the source site is clearly not free -- they have several restrictions on the use of their material, so we'd have to depend on the assertion that the version of the film found there is PD. As I said above, I don't know about that. I wouldn't hang a {{delete}} on it, nor vote for delete in the discussion, but I wouldn't vote to keep either. Of course movies aren't my thing, so I'm really the wrong person to ask.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask in licensing if I ever get the urge. But in any case, if the film is PD, any claim of the website is irrelevant, just like when museums claim they own the copyright of PD-old paintings and animal specimens for example. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The work involved in digitizing and remastering an old movie is considerable more than that of photographing a painting. The Corel case applied only to stills -- I don't think there's any case law on movies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that version is the 60 minute version, not the restored 90 minute version. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Double Cat

Is this ok having 2 Categorys, see Category:Chick-Fil-A & Category:Chick-fil-A ? -- Gary Dee (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, good catch. Since the corporate name is "Chick-fil-A" I have taken care of it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gary Dee (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurooppa Germaanit 50 n Chr.svg

Hi, Jim. Thanks for the kind words in this edit, but please note that username JeffG does not exist here (although that username on English Wikipedia has six edits).   — Jeff G. ツ 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies -- I complain about people calling me "James" and then don't get yours right, Jeff. Space and dot noted for future reference.
While I have your attention, I meant to drop a note on your talk page this morning. In closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:JAS39_Gripen.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leopard2A4.jpg, I wondered if you don't have a basic misunderstanding of copyright.
A copyright protects the creator of the work from the work being copied without permission. It does not protect the creator from the work being created anew by a third party who has had no exposure to the original -- such a work would have its own copyright and would not infringe on the original.
Of course, such things are very rare, and the reasonable presumption is always that an identical work was copied, not created anew. The two cases above, however, are examples of legitimate new creations. The best case I know, which I mentioned in one of the DRs, is Phoenix Technologies creation of an indenpendent IBM PC BIOS. (since I see at User:Jeff G./IP Address conflict that you're computer-friendly, I won't spare the tech-talk.)
They took two teams. The first team studied the BIOS in every detail and its Technical Reference Manual and created a specification of exactly what it must do -- function, entry points, all the device drivers, the whole nine yards. The second team, called publicly the "clean team" and privately the "BIOS virgins" had never seen the IBM BIOS or worked with it in any way. They took the first team's work product and created a new BIOS. Inevitably, given that IBM had packed the functionality into the minimum possible ROM (5x8kB chips), there was a great deal of overlap between the two sets of code -- I've heard 80%, but never seen an official number. Since it was clearly not an infringement, as far as I know, IBM didn't even try to bring an action against Phoenix.
I've done much the same thing on occasion, with ships, not planes. With two good orthogonal photographs (PD or taken by me), I can vectorize them, drop them into AutoCAD, scale them, and then do the cleanup and come up with a good looking 3D drawing that is completely free of copyright. (OK, for a whole ship it's more than two photos and a lot more work -- but the idea is the same.)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all of that, which appears to boil down to "If you're reverse-engineering a utilitarian object to generate a file on Wikimedia Commons, you don't need to show your source or your work". I notice that you did not weigh in on Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/01#RFC:_Derivative_works_claimed_as_own_work_without_sources - do you have an opinion on it? Same question re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. Also, you have "James" in your username; if that's not what you want, Commons:Changing username is thataway →.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I am always a little nervous when I offer the kind of thing above -- how will it be taken? So, thank you for taking it as meant.
Your summary is correct, but the rule also means that if you put a million monkeys to work on a million typewriters and one of them turns out Hard Day's Night, music and lyrics, then you can publish it without infringing on the Beatles' copyright -- assuming the monkey wasn't a Beatles fan. As a practical matter, of course, if it looks like plagiarism, it almost certainly is, but there are exceptions, particularly in areas like portraits.
I hadn't seen the two submarines. The first is the same issue we're discussing here and therefore not a problem. Dimensions for something widely known don't need to be referenced -- I've probably got five paper references for the dimensions of the ''Los Angeles'' class. Note that WP:EN, usually a stickler for references, doesn't cite a reference for the dimensions of the class. The Tango might be more of a problem -- of course the photo would need to be licensed, but does the model have a copyright? I don't know. It has always seemed to me strange that a full set of engineering drawings of an object would certainly have a copyright, but a model of it might not. I'll take a closer look there.
As for my name, I've got something North of 25,000 edits as Jameslwoodward, which is my legal name. It has the advantage of identifying me more closely. The question has come up before -- I own User:Jim Woodward
Also see a question below, please.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conna Castle.jpg

You know, I've been thinking recently that maybe we should do an RfA for you -- goodness knows, we could use the help -- and then you take a swipe at me such as this one and the thought goes away.

I certainly might have handled it differently, but note that she originally uploaded the image for use on her WP:EN user page which has been deleted for advertising.

Even without that background, though, if I had the same thought, I'd probably drop a note on the Admin's talk page, or even send him/her an e-mail. Serious editors don't need to take swipes at each other in public.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I heard some admins complaining about nasty emails or IRC comments they get because such habits (oddly from other admins ..).
Personally, I think one should be able to accept criticsm on site, for activities on this website. If you can't accept comments in deletion requests, maybe you shouldn't initiate them.
BTW An OTRS tag is still needed per Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary (notably point 2), how shall we proceed now? You already removed the relevant tag. --  Docu  at 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I moved the above from my user page as I'm not sure if you had seen my reply. --  Docu  at 08:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, maybe we'll disagree. I always think it is more effective to try to change people's behavior in private than in public. What a person should do and what real people actually do are, regrettably, two different things, and they tend to accept criticism in private better than in public.
As for the OTRS, we "assume good faith". I think, given Glenrua66's assertion that she is Lorna Macdonald, the photographer, and the history on WP:EN, that it is safe to assume that they are the same. Certainly if she had originally uploaded the picture with only one name -- either one -- we would not have looked twice at a claim of "own work". OTRS is only needed when the copyright holder is a third party.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Good faith is more about people's intentions rather than what they are actually meant to do. You might want to read Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary in detail. the notice on her talk page even reads "This also applies if you are the author yourself.".
BTW to some extent, it's even frowned upon if coordination of editing is done offsite rather than onsite. (at least at WP).
Re-reading your comment on Commons:Help_desk#File:Conna_Castle.jpg it looks at least like you changed your mind. --  Docu  at 08:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:AK Antony 2.jpg

Should this be deleted? The license tag on Flickr appears to be in conflict with our guidelines. And for my education, should such images be nominated for deletion discussions or as copyvios (or neither)? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your friendly talkpage stalker: Deleted the image as its source (Flickr) clearly shows that the image is not in a free licence (non-commercial use only). Rehman 09:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Rehman. Our being 10:30 out of sync leads to faster action.
SpacemanSpiff, if you find a file whose source is NC or ND on Flickr, it doesn't need discussion in a Deletion Request -- you can put {{copyvio}} on it and an Admin will take care of it. Note carefully, though, that Flickr licenses can change. If the file has a note or tag that says it was reviewed (by a bot or a human editor) on such and such a date and on that date had an acceptable license, then it is OK, even though the license is no longer acceptable. You can add {{Flickr-change-of-license}} to it, which may help protect it from unnecessary DRs or speedies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. In this particular case, I had some doubts because of the way the flickr note was phrased and I haven't come across something like that before. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vijay Kumar Singh.jpg

Wrong button? Geagea (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. How did you find the full size image? I looked with Tineye and on Google images under the subject's name, but didn't find it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Tineye must not have visited as thumbnailed and linked by S Asia should collectively tackle terrorism threat: Army chief « THE DEFENSE OF SOUTH ASIA.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't answer my question -- I need a teaching moment -- how did Geagea and Jeff find the cited image, if not with Tineye and Google?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late answer. Well if you check the link I provided you can see the answer. I serch for Chief of Staff of the India (little mistake in English). He is the current Chief of Staff of India. Geagea (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes and I add blue color also. her. Geagea (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess Google is not quite as smart as I thought -- I assumed that it could do that -- given the name, it would give me an image that went by the title. Or, maybe, the Israeli Google is smarter than the USA Google?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
En Google her. Hebrew Google can't be better then the English. Geagea (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I was mostly joking, but I'm sure that the Israel version of Google comes up with different results than the version I use in Boston -- part of Google's ranking strategy includes the IP address of the searcher. That's easy to see running the same search here and in the UK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
They probably know who are the good guys. Geagea (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I cheated - I derived my answer from this link. Also, you have mail.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent DR closure on Dubai photos


You might want to take a look at my discussion with Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs) at User talk:Kameraad Pjotr#Recent DR closure on Dubai photos. CT Cooper · talk 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen it and decided not to comment. As you surely know, there is a wide range of feeling about Commons handling of copyright on architecture. On the one hand, I believe that "works of architecture" -- all works, not just notable ones such as Burj Al Arab -- deserve the same protection as any 2D work. There are others who would like complete FOP everywhere and push their point of view. With 8,201,827 images on Commons, it's not worth fighting with a senior Admin over one of them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. I think it is best if I file an undeletion request as Kameraad Pjotr suggested for both uploads, and see what some other admins think. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests

Commons:Deletion requests/Roberto Martínez Schütt - I’m sorry Jim, is it me that is supposed to delete the gallery? --I8-03-2083 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it takes an Admin to close the DR and delete the gallery. Although I am an Admin, I don't generally close DRs which I nominated, so one of my colleagues will do it. We've been behind in that recently, but it will happen.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Part of me thinks it would be just as easy to revert both pages but that is likely me being grumpy! Thanks for sorting it out yesterday - I hadn't realised I had only one of the drop down delete pages watchlisted - hence my confusion! Cheers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Grumpiness is forgiven here -- I'm grumpy, too. I also thought about simply reverting, but decided that he was determined to go ahead and that would just start an edit war, so I'm just adding back what I need, as I need it. Feel free to fiddle with my changes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


I agree that the crop is sufficient, but the original still needs an admin to delete it out of the revisions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you really count?

Dear Jim,
I saw your list of deletion reasons here. Did you really count that on your own or did you use a tool for that? As I am a kinda frequent nuker, that'd be interesting for me as well, if there was such a tool. Kind regards, abf «Cabale!» 07:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(grinning) I can be a little obsessive at times. I use Word and Excel a lot for Commons work, as they make it possible to manipulate a lot of information easily. I took my log and modified the URL to give me the last 5,000 items by changing 500 to 5000:
I then copied that into Notepad to clear out the hyperlinks
Then copied into Word and
global replaced "(talk | contribs | block)" with a paragraph mark (aka carriage return)
I then did a sort, leaving two chunks:
the beginning of the lines, starting with "(show/hide), all of which I deleted
the end of the line, which are the actions
I also deleted all the logged actions that aren't Admin actions (moves, etc.)
Then global replaced "(" with a paragraph mark followed by "("
Sorted again, and deleted the half that didn't begin with a "("
Put the remainder -- which are the edit summaries -- into Excel.
There are all sorts of ways in Excel to do counting, ranging from simply doing it manually to using the row numbers to formulas such as
(in cell a2, data in column b) "if(left(b1,10)=left(b2,10),a1+1,1)"
I suspect it took me longer to write this out than to do it -- and I may have missed something, but I hope you get the idea.
BTW, along the same lines, is this tool which shows all of our activity for the last six months.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well... that's tricky. :D Thank you for the explanation! :) abf «Cabale!» 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite book

Hello! Zolo and I have worked on an updated version of {{cite book}}, which is at {{cite book/sandbox}}. As "cite book" is a protected template, could you please update the template for us? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack -- while I trust that you are one of the good guys, I don't know anything about your coding skills and I don't know Zolo at all.
Simplistically, I would expect that the best thing for Commons would be to use the template from WP:EN.
I have glanced through your discussion at Template talk:Cite book. Among other things, I note some backwards compatibility (BC) concerns. Perhaps you could finish the discussion there with a bulleted list of all the changes you actually made and any BC issues that remain. That would be a good record in any event.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the English Wikipedia template (which is fantastic) and all its related templates and subpages are now so incredibly complex that if we did copy them over here I'm not sure who would maintain them. I will try and list all the changes that we made to {{cite book/sandbox}}. What backwards compatibility concerns do you have, so that I can try and address them? As far as I am aware, Zolo and I have dealt with all of them (see {{Cite book/testcases}}). — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course you're right about the WP:EN template, although I suppose we could maintain it by simply copying any changes.
I don't have any specific concerns, just wanted your assurance that you've dealt with them. I do think, though, that a list of changes is essential. Even if your work is perfect and the update is seamless, some of our colleagues are going to notice and want a list of the changes. Easier to anticipate that, I think.
And, BTW, I've suggested two or three times that you become an Admin. Here's another reason...

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Only use category redirects where necessary

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hypsibema missouriensis Powell Gardens.jpg

I can't say I'm very familiar with DRs on Commons, but surely it would make more sense to wait for enough discussion to occur so there is some sort of consensus (I mean, it's not like many DRs aren't closed for months) or at least to give some sort of rationale when closing a DR withouy any consensus? fetchcomms 18:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We have no mechanism for generating discussions -- it had been open ten days and my experience is that most discussion gets entered in the first two or three days.
The point made by User: is right on the mark -- there is no question of the original dinosaur being in the public domain or not. A sculptor can create a sculpture of a lion, a human, or a chimera -- real or imagined, very accurate, or with considerable artistic license -- and it will have a copyright. A sculpture of a lion, or of Winston Churchill, is no less a sculpture because it is realistic. Why would a sculpture of a dinosaur be any different?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I was sort of hoping for more discussion on what defines a sculpture and a model (i.e., the bones part). Any clue about that or shall I open a new mass DR? fetchcomms 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I would take the position that for copyright purposes any model is a sculpture. Full sized or not, of a real original or imagined, it's a sculpture. I base that on the fact that anytime you create a new representation of something, you make creative choices. I was a train modeler a long time ago. When you make a model, you must chose what to include and what to omit, because you cannot include everything -- imagine modeling every leaf in a tree at 1/48 scale. So, I think that the distinction made in the DR was artificial. In English, I think of "model" as the word for an accurate representation and "sculpture" as something that might or might not be accurate. For example, the lions in front of the Art Institute are sculpture for me, because they are intended to decorate. But they might certainly be models for someone who had never seen a lion. The dinosaurs are a similar case.
Note that there is case law on the related subject -- that taxidermy animals have a copyright. [Portraying the appearance of an animal is] "unquestionably a permanent artistic object."
As for the bones, it's an interesting question. I would take the position that assembling a human skeleton in its normal configuration does not create an object which has a copyright, but I couldn't defend that position against strong attack. The same thinking would apply to the skeleton of any modern animal. Whether it would apply to a dinosaur, which presumably requires some creative input to assemble parts that may not be complete -- who knows? However, once you put skin on the bones, there's clearly a copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination)

reopened, you decided the request but nothing was deleted (except the template). --Martin H. (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:OpenEuphoria mascot.png

Hello! I've uploaded an image that I thought was under an acceptable license. But now I'm not sure about that. The image is available under Creative Commons [BY-NC-SA] 3.0 license. Is it acceptable? If not, please remove it to me and let me know. Thanks! --Ricvelozo (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care. You are correct, an NC (non-commercial) license is unacceptable and I have deleted it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Ricvelozo (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olga Vipotnik Partizanka.jpg

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I wanted to come thank you for the help a while back, I'm now realizing I just almost made the same mistake now as I did back then. I must have accidentally thought I was editing my user space on the English Wikipedia, and I was in fact here on Commons. I completely apologize, and I appreciate your help again!!! I'll eventually come back here and fix things on my user page here, however, I only plan to upload images as necessary to Commons, so I see no need for the actual user page, unless I end up mirroring it somehow from my EN Wiki page. Also, if you would kindly leave me a talkback on my page, and if I don't respond, i'm probably stuck on english Wikipedia, and can be reached here: My English Wikipedia talk page.

Thanks again, Ltcb2412 (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Can you remove this edit from my user page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you did it yourself.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No I haven't. I can't. Your an admin, can you deleted it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to be difficult, but I don't like to do things that I don't understand. Your link above is to a particular edit on your talk page referring to a TUSC account. That edit is gone, because you deleted it. So, I'm not sure what you want. You can remove any edits from either your user page or your talk page. As an Admin, I can delete either page, but as a policy matter, I won't delete your talk page and your user page seems very straightforward. So, please tell me carefully and specifically what you want and I'll try to do it for you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I want the diff deleted that I linked. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


I'm requesting an un-delete (? not sure if you can do that with files, but whatever). I'm a bit peeved because the deletion left several holes on Wikipedia. The file does have a source; it is from the page of the French journalist Constant Prévost, and is a blown-up image of one of the illustrations in his book: see w:File:Ferdinadea historical.jpg, top left panel. Really you should do more research before deleting things so quickly on a single vote. Resident Mario (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. Commons Administrators make about 1,000 administrative actions per day and are falling further behind every day. We have neither the time nor the ability to do any research when the facts appear to be clear and plain, and our rules do not require it. It is up to the uploaders and users of files to prove that they should be kept.
  2. The deletion request was open for nine days, two longer than our rules require.
  3. There is no mechanism for generating more discussion of deletions, so a minimum of comments usually means a clear case.
  4. There are no votes involved in the process, merely the expression of opinions. In this case two experienced editors (the nominator and I) thought that the image should be deleted; no one expressed the opposite opinion.
  5. Of course the file has a source -- everything has a source. The point here is that the source was not named in the file. The file does not even name the painter and tells us nothing about it -- no publication date, no author, no country. Therefore, the nomination and deletion were entirely appropriate.

The information at w:File:Ferdinadea historical.jpg goes part of the way toward making it possible to undelete the subject file, but it does not have one crucial bit of information -- when and where was the journal first published? That was surely not in the 1830s -- color printing was not possible then. In some countries, including the United States, the copyright clock does not start running until publication. If the journal's publication was recent, then, depending on the country of first publication, it may still be in copyright.

Therefore, I would appreciate if you would provide that place and date. That will determine its copyright status and make it easy for me to decide whether to undelete the image or not.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mausoleum picture

Thanks for your response to my question. I'm sorry I didn't give the detailed URL you were looking for. It's [5] and the picture I want to upload is the one on that page, which I captured as a screen shot. According to the photo credits for Full of Life, given at [6], the original circa 1914 photo came from the University of Oregon Special Collections and Archives. Whatever copyright it once had has clearly run out. I don't have at hand a hard copy of Full of Life---I lent mine to a fellow EMCA board member---so I don't know its own copyright information, but the EMCA Full of Life pages are all freely downloadable from the web site. Is this useful info to decide in what category to place this upload? Thanks for your advice. (And please talk to me about this at my site, where you can also see how I have in mind using the picture.)

CRBW (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your link #5 above
doesn't work because they misspelled it. It's at
Your comment,
"Whatever copyright it once had has clearly run out."
is absolutely not the case. The fact that the image was taken in 1914 is not important for USA copyright purposes. It is far more important to establish when it was first published. Full of Life was published in the nineties, so any image first published in it is still in copyright.
In order to keep this image on Commons, you will have to establish that it was published earlier, according to the fairly complex USA rule, summarized at File:PD-US_table.svg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


You recently deleted one of my pages, as attested to by the logs. Can I have the wikitext of th page back so I can put the page on a more appropriate wiki? The page is called Snowboots.

Sure. I always try to fill polite requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

=Snowboots Snowboots are a type of boot, generally waterproof, or water-resistant. The boot, in almost all cases, has a high side, keeping snow from entering the boot, and a rubber sole, to keep water out. Because of their water-resistant material, snowboots are often used in wet, slushy, or muddy situations. This means not a half inch dusting of snow, of water, but quite deep, heavy wet snow, slush, or mud.File:Muddy Snow Boots.jpg ==Uses Snowboots are used by people to easily walk in snowy or wet situations, and by children playing in snowy, relatively wet, or muddy lawns, fields, etc. They are also usable for walking in streams in winter, as they are well-insulated, while still waterproof. ==Difference between snowboots and winter boots

  • Snow boots are waterproof or water resistant, but winter boots are not.
  • The two boot types have different uses. The snowboot is used on very wet or snowy conditions, while winter boots are better used on well-maintained roads or paths, or even while shopping.
  • A snowboot is made of easy to clean, but the winter boot doesn't. However, this cleanability and waterproofing comes at the cost that snowboots are heavier, less breathable, and more expensive.

College of Charleston

Hi. Could you please delete File:College of Charleston DETAIL OF PORTICO, SOUTH ENTRANCE.jpg. I loaded it up, and checked afterwards that the file already exists as a cropped one File:College of Charleston, Main Building.jpg . Thx --Gary Dee (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. File:College of Charleston DETAIL OF PORTICO, SOUTH ENTRANCE.jpg is a considerably better scan of the image. I suggest you crop it to remove the artifacts from the contact print and upload it over File:College of Charleston, Main Building.jpg. Then it will be appropriate to tag [[:File:College of Charleston DETAIL OF PORTICO, SOUTH ENTRANCE.jpg] with {{duplicate}} and it will be deleted routinely. I won't delete it now, because if you don't do it, someone else can only if the better image is available.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting me into what commonsrules are. I did not know it that way, i only thought that if i wont ask for deletion, someone else would do. ;) -- Gary Dee (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Merged them. --Martin H. (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chromatographie d'un extrait de clou de girofle

Hi, My apologies for misunderstanding, but I thought I could use only one page as a legend for all the photos, since they share some elements. I did not conceive this as an article (nor would it be sufficient as one), merely as an explanation as to how the photos were taken (the conditions of the experiment conducted - reagents, proportions, glassware and such). It seems pretty lengthy to be put on each photo (not to mention the redundancy thus made), which was why I only put a link to the gallery as a legend for each photo. If I was not correct, where can I put such an explanation ?

Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question. We have a firm rule that galleries are collections of images, not articles and therefore never have much text in them. Many of my colleagues would have simply deleted the page on sight (I almost did) and if you leave it as it is now, one of them probably will.
My French is not good enough for serious technical work, but I think you badly over-estimate the amount of explanation needed for each image. I think that the captions on the gallery page are probably sufficient if transferred to the individual image pages. You could also transfer the whole gallery text to each image page -- redundancy is not a problem for us, while ease of use is and the average user is not likely to click through to the gallery looking for more description.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, but I disagree about the amount of explanation. The technical procedure I've illustrated cannot be used without knowing what exactly were the chemicals used, in what proportion, and so on. I may try to be a bit shorter, but it will still be on the long side of short. But I take your point about redundancy, and I will try to put the text on each image when I have the time. Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about a RfD


Concidering this flag is a fake, should we really keep it because the file is misused on templates? Or should Wikipedia design new flags? I'm very tempted by deleting the file, what's your opinion? Regards --Coyau (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it very much either when we have to keep a wrong image, but this one is use on 94 different pages in various WMF projects. It is our firm policy not to delete images that are in use. You can, as I noted in the DR, add {{Disputed diagram}} to it, but we cannot delete it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Expert opinion

Hi James. Sorry to bother you, but you keep giving me good answers, so I keep coming back. I'd appreciate your expert opinion. The issue is the images on this page. There is a message at the bottom saying "مداری استفاده از این عکس(ها) فقط با ذکر منبع "خبرگزاری مهر" مجاز است" which, while I don't speak Farsi, roughly means "You may use this if you attribute it to Mehr", or so I'm told by a Farsi speaking editor. What do you think? If you are not sure, where is the best place to ask? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I just realized the editor who asked me also asked half the editors in the world, so there is a bit of discussion on this also here. I can't say I fully understand the outcome though. --Muhandes (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Greetings -- it's "Jim", please, not "James", but feel free to ask questions -- you've done a lot of nice work on lighthouses and other things of interest....
I would say, "No", based on what you say above. "You may use this if you attribute it to Mehr" says nothing about commercial use or derivative works -- the latter in particular is problematic, because "You may use this" would not be construed to include "You may make modifications to this and use the result".
However the discussion you link in your second paragraph raises all sorts of issues on which I have no knowledge -- Iran's copyright law is a little different from others and it may have an appropriate loophole.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have this knack of calling people by the wrong name, that's my third time this week, and I apologize. Thanks for the reply, it did not differ much from what I thought, but it was important for me to hear it from someone more experienced. By the way, I started en:Tideland Signal, mainly so I could link ML-300 as it kept popping up in articles I wrote, perhaps you have something to add? --Muhandes (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard of them -- I don't recall any of their units in lighthouses I have written about, but that's mostly the US East Coast. The USCG has a strong "Buy America" bent, so it's surprising that they went to New Zealand for the VRB-25 when there might have been a local alternative.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not really an alternative as it's a fixed light. It's very common as a mid-range lens in the Great Lakes area. I guess it wasn't adopted on the US East Coast. --Muhandes (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Close look

i think close look needed here...Commons:Deletion_requests/File:13001350ALBANIANMIGRATIONS.png no signs again.?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
For a better view to other's i have placed the default block template.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen already, I've put the doubt-template on File:13001350ALBANIANMIGRATIONS.png‎; seems to be justified now. I've also proposed at COM:AN to consider semi-protection for the DR page. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the doubt. I'm not sure about semi-protection. I think between us we can keep an eye on it -- it has only another day to run before it can be closed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jim, please block my account on Commons. Thanks, --Fernrohr (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go. I have decided to mostly stay away from FOP discussions as there are far too many irrational inclusionists there and there is certainly much work to be done in other areas. If you change your mind, just ask on your talk page (which will remain unblocked).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Colani derivatives No. 2

Hi, I'm wondering why you deleted File:Colani Concept-Car 05.jpg and File:LKW Colani Design.jpg? If I'm not mistaken, those were a real car and a real truck, not just models, so they should qualify as utilitarian. If you think they don't, or if you deleted them for another reason, it might be best to discuss them in a separate DR, as they are most likely corner cases. –Tryphon 13:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably right about the second one, so I've undeleted it. On the first, though, I took another look and I can't see that it is any different from the other concept cars -- surely not useful -- whether we're looking at the front or the back, that horizontal glass would soon be opaque and there are no wipers. Or am I missing something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for undeleting the second image. For the first one, I can't see it anymore and I don't remember it exactly. If it looks like it was just a 1:1 model (non-functional), then surely it should stay deleted. But if it was a functional concept car, even if it was unique, then it should be kept (or at least discussed separately), I think. –Tryphon 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:NZH Vervoer Museum- 1881-1981 De Leidse Fles.jpg

Hi, I'm sorry you deleted this without getting in touch with me first. I am working on getting more public art on Wiki commons, including architectural details falling under the local industrial heritage. This particular photo file is part of that. You deleted it as a violation of FOP Netherlands, but I believe permission can be granted some other way. Clearly FOP Netherlands is not the proper license to use, so what is? I need the info how to do this (and it would be good to include this on the FOP netherlands page for others!), because I plan to upload a massive amount of these in the coming months. Thanks in advance. Jane023 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jane, first, Commons Admins make about 1,000 administrative actions every day, including closing around 100 deletion requests. We are falling behind the work load every day and certainly do not have time to contact uploaders before deleting images -- that is what the DR process is for, to have the discussion.
I think I explained the reasons for deletion thoroughly in my closure comments -- it fails three different requirements of Freedom of Panorama in the Netherlands. All of that information was taken from the Netherlands FOP entry.
Yeah, I spoke with someone else about this and I definitely do get the FOP netherlands stuff (I didn't before) and it does appear to be well explained on the FOP Netherlands page - I also understand all of your objects (Jane)
While I certainly admire your project, except for the limited exceptions in the FOP rules, all art is subject to copyright and in most countries that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator. In order for us to host images of recent art here, they need to fall under an FOP exception or we need permission from the artist or his or her heirs. Note carefully that the permission must come from the artist or heirs, not the owner of the art, even if that is a museum. It is very rare that the ownership of the copyright is transferred with the ownership of the actual object.
Don't worry, it turns out there are lots of heirs to are willing to give me the rights, as long as I know how to get the rights and how to explain to them how to give me those rights (as I type, many of these industrial monuments are being demolished with the buildings they once graced, so the heirs are more than happy to get these things documented with pictures, if not kept by specific museums) (Jane)
I should also ask you to go slowly with your project until you completely understand the rules. If, as you say, you "upload a massive amount of these in the coming months", and they are not almost all images that are OK to host here, you will make extra work for all of us.
No worries as to speed - I am big on sloooooow projects - my 17th century painters project has been running for 2 years and counting. (Jane)
Finally, you will see that I have gone through your contributions and tagged some of your work with {{delete}}. I hope you will understand that this is not harassment, but simply logical -- if a user seems to be a little weak on the rules, we look at all their work. Please treat the DRs as a learning process.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I get this, I am just trying now to find the way forward. I know that what you do takes lots of time, so thanks for the trouble. I will look at all the stuff you tagged. Next step is to clarify what exactly the heirs need to tell me to do. Is there a template for this? Summing up, I am interested in preserving stained glass windows, sculptures, WWII and other war memorials and reliefs in churches, schools, industrial buildings, and private homes. As I have understood FOP Netherlands so far, everything outside when publicly accessible, all churches and train, tram, and bus stations, and no schools or museums. Anything else? Thanks again! Jane023 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your civility. As you can imagine, we get many different reactions from uploaders who suddenly get a lot of {{delete}} tags and it is always good when the editor accepts it gracefully.
The only think I would suggest is that you read carefully the procedure at Commons:OTRS and follow it. I am not directly involved with the OTRS process -- except in seeing its results -- so I am perhaps not the best person to answer questions, but certainly feel free to ask anything here and I'll try to deal with it.
I should add that trams and ships are two of my special interests, see, for example, File:RMAS Lamlash and HMS Warrior.jpg and File:CNSM 700.jpg. So keep up the work there. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well maybe you can help me find some photo's of early shipping cranes by en:Hendrik Figee! Jane023 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Given your reasonably even mind maybe you can take a look here if you don't see it anyway. I would prefer not to take any actions on anyone as I feel somewhat involved but it does need resolving. I think my opinion is obvious anyway. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this, a test of my patience? -- a pox on both of their houses ;-)   Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi. As i am not a professional at commons, i would like to know if the quality of picture has something to do with the topic of keeping or deleting a file; see File:JamaicaBay1530.jpg ? -- Gary Dee (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like someone tagged it, so ok. Thx -- Gary Dee (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen the {{low quality}} tag before. I added a {{delete}} for the reasons you suggest. Generally we will keep a poor quality image if it shows something that is hard to photograph -- an Ivory Billed Woodpecker or a Mermaid, perhaps, but if the image is less interesting it must be better. I don't think we will keep this one, because even if it were perfectly sharp, it would still not be very interesting. If in doubt, feel free to hang a {{delete}} tag on an image, but only if it is not used on any other project.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Jep. Thanks. -- Gary Dee (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


PetarM license changed. Thanx. --Mile (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoax ?

Hi. I wonder if this is a hoax: File:Groucho Marx.jpg ? I mean: Is this "his" moustache (and cigar) ? Looks kind of painted. I looked also at LOC in refering to the sourcelink. Maybe someone knows more ? -- Gary Dee (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has worked on it, more than just cropping, as the background in the original is Harpo -- grey, not black. It's certainly very like the original, though, and Groucho's mustache was always a little beyond belief. But who knows?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass copyvios

Hi!, i saw you've taken care of this. I wanted to add some info about the pictures that havent been deleted yet:

Well. I don't know where the rest of the pics are from, but if i have to risk an answer i would say: "like the others, they have been happily copied form somewhere". I strongly believe they should be all be deleted. Thanks for your time. --Zeroth (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than tell me here, why don't you nominate them for deletion? Click on the "nominate for deletion" link on the left of each page. I can't just delete them -- I'd have to hang a {{delete}} tag on each one. It's better if you do it, both because you have firsthand knowledge and mine is only second hand, and, because it's a better use of Admin time if non-Admins do things like this which they are perfectly qualified to do.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I know im quite olde here, but ive never got into the "tecnical" issues. I'll do that!.--Zeroth (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to close DR?

Hi! You deleted a lot of files but it seems you forgot to close Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets. I'm interessted in reading if Mike Godwins words is still valid or you closure means we should reopen old DR's regarding fan art etc. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As you may know, DieBuche made some very good, but very major changes to DelReqHandler this morning and I'm still getting used to the new version.

The costume argument is not a good one. These are not costumes, but puppets and have no utilitarian purpose. Godwin spoke specifically of "costumed people", which the Muppets are not. I would not extend this closure to mean that fan art in general is a problem. I think it is better to think of the Muppets to be in the same class as cartoon characters.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets

How do I do deletion review on Commons? Ctjf83 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "deletion review" is. If you object to this action you should first discuss your reasons with me here and if that fails, you can file an undeletion request.

I note that you argued for keeping these on the grounds that they were costumes and that costumes are permitted. But they are not costumes -- clothing worn by people -- they are puppets -- think of them as furry sculptures, because that is the way they are treated by the law. Also read Jappalang's excellent analysis of the case law which makes it very clear that puppets have copyrights.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How are they not costumes? I'm just worried about File:Bert and Ernie Married.jpg. Ctjf83 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right with respect to that image in particular -- I was speaking generally. I offer these thoughts:

  • At Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay Mike Godwin is quoted, but it is clear that the Commons policy has not embraced his thinking. Also, there is a sense in his remarks that he is talking about a neighbor's photograph -- not a commercial use.
  • At Commons:Image_casebook#Comic_and_action_figures we are quite clear that a photograph of an accurate Darth Vader would not be OK -- are Bert and Ernie any different?
  • It goes against common sense to say that I can create and photograph a perfect replica of Bert and Ernie as a costume, but cannot do so if they are puppets.
  • I cannot believe that if a theme park started using actors in unlicensed Bert and Ernie costumes that they would not be hit immediately with a lawsuit, which would succeed.
  • Read again the commentary and case law citations by Jappalang under his point (2) in the DR. Since masks are covered by copyright, clearly the Bert and Ernie images are not OK.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferdinandea.jpg

Well, it appears that the original tagline from the GSL was deleted. Oh well. Resident Mario (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Could you come to the IRC channel? --DieBuche (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never used IRC -- e-mail? or tell me how to use IRC.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Go to , type in a username, choose #wikimedia-commons & click submit --DieBuche (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MACS24.jpg

What the heck? How does Commons:Coats of Arms even apply? To call this image a coat of arms is rubbish (it's a stretch even to call it heraldric). You won't find heraldric descriptions of any of the unit logos in the United States Marine Corps, because they are simply images drawn by government employees, and not coats of arms. The image in question can't be a representation if there isn't a COA description for it to represent. It is, simply put, an image created by a Marine, and despite a copyright claim, is in the public domain. Bahamut0013 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A unit badge has exactly the same purpose as a Coat of Arms and is certainly heraldry. The law is well established that each representation of a heraldic work has its own copyright. Either find a version of this that was actually drawn by a Marine, or have someone draw one that has an appropriate license.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, the one I uploaded was. And a unit logo is not the same as a unit badge, which this certainly is not. Bahamut0013 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand:
":Uh, yeah, the one I uploaded was."
Was what?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Need your help

I am currently representing my father who was a well known painter in Kosovo and member of many associations but you marked my pictures for deletion for what reason?

Bellow is also the page I have created can you help me on doing this right.

I know am emotionaly attached because he died from lung cancer 5 years ago and I feel like i have to do this.

Bellow is the link of the page and the pictures which you tagged.

( 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

As I noted in the Deletion Requests -- in our usual,admittedly cryptic, way -- the reason I marked them for deletion is that they all have a copyright and there is no evidence on any of them that you have the right to license them. I suggest you send an e-mail following the procedure at Commons:OTRS that affirms that you are your father's sole heir -- assuming that is the case -- and that you therefore have the right to license them as you did. If you are not his only heir, then Commons will need a similar message from each heir.
The WP:EN page looks like a good start -- I don't think you need much help there, but I'm always glad to answer questions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Crossing A Daughter of Light Novel by Christy Gabrielle.jpg

Hi, the above discussion was closed as delete, but the file hasn't been deleted. January (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- apparently I clicked on the wrong button.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New signature

Hello Jim, I've change the signature pattern again. Unfortunately I was very bored of previous one. I'll be pleased if you comment on my current one. As far as I see, it's good, similar to the user name, and have a link to the talk page. Though I'm not entirely sure, but I really think I don't have to change this one again. Very sorry for such trouble. :( — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just one editor, not the Tzar of signatures or anything else, so all I can do is offer my opinion. It confuses me when I get a message from a user whose sig does not match his username. It's not really against the rules -- see User:Abigor and User:Magister Mathematicae, who are both Admins -- but I think it's a nuisance. Recently, I left a message for User:PetarM and he responded above -- I had no idea why user:Mile was leaving me the note. So, bottom line, it's up to you.

And it's certainly no trouble -- as my sig shows, I've struggled with the fact that my username does not match what I want to be called here, so I completely understand.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive answer. I also know that it's not against the rules, but you are the one who talked about this first. So, I thought I should have inform you about this change. :) — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


My photo of the witch statue in Tielt (Belgium) was nominated for deletion on Feb. 5, but in the mean time the sculptor and only holder of its copyright sent the required agreement. OTRS permission has been received, cf.

The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2011020510009798 for users with an OTRS account. Ticket link:

Hence this request to close the discussion and to remove the deletion tag. Thanks in advance! Vaneiles (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the speedy reaction! Vaneiles (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:A touch of teh crazee.jpg

Hi James, can you say why this was deleted? Two people were opposed to deletion, one in favour, and it contained nothing that was copyrightable. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DR closures are not a vote, but the decision of the closing Admin taking into account all of the comments made and the applicable law and Commons policy. While the Admin will not usually not act arbitrarily against the consensus of a number of experienced editors, he or she is not required to count "votes".

In making this particular decision, I took into account my own 25 years of experience with US copyright and Kelly's considerable activity on Commons. I didn't know you and Jujutacular, but have looked you up since then and find that you have around 850 edits between the two of you. Kelly has almost 11,000.

I also guess from your spelling that you are a British speaker and may not be thoroughly familiar with US copyright practice. The text of the poster, the layout of the poster, and the mustache added to Obama are elements that are clearly copyrightable in the US.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

fyi you may wish to comment here. Jcb (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much -- I appreciate your soliciting a comment on the other side of the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Rockhopper image

Hi. Regarding your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Specialized Rockhopper Expert Disc 2009.jpg, do I not have a right to request deletion of the image as the person who took the photo, or does the fact that I uploaded it mean that it's no longer in my control? Cordless Larry (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. Both of the licenses you offered, CC-BY-SA 3 and GFDL are irrevocable. Occasionally we will delete images at the request of the uploader, particularly if there are privacy or other issues, but this is a really good image of a mountain bike, perhaps the best one we have, and I frankly see no reason why we should lose it.
I know that's a tough decision, but it has evolved out of the fact that we have some users who will upload a lot of images to Commons, then discover that there is a commercial market for them, and want to take them back so they can sell them. I've thought about that several times myself.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)



As reported in my message there, the flag has been removed from all main articles in every project except ar:, where a protected template is still using it. Would that be enough? I can't speak arabic at all, so I'm not sure how to reach a ar: sysop.

Thanks! Manuel Menal (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a lot of fictional flags on Commons -- I, at least, will not get into removing one of them, even if unused. In my view, the disputed tag is enough.

As for getting something done on WP:AR, Commons:List of administrators by language shows User:Tarawneh, as an Arabic and English speaker -- that doesn't get you a WP:AR Admin, but he or she probably knows one. Or, try the AR version of Commons:The village pump, Commons:الميدان -- it's not very active, but might get you some help.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may, this is not a fictional flag, it is a fake one (designed for Commons, basicaly to have wikipedia be wrong). This file should be deleted, now that it it not used any more, as you said before. --Coyau (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs. It is not Commons policy to delete such things. If you disagree, put another DR on it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Eliezer Ben Jehuda bei der Arbeit.jpg

Hey Jim, we meet again :) This time on a different matter.
As I screened the recent changes in WP:HE, I incidentally noticed this file was deleted. Realizing there were quite a few pages using the photo (about 30...), I went and conducted a little research, and here are the results: the photo was apparently taken in 1912 in Jerusalem (which back then was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire) by Shlomo Narinsky (Israeli; d. 1960) and published in 1918. It is therefore in all probability in the public domain.
Could you please restore the file? And while at it, change its name into a proper English one, including, say, "Jerusalem, 1910s"? Once you do that, I would upload the better version.
Last, is there a possiblity to automatically reinstate the file wherever CommonsDelinker has removed it, or does it have to be done manually in every page..?
P.S. Haimlevy stated here that the picture was taken by an Israeli (or back then, Mandatory Palestinian) photographer in Israel (back then, Mandatory Palestine) in the early 1940s. Thus, in accordance with Israeli law (which regarding photos taken up to May 24, 2008 agrees with the former British one), the picture should be in the public domain. Aviados (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eliezer Ben Jehuda bei der Arbeit.jpg for undeletion. Please suggest a new name -- I'm not sure I follow what you want.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well: 1. Can you please change its name to "Eliezer Ben-Yehuda sitting at his desk, Jerusalem, 1910s"?
2. User:CommonsDelinker has delinked the image on all the pages that appear in the cache here; can it somehow be automatically undone (i.e. reinstate the links to the images on all pages) - or must it be manually restored in all Wikipedias? (If the latter is the case, I guess it's easier to first restore the links to the image and only then change the file name.) Are you following..? Aviados (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have moved it to File:Eliezer Ben-Yehuda at his desk in Jerusalem - c1912.jpg -- I eliminated your commas because it is suggested that we not use them and shortened a little. I don't think that there is a relinker, but the move will not interfere because there is a redirect in place.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Very well, thank you. Only, after the photo was deleted and the delinker removed it, it has to be reinstated manually, if it's to reappear in all those articles and pages. Some labor. Pitty. :( Aviados (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal of potentially libelous statement by User:Jameslwoodward

I refer you to your potentially libelous statement placed within a wikipedia template at: File:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia-1976.jpg. Besides being wrong about your assumptions (the high-resolution version of the image is clearly a high-quality scan from a negative), you publicly defame me by stating that I have a 'history of copyvio', thus imputing that all my uploads are unreliable, and therefore that I am unreliable. Actually, this is the only 'reason' you provide for your deletion request — a 'suspicion'. This is unethical — you make an unsupported accusation, then I have to 'prove' that the image is genuine. Why don't you provide technical reasons for why you suspect the image should be deleted? If you aren't "sure" about an image, then please don't abuse your power as an administrator. I also have a 'history' of uploading non-copyvio material, so I could equally claim that your conclusion is biased, not appropriate, and not befitting an administrator who is supposed to follow ethical guidelines. For someone that specializes in images, I would have expected you to be technically proficient in being able to distinguish between scans from books and high-quality scans from original photos/negatives. Instead you have resorted to innuendo and public vilification... Please remove your potentially libelous statement, and provide an appropriate technical reason why you think the image is not original. --Pkravchenko (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I said only two things in the nomination:

  • user:pkravchenko has a history of copyvio, so I am not sure about "own work"
  • this is a DW of the poster in the center.

I said nothing about it being a scan from a book or any other source, so most of Pkravchenko's comment is off the point. Many of our DRs are for non-technical reasons.

I should also note that it is indeed our policy that is the job of the uploader to prove that the image is genuine -- our rule is "when in doubt, delete".

That is only half-right — you are not asking me to prove it is genuine -- you have nominated it for deletion but have refused my requests for letting me know how I can provide my own proof, thereby putting in me in a no-win situation.
As you are quoting official WP policy, it appears you are misusing the Precautionary principle to claim a 'right' which it does not actually provide — nowhere does it imply that you have an automatic right to delete a file willy-nilly. Even in the very abridged version at COM:PRP the text makes it clear that you need to have "significant doubt". The fuller version of the Precautionary principle at WP explains in more detail the context and also the problems in applying the "Principle", for example: if you are to apply this "Principle" you would need to specify the "minimal threshold of plausibility" for “triggering” a condition. Can you please provide me with specific evidence of your "significant doubt" rather than just your own 'suspicions' or prejudice? For example in any of my 116 files have any files been deleted on the basis of me falsely, or erroneously attributed them as 'my own work? --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's examine the two things I did say:

  • user:pkravchenko has a history of copyvio, so I am not sure about "own work"

Pkravchenko has uploaded images to 116 files. Of those, 15 have been deleted and 11 nominated for deletion as copyright violations. That is certainly a history of copyvio. Note that I did not say he did this deliberately, but simply stated the facts. Since we Assume Good Faith, the fact that an uploader has a history of copyvio -- whether that is from malfeasance, frequent mistakes, or misunderstanding of the rules -- is certainly relevant to looking at a 34 year old photograph for which the uploader claims "own work".

Well yes, but what is also relevant is whether your original premise is correct, and this will determine whether you conclusion is correct. It seems that your premise is a false premise, that "People who upload copyvio files are liars, and therefore all their files are fraudulent". So your nomination is based on the premise that I am lying when I state that the files are my 'own work'.
Let's take your cherry picking of 'data' which you use to justify both your nominations, effectively used as a character assassination:
  1. Firstly, my contribution to Commons has been more than just uploads — I have contributed to other people's files, by adding extra information and introducing English or Ukrainian translations, in almost all cases adding links to the relevant WP pages/topics.
  2. I have also done a lot of categorization, either correcting, or adding categories to pages where there were none.
  3. I have transferred files from WP:en and WP:uk, where appropriate, to Commons, and added the corresponding translation/information to the pages.
  4. In all cases where the files were deleted, they fell into 2 categories: a) where it was my mistake regarding the date between the creation of the work and 70 years from death of the author, and b) where I uploaded files specifically showing covers of references which I was asked to display for verification purposes, and which were clearly marked as such. (The fact that the requester did not provide an alternative way of displaying/sending the files, is consistent with your refusal to do the same — see my request earlier above).
  5. Moreover, none of the files deleted were deleted because I falsely, or erroneously attributed them as 'my own work'.
  6. In all cases, whether deleted or not, I have accurately included the authorship and/or sources.
  7. In all cases, where the file was from someone else, I gained permission and verified this through OTRS!
So the reasoning that my file has to deleted because I am not to be trusted when I say the file is "my own work" is a hasty generalization and any justification for deletion based on this is misleading. --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • this is a DW of the poster in the center.

This is certainly true, so even if Pkravchenko did take the photograph, it is still a derivative work of the poster and therefore cannot be kept here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well no, it is not "certainly true" just because of your says-so. Actually I am the copyright owner of the poster, so I'm sorry to disappoint you. As stated elsewhere I will send verification to OTRS. --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I should add that my talk page is not a very good place to complain about my behavior -- if you really want to pursue this, it should be at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems which is the public forum that can discipline Administrators if warranted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I still think it is good to discuss your actions here as I believe all administrators should be part of a transparent process, and not be free from scrutiny. I think that a lot of new editors feel intimidated by the illusory superiority displayed by some administrators, and don't feel that they have the right to argue their case. --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/NYCS-line-black PNG files

Thanks for deleting those images of NYC Subway bullets. They may have been mine, but let's face it; User:Svgalbertian made better ones, alhough he could've included "Myrtle" in the name for the BMT Jamaica Line. If they had lingered too long in the discussion, I would've added speedy deletion tags to them. ----DanTD (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Megumi Satsu picture removal on

Hi James

You've removed a picture of Megumi I uploaded last week on her wiki page. Megumi passed away in October and she gave me explicitly with a handwritten document all the rights to use any picture of her and all the rights to use and sell her music by all means. The photo I uploaded is free of rights and belonged to Megumi eventhough it was taken by a friend of hers called "Jacques Lecorre" who passed away in August 2011. I had mentioned his name under the picture. So, what do I have to do to upload a picture without infringing anybody's rights? Or what kind of evidence should I mention in order to keep the picture online ? Thank you so much Matt

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkinska (talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
First, let me suggest that when you get a notice of an impending deletion, as you did at User talk:Mattkinska on February 11, that you respond on the DR page, in this case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Megumisatsu.jpg.
Second, it will be hard to save this. Our normal practice would be to have the photographer, Jacques Lecorre, follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS, but if he is dead, that can not happen. The copyright belongs to his heirs, unless he explicitly, in writing, assigned it to Megumi before he died. The fact that she owned a copy of the photograph does not mean she owned the copyright to it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


Your script appears to be broken. Multichill (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's DelReqHandler which DieBuche has made some great improvements to in the last week or so, but there may still be a bug or two. This bug was corrected yesterday, see the bottom of MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Obama/Hitler sign

I just saw your note on the undeletion request...I don't have a big issue with it either way, it's obviously a borderline case, though I've seen other similar images deleted. Sorry if my nomination of the file caused you any problems. Kelly (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images from

Is there anything new concerning this deletion request? -- Cecil (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request inconsistencies

There are some inconsistencies made regarding the outcome of some deletion requests that I started. I don't know much of the procedure, or that it was because you have semi-automated deletion request closures or I interpreted the results incorrectly, but to put it bluntly I don't agree with some of your deletion request outcomes. There are some examples: I cited the same reasons for deleting Template:WoWvandal and Template:Wikipedia is Communism‎ yet only one was deleted and the other was kept; I requested deletion of the subpages of Template:Will as well as the template itself, but they were kept without explicitly noted in closing the nomination. Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't know how to say otherwise. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Our process is automated only in that it makes all the necessary entries automatically, saving four and five page loads for deletes and keeps, respectively. I generally do not make comments on non-controversial actions -- Admins make about 30,000 Administrative actions a month and, frankly, don't have time to put comments on every one.

As for your questions:

  • Template:WoWvandal -- Herbythyme, who is a senior Administrator and Checkuser, for whom I have great respect, suggested that we keep it. Since it costs nothing to keep it, I did.
  • Template:Wikipedia is Communism‎ had no defenders, so I followed your nom.
  • The subpages of Will -- an oversight, thank you for bringing them to my attention, now deleted.

As for your being blunt, look above for some of the nonsense that comes this way -- your polite inquiry was just fine, come back anytime.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rothschild illustrations

Re Commons:Deletion requests/Some illustrations from Rothschild's Extinct Birds: It doesn't look like you moved the jpegs to the English Wikipedia and the djvu to the English Wikisource. Can you please do this? Just copy the files with the same descriptions; I can take care of the rest. —innotata 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you expect me to do upload them at the other wikis now, so I'll start. —innotata 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Let me know when you're done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've saved the djvu, but you'll need to delete the copy here now before I upload it. Thanks, —innotata 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
entirely   Doneinnotata 01:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GBT-Faido.png

Not going to fight over it, but what was your deletion rationale in Commons:Deletion requests/File:GBT-Faido.png? --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this was probably one where I should have left a comment, which I've now done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.svg

Hi, it was decided to let here this drawing. It has only one mistake. Although its author - Hapesoft alias W.Rebel makes obstructions with the mention of his work source. It seems to be clear that the source is this: [7]. Have you some idea what do do? Please also delete the File:HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.jpg - it is without valid license and I uploaded it only for W.Rebel´s drawing assessment. --PetrS. (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think my explanation at the DR was complete -- yes, the older drawing may or may not have been a source of information, but the new drawing is quite different in style and content, so it is not, in my judgement, a copyvio.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry maybe I have not said it well. The matter is that each drawing should have mentioned its source. Now I do not discuss the copyrights but a possible verification - if the drawing reflects the reality correctly or not. I see that drawings on commons have not usually mentioned its source. I think pictures should be possible to evaluate by the same way as articles on wikipedia. --PetrS. (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That is very much not our policy. You or I can post a drawing that may or may not be correct. If an editor on one of the WP projects uses it, it will stay, even if it is wrong. Of course, it is more likely to be used if it has a good source.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This different policy with written and picture information surprises me. I think it is theme for wider discussion.--PetrS. (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been discussed at great length in many DRs. Fundamentally Commons is a repository. Beyond a certain basic level of image quality and avoiding nonsense, Commons editors do not chose what images are good -- the editors at the various WP projects do that. We often keep both sides of ethnic arguments when both sides argue that the other side's maps and other images are wrong. And so forth.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

recently you deleted File:Tigraxauda.jpg. Are you interested in the lifetime of the artist or do you think is the artist? (question about artist and photographer and free commons...)-- 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The work, a low relief sculpture in rock, is ancient, obviously PD-old, so that is not a problem. Our rule is that when 2D art is PD-old then any images are PD themselves -- there is no new copyright in a photograph of such a work. This image has that tag on it.

The tag, however, is not correct, because the work is not 2D, but 3D. The difference is clearly stated in our rule about photographs of coins -- the way you light such an object, even one with low relief, gives rise to different images and therefore there is a copyright in the photograph.

Or, to put it another way, if this work were a wall painting, then the image would be OK, but because it is a low relief sculpture, the photographer's work has its own copyright and the image is not OK.

So, the problem here is that we do not have a good license to the photograph. Livius has a basic license that forbids commercial use, so we must have OTRS permission from them to keep a work. There is no such permission here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. (This argumentation is very difficult to understand for me, because every photo of 2D-painting as well as any scan copy needs a good light, realised by the photographer, similar to the work of a photographer of 3D-objects like flat reliefs. So every photo or copy is somehow the work of the photographer or copist, isn´t it? But at all the copist of old art is not the original artist of PD-art.) But by the way of that legal questions: The uploader to english Wikipedia en:user:Dbachmann, a still very active user there, wrote something about a mail from Did you asked him about that mail? Probably there is a permission of For me it is a sad deletion, because the visual red line of a article is destroyed. Do you know, how many photos of very old 3D-PD-art without OTRS-permission in commons exist? Best regards.-- 17:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyright law is not always logical, but here it makes some sense. If you believe that a 2D painting is flat (not the case with some oils), then yes, it must be lighted, but it does not matter whether the light is from the left, the right, the top, whatever. Similarly, the photograph can only be taken from one position -- on the perpendicular to the center of the painting. So there is little creative input.
On the other hand, with a 3D work, the photographer must choose the direction of the light or lights, and the angle from which to take it. This is true even of works that have only low relief -- different lighting will emphasize different aspects of the work.
So, there is a court case in the USA, Bridgeman v. Corel, that has established that in the USA, photographs of a flat work do not have a new copyright. The WMF policy is, therefore, that we do not worry about copyright in photographs of flat art.
As for Livius, yes they sent permission for many of the works that were uploaded from their site -- all of those that remain in Category:Images from have OTRS permission or are flat art and PD-org. This image does not have permission.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What about asking the user to get probably a OTRS-permission?-- 03:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it -- and that may be wrong -- Livius has given us OTRS permission for all of the images for which it owns the copyright and it wants to license. The remaining images on its site, including this one, either have a different copyright holder or Livius is not interested in licensing to Commons. You could certainly ask.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2011-01-27 nominations

Hi, there must be a reason for your doubts leading to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turntable-small.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tuggar richesandrestraint.jpg. To be able to make a decision I would like to know that reason. Jcb (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Author = Fatimah Tuggar
  • Uploader = Ira Nal27
  • Flickr Source User = Lettera27

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Fatimah Tuggar has given permission to Lettera27 to license this work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Jcb (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for closes

TY. For the deleted pic, these two collages need to go, as they contain the deleted image:

File:TCO collage attempt dos (bigger turtle).jpg and File:Cropped TCO collage attempt uno.jpg

I created and uploaded a replacement collage anyhow, with a different lizard in there. Template:Uns

Thanks, deleted both.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rupiah Coin 1000 A Bi-metal.JPG

You forgot one :) –Tryphon 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DieBuche's new DelReqHandler is wonderfully fast, put occasionally it misses one or hangs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see... Thanks for taking care of it. –Tryphon 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Don't recreate

Thanks - didn't know this template, will be very useful! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Paul McCartney, Tel Aviv 222.JPG

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I uploaded a cropped version of File:Paul McCartney, Tel Aviv 222.JPG with the derivative background photo cropped out per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul McCartney, Tel Aviv 222.JPG. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Philharmonie Luxembourg

thumb|One of many Commons images of PhilharmonieHello James. I was encouraged by your comments on the Commons deletion page to hear that research into this matter is underway. That's good news. And the first question should of course be whether Luxembourg really has an FOP policy for buildings. A quick look at a number of LB Wikipedia articles seems to provide ample evidence that there is no problem with such photos. See, for example, Philharmonie Lëtzebuerg (with a link to Category:Philharmonie_(Luxembourg)). There are literally hundreds of photos of other recent Luxembourg buildings which have been created in Commons by the Luxembourgers. I do not understand why everyone but the EN Wikipedia can use them. Does Commons plan to delete them all or only those that turn up in the EN Wikipedia after someone has raised a specific problem with one of them? And is it permissible for me to use Commons links to Luxembourg buildings in my articles? At least in that way people will be able to view the buildings in which Luxembourg takes so much pride. You also say "investigation and proof is the obligation of those who want to keep the image". I would appreciate some guidelines as to how I should go about this. I thought I had already provided quite a lot of background but apparently it was not presented in the right way. - Ipigott (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that we have several misunderstandings:
The fact that there are many similar images that should be deleted is not a reason to keep this one or any other that infringes. We have 9,550,809 images on Commons -- at any one moment there are thousands that should be deleted. Commons does not have a systematic way of dealing with this -- we simply do our best.
I did not say that there was any investigation underway, simply that if we are to accept your reasoning, such an investigation would have to be be done. I'm not at all sure, as I set forth below, that such an investigation would be fruitful.
I have no knowledge of how WP:LB interacts with Luxembourg law -- images may be hosted there under a fair use exception or in some other way, or WP:LB may simply ignore or misunderstand the law. I am familiar with WP:EN rules, and they do permit Fair Use. There is no formal interaction between WP:EN and Commons -- this DR arose because the nominator saw it somewhere and decided, correctly in my opinion, that it infringed on the architect's copyright. It may have been WP:EN or here.
Finally, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright and FOP. FOP is an exception to a general rule. The general rule is that the creator of a copyrighted work and his heirs have the right to control and profit from reproductions and derivative works (DW) of his creation during the copyright period. This is true whatever the form of the work and of the DW -- you cannot photograph most Picasso paintings and sell the photographs, even though a photograph is not a painting and you cannot photograph most Calder sculptures for commercial use for the same reason. This is also true of architecture -- you cannot, as a general rule, photograph works of architecture and sell the results without the permission of the architect or his heirs.
Freedom of Panorama (FOP) is an exception to the general rule. It appears in various forms in various countries and specifies that certain works may be photographed provided they are (usually) permanently located in a public place. The specifics vary widely from country to country, as you can see at the linked article. As far as I can tell (my French is very weak), the Luxembourg FOP provision allows photographs and other DWs where the copyrighted work is not the principal subject of the photograph. This is the most basic of FOP wording -- without such an exception it would be difficult to take commercial photographs outdoors in many places. The fact that there is no other mention of architecture in the Luxembourg FOP rule means that architecture is subject to the general rule -- no commercial photographs of copyrighted works until the copyright expires.
Thus, we have photographs of only those works of Picasso and Calder that are located in places where FOP applies. Similarly, we have very few photographs of modern buildings in those countries where there is no FOP. Luxembourg appears to be such a place.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim, for your detailed explanations. Glad to hear you'll soon be hitting the 10 million mark. I'll keep trying to send my own stuff in without causing any unnecessary problems for you.
Maybe my message was not phrased sufficiently clearly. You are correct in your general understanding of the Luxembourg law but the only specific references on limitations to outdoor photography are in connection with sculptures. I have been unable to find anything in connection with the photography of buildings, even if a specific building is the purpose of the photograph. But I can also see that Commons editors have better things to do with their time than examine the details of Luxembourg copyright law for outdoor photography. There have, of course, been attempts to overcome possibile violations in Commons with buildings in images such as File:Luxembourg City Kirchberg3 from3towers.jpg (which shows MUDAM, the Museum of Modern Art, in the foreground) or File:Luxembourg Kirchberg A De Gasperi 02.jpg (where the De Gasperi building is offset by the hotel behind it). I would be interested to hear whether you think these are OK for Commons or whether they should also be subjected to the fair use approach. If you think they are OK, I shall ensure that other buildings appear in any any future shots I take of Luxembourg architecture or will try to download appropriate images from Flikr or somewhere.
I am in fact familiar with "fair use" and have recently applied it to art work (paintings) in the EN Wikipedia but of course, as you point out, it can't be applied to Commons. So perhaps the answer for EN Wikipedia articles on modern Luxembourg architecture is to apply the fair use approach too - however heavy-handed and lengthy it may be. At least that would alleviate the problem on Commons! I see there are examples in connection with French architecture such as the Grande Arche. I have not seen this applied to any Luxembourg buildings but there is always a first time. Thanks once again for your time any trouble. - Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"I have been unable to find anything in connection with the photography of buildings, even if a specific building is the purpose of the photograph."
Although I have not read the Luxembourg law in detail, your comment suggests, again, that Luxembourg buildings may not be photographed for commercial purposes. Remember the first rule -- all architecture is copyrighted -- therefore all photographs of recent buildings are infringements unless there is specific mention of an exception for architecture. You have found no such mention, therefore the general rule applies.
As an example, nowhere in the French copyright law will you find anything about photographing buildings. The law simply says that architecture is copyrighted and that derivative works of copyrighted works are an infringement. Therefore photographs of buildings are an infringement.
You mention using Flickr -- there is nothing about Flickr that makes photographs free to use. If the photograph is an infringement, it is an infringement and the fact that the FLickr photographer puts a CC-BY-SA license on it does not solve that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masjid Nabawi. Medina, Saudi Arabia.jpg

I happened to notice that you had closed this as deleted and then Yann (talk · contribs) apparently decided to overrule you and restore it, so I thought I should at least bring it to your attention. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. His action has been the subject of discussion elsewhere.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten file

You forgot delete. -- 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please restore a file you deleted.

Hi, you deleted File:MQ-1C Warrior.jpg (see here despite the fact that I provided proof of it being a public domain image from the US Army, and updated the image page with all of the details.

“Images on the Army Web site are cleared for release and are considered in the public domain. Request credit be given as "Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army" and credit to individual photographer whenever possible.”


The specific image page

Please restore it. Hohum (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was quick! Thankyou - I could have been clearer about the PD state of images on that site - so many are taken from it for use on commons that I didn't think to specifically point out the PD message. Hohum (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wrote a note pointing that out, but we edit conflicted -- thanks for the extra information -- as you surely know, there are a lot of non-PD contractor images on some of the military sites.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi   as far as I can remember, the builing occupied just about 33% of the picture, there were some landscape in front of it, a road and some vegetation. But it's ok I respect the decision. Regards :-) Jeriby (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I said:
"...the building goes across 95% of the image..."
which is true, but perhaps not perfectly clear.
"the building goes horizontally across 95% of the image and vertically 25%..."
seems a bit too much. The point is that without any question the building is the principal subject of the image -- the rest is just grass, scrub wildflowers and sky.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iajuddin Ahmed.jpg

Please see: discussion was closed as delete, but the file hasn't been deleted. --Art-top (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jim! Purely out of curiosity, how does Template:Uns differ from {{Unsigned}}? Rehman 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. When you pull a date and username from History to fill {{unsigned}} it comes out like this

10:41, 5 March 2011 Rehman

To use it in {{unsigned}}, the fastest way is to paste it twice with the pipe in between, like this:

{{unsigned|10:41, 5 March 2011 Rehman|10:41, 5 March 2011 Rehman}}

and then delete the extra stuff to get

{{unsigned|Rehman|10:41, 5 March 2011}} =
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehman (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Uns takes them in the other order, so you can just do this
{{unsigned2|10:41, 5 March 2011 Rehman}}

and add the pipe, without having to delete the extra.

{{uns|10:41, 5 March 2011|Rehman}} =
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehman (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In the example case it saves about 25 keystrokes, mostly the delete key. Since obviously it wasn't clear at Template:Unsigned2, I'll add this (with a change of name) there. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see :) Maybe it's better to move this template to {{Unsigned3}} (2 is taken), to be consistent with the prefix order (like That'll make it is more easier to find the template via Search or PrefixIndex... Rehman
Thanks for introducing me to Special:Prefixindex.
Guess what? {{Unsigned2}} = Template:Uns. Oops. Makes your suggestion academic. I'll clean up my use of uns and delete it. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Glad I could help. Best regards. Rehman 14:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:MK19 40mm Grenade Machine Gun.jpg

The PEO Soldier Flickr page is a photostream of a government institution which explicitly grants permission to all on it's flickr profile. The exceptional few that have copyrights retained by the organization are marked in the EXIF data. Contrary to popular belief, contractors can release their rights to their media images to the government under the same PD license. These images really should be handled as a batch deletion request. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with PEOSoldier. The problem is that they put
"(C) All Rights Reserved"
on many (maybe all) of their Flickr images, including this one. That leaves us little choice except assume that it is a contractor image, as many of their images certainly are.
Having negotiated many DoD contracts, I'm well aware that a DoD contractor may release its copyright to supplied images, but they are not required to do so and most will not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The "popular belief" to which you refer is the view that contractors do not automatically relinquish their copyright on images (although they may of course choose to). This has been pointed out to you many times already. You do a disservice to these other editors, myself included, if you then misrepresent this (I believe, correct) opinion as an obviously incorrect and restrictive position instead. You are constructing a straw man argument, and belittling others by claiming that they are supporting it.
In this case, the image (on Flickr at least) is clearly marked as retaining copyright, thus unacceptable for Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Andy, to whom was that diatribe directed? I think I stated the law and practice correctly above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Marcus if that wasn't clear from the indent. This same issue has been raised on a large number of his uploads. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I'm not attuned to all the subtleties of idents.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have confirmation from PEO Soldier that the photos are indeed public domain. If necessary I will send it through OTRS. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That will not work. The OTRS system won't accept an e-mail from the uploader because, of course, the uploader could have forged the permission.
You could, though, get PEOSoldier to send an e-mail to OTRS from their e-mail account -- that will work. Or, suggest that they change the license on their Flickr account images that are PD. You might think about reminding them that they are probably breaking the law by putting "(C) All Rights Reserved" on images that are, by law, PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Step 3 says "Then forward the e-mail with the author's clear statement of permissions to". I'm unaware if it is possible to forge the sender information. Maybe with some email providers, but definitely not with gmail. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Right you are. I don't understand that, as if you send the e-mail to OTRS, you could simply take their denial and change it to permission, but so be it. I suggest, again, that you ask PEOSoldier to change their license on Flickr.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

About Category:Cambodia-Vietnam Friendship Monument in Phnom Penh deletion


Based on your comments, I would like to ask you to delete also all the pictures listed bellow that for sure infrige the copyrights:

  • All the content of Category:Traditional Houses in Cambodia
  • All the photos in Category:Phnom Penh Olympic Stadium
  • Both photo of Category:Sorya Shopping Center
  • All photos in Category:Olympic market
  • All photos in Category:Orussey Market
  • All photos in Category:Independence Monument, Phnom Penh
  • File:EmeraldBuddhainCambodia.JPG (I do not know when the creator died, but I am sure it is forbidden to take a picture inside the silver pagoda) [Comment by Jameslwoodward -- Note that our policy is to ignore restrictions placed on photography by the site – that is between the site and the photographer – we consider only copyright restrictions.]

Regards, --Sundgauvien38 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the role of Administrators -- I cannot simply delete images for FOP, they must go through the Deletion Request process. I suggest you start a mass deletion request with the first group above, and individual requests for the remainder, noting my comment on the last one.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert1er.jpg and others

Monsieur, je constate que vous attaquez les documents insérés par moi notamment, dans l'article concernant Eug. J. de Bremaecker, mes références User indiquent que je suis détenteur des droits d'auteur en tant qu'héritier du sculpteur, de plus photographe de formation, je connais toutes les règles en matière de droit d'auteur ce qui ne semble pas être votre cas. Vu vos agressions répétée, je me réserve de demander la limitation de vos interventions. Salutations.

M. De Bremaecker

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldb (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I had (and have) no way of knowing that you are the heir of Eugène De Bremaecker, so the various Deletion Requests are entirely valid. You should make a comment at each of them.
Also, before you write stiffly worded messages to Commons editors, you should consider that our rules are designed to protect the rights of the owner of the copyright. All we could see was that those rights were infringed by someone we know only as "Micheldb". So, I tagged them for deletion.
Finally, please sign all of your messages on Commons with four tildes: ~~~~, which adds your username and a time stamp to the end. It is also helpful if you provide a link to the problem, as I have done above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


Okay, so I took a picture of a painting, and left the frame around it to ensure that no-one could mistake a photo for the oroginal picture, and took great pains to ascribe the author information to the image. So, User:Tryphon said I had not supplied information on the picture; but, I had and said so. So, another editor seems to have wanted the picture trimmed. So, you delete it, seemingly without looking at the information. Is there another explanation? Thanks,Peter Ellis (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it is that a respected colleague said that it was a painting by an artist who died in 2002. If that is the case, then the photograph infringes on the artist's copyright and it cannot be kept here.
Commons Admins do about 1,000 Administrative actions per day. We do not have time to do a thorough investigation of every DR -- we rely on others. That is why we make it easy to fix mistakes, first by your requesting it here and, then, if I disagree, by encouraging you to put the problem at Commons:Undeletion requests.
This issue from the start has been that you don't appear to understand "own work". While the photograph is certainly yours, the painting is not. When it was deleted, the Summary read:
It might better have read:
  • Source: Copy photograph by Peter Ellis
  • Author: Vernon Jones (1908-2002)
If it had read that way from the start, it would have been deleted shortly after you first uploaded it.
As far as I can see, this is a valid deletion. Since I may have missed something, I'd be happy to discuss it further here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons delete

Please have a look here:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarbi (talk • contribs) 10:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing a little investigation. Please stand by and look again at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Magdeburger-Dom-Nachts.jpg from time to time.
Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Metro Granada

Thanks for the info. I did it.--HrAd (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1聖堂.JPG

Ok, since you close this as keep, can you suggest a way to fix the image? It's of an unknown building. There is no Temple in Asia that is this design, so it could be any temple. There are plenty of examples of the "Smaller" design (see :File:Columbia_South_Carolina.jpg]]) as an example. There are hundreds of Photos of the "Smaller" Design". Additionally since Commons:Freedom of panorama could be an issue, since we don't know what country this is, then is this image even PD? I don't know how to fix the problem. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons Admins do about 1,000 administrative actions a day, and are falling behind, so we don't spend much time on each image. We are generally reluctant to delete good images of interesting subjects -- certainly temples of the LDS qualify. Hence my choice here.
Given the text in the image description, I first guessed Taiwan, but it is obviously not Taipei. A quick search relatively nearby suggests it might be Fukuoka, Japan or Kona, Hawaii, but you seem to know more about them than I do.
I have sent the uploader an e-mail. Maybe he will respond.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me know if he responds. The problem, I see is alot of the temple look exactly the same. However, I don't think this is the Fukuoka, Japan, since the space between the circles isn't dark. Yes it is possible that it is Kona, Hawaii, but is it is also possible that it's a number of others. Even the temple nearest me [Tennessee Temple] looks alot like it. I just don’t see how this image can be used, if which one isn’t know. Sure it is an example of that style of this type of Temple, so is all the other image we have talked about.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:CoA Kramatorsk4.jpg

Hi Jim. Sorry for not having noticed it before, but the description of this file was really true. User:Herald63 is a known heraldist and has created coats of arms of a number of cities in Ukraine. If he states that it is his project of COA and he releases this work into the public domain, I don't see any reason not to trust him, he has really created several dozens of coats of arms. I have noticed only discussion on File:CoA Kramatorsk3.jpg, and there is really a problem there as this is an unapproved project by A.Sturua and not by the uploader himself, so this file is already available in uk and ru as fair use. So it is File:CoA Kramatorsk3.jpg that should be deleted and not File:CoA Kramatorsk4.jpg. Thanks — NickK (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As you probably know, Commons Admins do about 1,000 administrative actions per day, mostly deletions. So when I run across a DR with no comment except the nominator, I usually just delete it. That is good 99 times out of 100 and actually saves time overall.
This is the 100th case. Please explain to me in words of one syllable what's going on with these two files and, if it makes sense, I'll fix it. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I know, so I'll explain briefly and omitting unnecessary details.
File:CoA Kramatorsk4.jpg was really created by the uploader, as User:Herald63 is a heraldist and co-author of current COA of Kramatorsk
There is no urgent problem with File:CoA Kramatorsk3.jpg, I just used it as an example
Sorry for the first comment with too many details — NickK (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jim. Pls. revert delete action as nothing is wrong with pic and there was no support for deletion request. Cheers Ori~ (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First, it is a serious violation of our rules to remove the {{Delete}} from a page as you did here on March 5. Delete templates may be removed only by the editor, usually an Administrator, who closes the Deletion request. As you have seen here, removing the template does not stop the process. Do not do this again or you will be blocked from editing on Commons.
Actually, two editors -- the nominator and I -- agreed that image does not have a useful educational purpose. Commons is adding about half a million images a month -- as we grow, it is important to make decisions about what images are worth keeping,lest we become
"a database of 9,792,328 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute" and no one can actually use because it is too hard to sort the good from the not so good.
We have thousands of images of airplanes and 120 images of Easyjet aircraft, including, probably, another image of this particular aircraft. An out of focus (or motion blurred -- it is hard to tell) image of an aircraft far overhead is unlikely to be of use.
With that said, it costs nothing to keep a single image -- we would keep it in the deleted archive anyway, so I have restored it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. And indeed we don't have an image of this plane approching TLV. PS: I am a rather contributing user, so I reckon there is no need to warn me about removing the deletion template; I honestly thought the nominator had a misconsept thinking the pic was edited. Ori~ (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello, why did you delete this logo? I wrote Fastily and explained him, that the mwp is a non-proftit project in the sense of science. Of course I have the copyright, it should not be deleted, thanks Falcoperegrinus01 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the file description or at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MWP Logo.jpg to show that you have any connection to the project. This appears to be the logo of the project, so the project is the copyright holder, not you. If you want it undeleted, please have the corporate secretary or other similar official of the project send a license from a project e-mail address using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the description and contacted the OTRS. Can you integrate the Logo again please. Due to your delete activity I have still problems with a new integration. Thanks Falcoperegrinus01 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have uploaded the file again. It is a violation of our rules to replace a deleted file and if you do it again you will be blocked from editing. In the ordinary course of things, the OTRS volunteer would have undeleted the file when your permission came in. I have also undone the removal of the file at Mountain Wave Project. This is something you could have done easily by simply selecting the previous version of the article and saving it.
I will leave the file on Commons without permission for a short period, but if appropriate permission does not arrive, I will delete it again. I note that you say you have contacted OTRS. As I pointed out above, the permission must come from the appropriate official of the project. Unless you are that official, your e-mail will not be sufficient.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I contacted and have received the permission with [Ticket#2011031310004187]; concerning the logo the Wikimedia-Support-Team said, that a permission is not necessary! How should I interpret this different views? Falcoperegrinus01 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that one of my colleagues has nominated this file for deletion again. Since the logo belongs to the organization, not you, we require permission from the organization to keep it, even though you made it -- it would be very surprising (and sloppy) if an organization used a logo when they did not own the copyright. While I could simply keep the image, unless you get an OTRS permission tag on the file, you will be fighting off similar DRs forever.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frank Buckles WW1 at 16 edited.jpg

Ahem. - NeutralHomerTalk • 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment -- or lack of it -- above. As the nominator said, this is very probably a studio portrait supplied by Buckles. I doubt very much that the US Army was taking high quality portraits of recruits in 1918. Certainly we have no evidence that it was taken by the Army or that it was published before Buckles became notable recently as the last surviving WWI veteran.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I took care of it and reuploaded it on en.Wiki with one of our trusty Public Domain templates. - NeutralHomerTalk • 12:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It's probably fair use there, but there is no reason to believe it is PD -- see my edit conflict comment I inserted above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can source it to many different government and military sites, including It also goes through the Library of Congress, which, as you know, is So, it is a government and military image. Hence my reupload and readdition to the page. - NeutralHomerTalk • 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your understanding of the law is incorrect. In order for it to be PD-USGov, it must have been taken by a Federal government employee in the course of his duties for the government. There is no evidence that this was taken by the Army -- far from it. The Federal government and the LofC host many images on their sites that are not PD-US Gov.

Note carefully that the photo credit at the Army site that you cite above reads:

"Photo by Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress’ Veteran’s History Project"

If it were a US Army photo, the credit would read:

"US Army Photo"

or something similar.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we can safely say it wasn't taken by the LOC since the image was taken in Winchester, England. He is in his Army uniform, probably an Army image. The Army, like the other branches of the Armed Forces, take pictures of those in formal uniform. My father (US Navy) has one in his dress blues. It is a high quality image and from the US Navy. There are similar images for the Army, Marines, Air Force, Army Air Corps and others dating as far back as one can imagine. This is an Army image. - NeutralHomerTalk • 13:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, the Army doesn't think it is an Army image or the credit above would be different. I suggest you find similar images of 1918 recruits that the Army says it took -- that would make a reasonable argument. The fact that the Navy took a similar image of your father is not relevant, particularly since you're 29, so it would have been much later.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The mentioning of the Navy photo of my Dad was to show that these aren't out of the ordinary. But....three images at the top of World War 1 soldiers, image of an unknown Texas soldier from WWI, a WWI soldier, a German WWI soldier from Getty Images (was Jewish and shared a hiding sport with Anne Frank), another WWI soldier from Getty, yet another Getty image of a WWI soldier. So, yeah, they took high quality pictures. - NeutralHomerTalk • 13:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh and since it is more than 70 years old and a European image, we could use {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{PD-US}} since it is before 1923. - NeutralHomerTalk • 13:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You still miss the point. Certainly their are similar portraits of soldiers from all over the world, but none of those you cite above show in any way that the US Army routinely took studio quality portraits of raw recruits in 1918.
In order to use {{PD-US}} you have to show that it was published before 1923 (or later without notice, etc.).
The nominator and I both think that this is an image that Buckles or his family had made in 1918 or so and that remained unpublished in a scrapbook until he became notable as the last surviving US soldier of WWI. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but you must prove it, not just guess.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What? His family created? His family created a photo of him in England, in 1918? WHAT?! That doesn't even make sense. I seriously doubt his Mom or Dad were along for the boatride to the UK or France. Plus, they didn't have time-delayed cameras back then, so that is out too. Along with that, it is outside of the Commons perview now, so it really doesn't matter. I suggest you ease up on the deletion trigger finger a bit. - NeutralHomerTalk • 13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You would do a whole lot better if you read things more carefully. I said:

"an image that Buckles or his family had made..."

which certainly includes the possibility that he had it made in a studio. It does not suggest at all that he made it himself -- this is a studio portrait. And, by the way, your PD won't fly on WP:EN either, you also have to prove things there. I suggest you change it to fair use, which it certainly could be.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is government (, so all I have to do is slightly change it. If anyone complains (which I highly doubt they will), it could be changed to {{PD-US}} (since it was taken in 1918). So I am not really worried. Again, it is now under the perview of en.Wiki, so we will handle it from there. I have really lost faith in Commons, being this is the second government/military image removed that was later found (via a very short Google Images search) to be, in fact, a government/military image. - NeutralHomerTalk • 13:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, you haven't proved that it is eligible for anything but fair use. The fact that it was taken in 1918 is not important in US law -- only when it was first published matters. That may well have been in this century.
I am sorry that you have lost faith in Commons, but this is a clear case where you are wrong -- you have presented no evidence acceptable to Commons that it is a government image or that it was published before 1923.
I also note, that you have not taken it to Commons:Undeletion requests, which you certainly could do. Anything can happen there, but I would be surprised if it were undeleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't need to get it undeleted, since I have reuploaded it on en.Wiki. I am checking with our admins and our image rules to see our plan of action, but I feel safe to say the image will be there for awhile. - NeutralHomerTalk • 14:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It qualifies for fair use on WP, but it was almost certainly first published in the last 20 years or so, since Buckles became notable only when he became a centenarian. PD-USGov is to be approached with care; there are many traps and outright wrong attributions or claims of PD on US Government servers, the Department of the Interior being particularly bad. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The image is also at File:Frank Woodruff Buckles at 16.jpg. As the PD status of the image is disputed on Commons, the image should also be deleted from Commons. A version of the image is hosted on en-wiki with a Non-Free Fair Use rationale. I agree that it is probably a PD image, but in the absence of definitive proof of this we cannot claim it as such. It's a similar situation to en:File:43-37527-N7-X 19440706 GR.jpg, used in the en:Penshurst Airfield article. Again, probably a PD image, but definitive proof of this is lacking, so it's being treated as a copyright image, an action which was endorsed at en:Talk:Penshurst Airfield/GA1 when the article was nominated for Good Article status. Please make any reply to en:User talk:Mjroots#Need Some Input if you would be so kind. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hank Williams & The Drifting Cowboys.jpg

Hi, recently you identified one of my uploads, (Hank Williams & The Drifting Cowboys.JPG) as a Flickrwashing, since I had no idea of this I want to ask if you can take care of also of removing File:Hank Williams & The Drifting Cowboys2.JPG, a derivative work of the original. (please notify me in my talk page for the reply) Thanks.--GDuwen (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for bringing it up.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Brega.ogv

Excuse me? Why did you delete it? There were a total of 4 keepers and 3 deleters, if your just going to delete it like that then your not giving the users democracy. Cowik (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests are not votes. While the closing Administrator is required to consider all of the comments offered, he or she is also required to use his own knowledge of copyright law and Commons policy.
In this case we had deletes from three experienced Commons editors, including a very senior Admin, and keeps from four people, two of which are IP users and the other two relatively new users, so even if it were a vote, logic would have made it a delete.
As Martin H. said in the subject DR, we have a procedure for allowing the use of media made by third parties, which is outlined at Commons:OTRS. It is not very difficult, but it does require a little more effort on the part of the creator than:
"in general? nah, i dont care, even though you have some good points. i guess anyone could use it."
Without that permission, we must delete the work.
If you get ibnomar2005 to follow that procedure we can, of course, undelete the file.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Tags (Out of project scope: Commons galleries are for collections of images, Articles belong in Wikipedia)

I frankly admit I did not understand your reason: that page was about an iPhone Application, not a Common gallery, whatever that means.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbartolom (talk • contribs) 11:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the cryptic note -- the box allows only a short comment.
Pages in Commons without a prefix (without "File:", "Commons:", "User:", and some others) are called "galleries". They are intended for collections of images or other media files on a single subject. While they may have some descriptive text and captions on the images, they are not articles, which, as the comment said, belong in Wikipedia. Some examples:
Although we generally favor keeping galleries that are on the border of being articles, your contribution was clearly an article, not close to being kept.
I can copy it to a subpage of your user page if you wish -- just let me know here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stefan doziert.jpg

Please tell me how you know that File:Stefan_doziert.jpg is in use. You said "Kept: In use now." Is there some other way then CheckUsage that shows how an image is used. When I when to CheckUsage: File:Stefan_doziert.jpg and it says " found: 370 KB, 2688x3584 pixels - not used". If you could please tell me what I could do differently to check the usage or if you could please reconsider your "keep".--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I generally use the "Global usage" link under the down arrow just to the left of the Search box in the top right of each page, although that does not show usage on Commons. Commons and other usage is also shown near the bottom of every file description page. Those and "CheckUsage" should come up with the same results.
Since, as far as I know, there is no easy way to check where this was used yesterday, I don't know whether it was in fact in use yesterday or if I made a mistake, perhaps looking at the cited historical page, rather than the current one.
Considering the numbers that Adrignola is going through and that even without his spurt of nominations, Commons Admins do about 1,000 deletions a day, this is a lot of fuss about one image, but it's gone now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my motives for contacting you seems not to have not have been explain well my me. It just seems to me that alot of images that I would think are obviously deletes are "Keep"ed for reasons that seem strangely unrelated, like this image. So my main reason for contacting you was to understand how you got "In use now", since I didn't see how it was "In use" and wanted to know. However, thanks for reconsider your "keep".--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you already understand this, but the most general rules are
  • If is an image is not freely licensed or PD, we delete it.
  • If an image is freely licensed or PD, but is not useful for an educational purpose, we also delete it.
  • In deciding whether it is useful, if it is in use on any WMF project, then we keep it.
In this case, I thought the image was in use, so it was a keep. You pointed out that it wasn't actually in use, so, since it appeared not to be useful, I deleted it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Contrariamente a la autorización que doy en la página de discusión para que sea borrada la foto que en enlace se cita, ahora me opongo debido a singulares hallazgos recientes. Con qué derecho se tilda esta foto de inapropiada cuando aquí se albergan imágenes como estas masturbation , que no muestran e mi opinión nada de instructivo y si de pornográfico. Muy disgustado --Yerandy1990 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. I do not read Spanish, so I am depending on machine translation of your words. Please forgive me if I do not understand correctly.
  2. You told us to go ahead and delete the image, so I did. I am not sure why you are angry now -- what did you expect us to do after you gave permission?
  3. Even if you had not agreed that we should delete it, we would have done so. Users may upload photographs of themselves, but only for use on their user pages, so it was out of scope.
  4. If you would like to use it on Yerandy1990, I would be happy to undelete it for use there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Is the US Army specifically calling it a "US Army photo" sufficient?[8] That’s on top of the US Army generally saying that it’s "considered in the public domain".[9] That the Army gave the Library of Congress some credit for recovering the image should not negate the fact that it is a US Army photo.[10]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at the DR, not here, but to your point I say:

  1. I'd rather trust the NY Times than the Army for accuracy any day.
  2. The fact that the Army/DoD says two different things at two different web sites does not make either assertion very credible.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where was the fire? -- Commons:Deletion_requests/File:George_madison_plaque.png

I find your deletion of the files while an active investigation as to their copyright status to be in haste. I clearly informed the page, I was looking into the matter from an authoritative source, yet, you chose to disregard that message and deleted them one day later. Asking a state bureaucracy is not a quick task, especially for something of this nature. I find their response to be timely, and yours to be rushed. if I misinterpreted the deletion as by you, when it was someone else, I offer my apologies

K3vin (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is our policy that DRs may be closed after a week. The closing Admin is required to consider all of the facts given in the DR as well as his or her experience and knowledge of copyright law in making the decision about which way to close it. Those decision are made relatively quickly -- Commons Admins make about 1,000 Administrative actions, mostly deletions, per day, and we do not have the luxury of much time for each one.
In this case I saw a clear delete -- we had 15 files, all with significant text probably still under copyright with possibly as many as 15 different authors who would have to license it to us. We also, in some cases, had the shape and design of the plaque to be considered -- for example, File:African Cemetery No. 2, Lexington, Kentucky, marker.jpg has sculpted bas relief leaves, so that we would also need a license from the sculptor. Our clear policy is to delete when there is any question. I might even argue that these are delete-on-sight as clearly copyvio.
I saw a comment that you, not a new editor, but one with very little experience here, were going to try to get an opinion from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. My experience told me that such opinions are not easy or quick. I note that you now have an e-mail from Betsy Riddle which may be a beginning of getting such an opinion, but it is a long way from actually getting it.
And, finally, there is the fact that if it turns out that Kentucky comes through with a satisfactory opinion (which I still doubt it will), it is very easy to undelete these.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim, I completely understand. Kevin Fillips K3vin (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polson I2A Part1.JPG

Looking at File:Polson_I2A_Part2.JPG which was part of the deletion request, it is indicated that the work is that of a naval lieutenant commander, which may mean the work is {{PD-USGov}} though without description of your reason in the field it is hard to deduce your reasons. Would you have a look at the set of four files related to the case and see whether the other three should be deleted too, or whether we should undelete one. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have deleted the other three at the time. I don't usually leave a deletion reason when I agree with the nom, but in this case it was probably warranted. I just did so.
As I said there, without a better source -- a name proves nothing other than that the image is not "own work" -- we have nothing to hang our hat on for PD-Gov. Where these appear to be a set and yet have both "own work" and the LCdr attributed, it also raises questions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, this user had a last warning regarding copyright violations a week before your warning, and is now vandalizing your user page. I think it's time for a block. –Tryphon 18:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like they've been blocked by Herby now. –Tryphon 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Herby gave him a day's block -- I wouldn't bet on that being enough.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

cindy van acker

hello, I have forgotten that I have start a "cindy van acker" 's page ! In fact I have realised that I was mistaken doing it on the commons without images (i am probably going to ask for) and i continued on wikipedia ! --ildiko Dao 07:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canal-de-Miribel-A-la-gare-deCrépieux.JPG

Hi Jim, the above linked image has been requested for deletion by the uploader him/herself. I'm rather sympathetic to the request as the image is unused and really not of the best quality. However, then I saw your keep-decision in the former DR. Would you like to comment? --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking -- I always appreciate your courtesy. I added the following at the DR:
"  Comment My apologies, this is a place where I probably should have made a comment. I kept this because replacing a low quality image is not a reason to delete the old one -- you can simply upload the new image over the old one. Use the link "Upload a new version of this file" that is near the bottom of the "File history" section on File:Canal-de-Miribel-A-la-gare-deCrépieux.JPG."
If you disagree and would like to delete it anyway, go ahead. In fact, as I look at the name, maybe you should -- shouldn't it be
"File:Canal-de-Miribel-A-la-gare-de-Crépieux" (with the hyphen before Crépieux)?
or, maybe,
"File:Canal de Miribel a la gare de Crépieux"?
Thanks again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CD-DVD-Verpackungen.jpg

Could you please restore this file; the discussion is still not finished. --Wvk (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We require that DRs be open for a week, this one had been open for ten days. The last comment had been six days ago and your last comment had been eight days ago, all of which made it look to me like the discussion was over. This appeared to be a routine deletion of an unlicensed copy.
If you think there is a good reason why we should keep it, please tell me here.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi James, the owner of the copyright has granted a free licence; but it is not clear wether this licence is also for the picture on the cover of the box. The discussion may take a while. Give us some more days and I try to get a final decision from the OTRS-team. --Wvk (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi James, could you look at OTRS Ticket #2011031210003895 and restore the picture. The owner of the copyright has granted permissission to publish the photo under a free licence. --Wvk (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Firefox-Wikipedia-Spanish 3.5 neutral.png


Can you please explain, why this image was kept? --Vssun (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no copyrightable parts of windows..???...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably should have left a note. Although the WMF logo is copyrighted, we do allow it in Commons images. At the time I kept the image, the Firefox logo was so small as to be close to invisible and was certainly de minimis. Since then, it has been removed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been bold and gone ahead to make the change to remove some of the copyrighted material like the Firefox logo. But we should probably revdelete the old thumbnail just in case copyright comes up and it happens to fall out of de minimis; and we should ensure consistency like the revdeletion that occurred in a previous image I've uploaded for exactly these reasons. I can also revise to more accurately reflect the changes in the picture. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Nee, I know the guy from pl-wiki. I on purpose blocked emailing options to avoid unnecessary spam to me and other admins. We traced him back from pl-wiki, therefore we consider this issue as "internal affair" :) And, as you could see, during past days he not only avoided any form of contact (both here and at pl-wiki), but kept violating copyrights. But if you think that I'd be more fair to at least technically allow him for emailing - I have no objections. Masur (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Nyiostergotland 2010 ar.pdf

You deleted this file, but there are numerous translations of it uploaded on Commons. Please delete all of them--Antemister (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They will have to go through the DR process -- I cannot just arbitrarily delete when files are out of scope. Please do a mass deletion request for all of them. Please be sure to tag each one.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
added deletion requests--Antemister (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded these documents in the hope that they would be useful sources of information for a handful of languages. Since I don't speak Arabic/Farsi/... myself, I have not been able to edit the content into the Arabic/Farsi/... Wikipedia. If I had printed these PDFs and then scanned them, the resulting PDFs would not be "raw text" and would not be deleted. Now they are deleted. Does this make sense? --LA2 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you misunderstand "raw text". They would be out of scope in any format. We are a repository for images, not text. The full quote at COM:SCOPE is:

"Excluded educational content includes:
...Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource." (emphasis added)

I am not very familiar with Wikibooks, and Wikisource, but I suspect there's home for these at one or the other.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I could cut-and-paste the text from the PDF straight into Wikisource. But then, if someone edits the text, its "source" status is compromised and nobody knows what the stable reference is anymore. This is why Wikisource wants to rely on scanned images (of old books). Such scanned PDFs are uploaded to Commons all the time. Here we don't need to scan the document, because it is available in text PDF already.
I have also uploaded some brochures in printable text PDF used by the national chapter Category:Wikimedia Sverige, and nobody has yet proposed that they should be deleted. How should this guideline be applied to the brochures? I would have preferred to upload Open Document Format, but that is not yet accepted by Commons. --LA2 (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's an example of what the document would look like in Wikisource, with the plain text backed up with the original PDF, page by page. --LA2 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I am not familiar with Wikisource and Wikibooks. But I do know that they are outside of Commons scope.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[moved from new section below]
Regarding this.

Are You aware of the rest of the text on COM:PS?

"However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other WMF projects"

These two things seems to contradict each other, maybe better to rewrite the page, to make sure nobody misunderstands... -- Lavallen (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
[end of moved text]

Yes, I agree that they appear to conflict in a limited way. However, since the sentence I quoted above explicitly says
"the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource."
it seems that with respect to material that will go on those projects, it will not be hosted at Commons.
I would happy to see an undeletion request on this file so that the discussion could get a wider audience.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource."
Not all projects has the ability or even the possibility to "host files", I'm afraid. On svws we still have the possibility to upload, but we have not enough users interested in file-administration. -- Lavallen (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK -- I've started an Undeletion request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vice President Dick Cheney talks with President Bush.jpg

You probably hit the wrong button: Kept Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vice President Dick Cheney talks with President Bush.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Deleted now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Confused here

The grandson, whose grandfather was one of the society's founders, must check on his grandfather's copyright before he publishes a diploma issued by the society which contains a drawing by his grandfather? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you see that there ever was a copright on that drawing, used by the society since 1923? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In Sweden and most countries (until recently the USA was a major exception), everything has a copyright. For most works in most countries -- and specifically for drawings in Sweden -- the copyright lasts for seventy years after the death of the creator. Therefore, as I said in my closing comment, we would need permission from the creator's heirs.
If you are his heir for this purpose, that is easy. Simply follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS with a formal declaration that you are his heir and that you license the drawing as CC-BY or another acceptable license.
If you are not his heir, then one or more of your close relatives probably is.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Need some info

Hello James, Your user page says you are 'admin'. You wrote in regards to deletion:

> As far as I know, these would have to be done one at a time

I need to know, if you have been doing picture/file deletion, never, occasionally, or frequently. It would be interesting to know what kind of Admin tasks you do normally. Best Regards, --Janwikifoto (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember saying that, although I don't remember where. I'm not at all sure I understand the reason for your questions, but it is all public information so I see no reason not to answer:

You can get information on ordinary edits at

Janwikifoto's edit counts

and on Administrative actions at

Sysop activity on Commons

where you will find that I have made about 10,000 administrative actions in the last six months. Most of my Administrative work is in two places -- patrolling new Gallery pages and closing Deletion Requests.

Note that while the first tool is quite fast for users with a short history, it takes much longer for those with many edits and often times out -- in order to get information on an active editor, you may have to try three or four times. The second tool takes several minutes.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Louise-Pasteau.jpg - has been recreated?

Hello Jim Woodward, I have (as you can see) just normal user rights and therefore can't see hidden entries in history. Therefore I have to ask you: You wrote that this file has been recreated by User:Mathieu Perino but if I look in the logs and history, I can't find anything proving that. Where I have to look to find the clue? Thank you. --RE RILLKE Questions? 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to discover that the page I used

cannot be viewed by anyone who is not an Admin. I don't think there is any good reason not to show it to you here:

  • (show/hide) 10:05, 18 March 2011 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:Louise-Pasteau.jpg ({{Information |Description ={{en|1=Louise Pasteau, french actress}} {{fr|1=Louise Pasteau, actrice, comédienne et lectrice}} |Source ={{own}} |Author =Mathieu Perino |Date =2011-03-18 |Permission =)
  • (show/hide) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . File:Louise Pasteau.jpg ({{Information |Description={{en|1=Louise Pasteau, Voyage au bout de la nuit - Direct 8}} {{fr|1=Louise Pasteau, Voyage au bout de la nuit - Direct 8}} |Source={{own}} Voyage au bout de la nuit - Direct 8 |Author=Mathieu Perino |Dat)

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive, rapid response (I know admins are very busy; there is so much to do). In 2010, it was not a common practise to notify the uploader? Please excuse my curiosity. --RE RILLKE Questions? 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome -- I try to be helpful to people who are polite and reasonable. It was certainly required to notify the uploader, but as you see here, not always done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chernobyl victim monument in Kharkiv.jpg

Why did you speedy delete this? Jcb (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Likely because a monument related to Chernobyl cannot have gone already nto PD and, regrettably, Ukraine has no usable FOP provision. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Túrelio has the reason right, but it wasn't a speedy -- it had a DR. As Tryphon pointed out, "other stuff exists" is not a reason to avoid doing something.
We might better ask why you kept it in the earlier DR. I know you don't like the lack of FOP in many places -- I don't either, but I believe that, like it or not, it is our job to obey the law.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I responded at my talk page to that question. And yes, it was speedy deletion. The only open DR for that file was the 26-3 Tryphon DR, that should normally not be closed before 2-4. I was quite surprised, because I know you normally respect closures by collegues. But if you don't call this a speedy deletion, that would mean that you simply overruled my decision. Jcb (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we do not agree on many things -- your comment that the DR could be closed as a keep by consensus is another example -- policy is that the closing administrator makes a decision and is not required to count votes -- indeed, in cases where his knowledge of the law and experience call for it, he must close the other way even if there are no votes his way.
Although I think that my closure was entirely appropriate, I probably should not have stirred trouble here. In the future I will stay away from your activities if you will stay away from mine.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take it too dramatic. I wouldn't have said anything if you would have deleted it after a week. I respect different decisions by collegues to repeated DRs. Jcb (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


I thought the discussion was going on at File talk:Skogsfinnar.jpg. I didn't realize there was a separate discussion for the DR. I wish to restart the DR, so I can make my point there. --Zejo (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you made your point well at File talk:Skogsfinnar.jpg. Three experienced Commons editors, two of whom happen to be Administrators, disagree with you. All of them had seen your comments on the talk page. One of the three speaks Swedish and and all three are well aware of the Swedish copyright rules. I therefore see no reason to reopen this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody have commented on what I have written at File talk:Skogsfinnar.jpg, so I very much doubt that anybody have seen it. I think it would be fair to reopen it and give them a chance to reconsider. --Zejo (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You may be sure that they have seen it -- we all watch pages on which we have made recent comments. Speaking only for myself, there was nothing that you said that was new or useful.
I also doubt something you said. You said:
"I have been in contact with Nordiska Museet, which keeps the originals of this and thousands more of Erik Liljeroth's photgraphs in their archive. They regard his pictures as "fotografiska verk" (photographic works) and would like to see this file removed."
If the Nordiska Museet is the copyright holder, it certainly knows that it could issue a take-down notice under the DMCA and the image would be taken down immediately. Since issuing a takedown is free and easy, the fact that it has not done so suggests that it does not agree with you.
I should add a warning -- issuing a DMCA notice if you are not the copyright holder is a criminal offense -- so please do not think that would be an easy way to get us to do your bidding.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:US10000dollarsbillreverse.jpg

Hello. I have to admit that I'm more than puzzled about your closing of this discussion. As you said you didn't understand the nomination but that alone is hardly a reason to close the discussion. The Secret service act does very well speak of images, not of the production of notes, otherwise the "important" message wouldn't be stated on the PD template as a disclaimer! Please judge yourself from the text:

"As listed by the United States Secret Service at money illustrations, the Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (31 CFR 411), permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided:

  1. The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
  2. The illustration is one-sided; and
  3. All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use."

US Banknote design is of course PD but all other images of US banknotes on Commons are taken from the FedReserve site who have of course the means to comply with regulation no. 3 of the Secret Service. That said I'm inclined to re-nominate this image to have a broader basis for a keep. Alternatively we could turn the image to b/w and delete the original colour upload if that's technically possible. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a wide variety of current and historical US bank notes both from government sources and private scans. Although I by no means looked at all of them, this is the only one I saw that has had a DR.
I understand your concern, but if you want to follow up on it, you ought to put a DR on all images of US currency, because obviously Commons files are certainly some or all of "...digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium...." That seems to me on its face to be absurd because, of course, many (but by no means all) of the files on Commons have came from Treasury web sites. It seems to me, therefore, that the Treasury, by its own actions, has shown the regulation you quote is obsolete in the face of the widespread use of the Web and digital technology.
Alternately, I would take the position that hosting the files on Commons is legal until "after their final use in accordance with this section" and that such final use has not yet happened, and will probably never happen, certainly not for many years.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That is a reasoning I can support. I was merely worried about the quick way this request was closed but the you've got a point there. De728631 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page identation

James, please stick to w:Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. --  Docu  at 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I infrequently break the rule on my own talk page, usually because I intend to use multiple indentation in the comment for bullets or quotes. The material you cite

"Indentation is used to keep talk pages readable. Comments are indented to show whether they are replies to other comments, and if so, which ones."

is a suggestion, not a requirement. If it were mandatory, it would read,

"Indentation should be used to ..." Or, "Indentation must be used to ..."

Finally, it's on WP:EN. As you certainly should know by now, Commons does not always follow WP rules.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please comply with the corresponding Commons guideline and DO NOT edit other people's signed posts. --  Docu  at 11:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, fair enough (I assume you mean the RfA), but I should point out again that the double indent there makes the page very difficult to read, as the word "Fixed" appears under the text above it and then there is a long blank -- five pages -- until the bottom of the Admin list on the right before
"Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica_Palm_1c301_5882.jpg. -- Docu at 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"
I assume that most posters would like such mistakes corrected. Putting only one word of the comment under the point it references and the rest five pages later doesn't help clarity or discussion much.
I should add that this is true only on displays that are 1280 pixels or narrower, so you may not have seen it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose my screen is too large. The list of admins seems to generate that. You could achieve the same by replacing "_" with " " in the link. This would maintain the indentation in line with our guideline. --  Docu  at 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm (now trying to learn something) -- do you mean using
" for adminship"
instead of
That doesn't fix it. Or something else?
You could see it by simply narrowing the window. At 1280 pixels wide it will snap from OK to a lot of blank next to the admin list. (I use a two screen setup, one of which is 1280 and the other 1680, so it is easy to see.)     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is wrapping problem, it can't work with external links, but internals ones: compare
Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5882.jpg
--  Docu  at 11:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, feel free to try the above on that page. Thanks for withdrawing your previous comment there. I wonder if you didn't want to support the request. I suppose I meet F's standard of civility and competence. --  Docu  at 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


How do you know that File:Hvad_skal_vi_spise2.JPG is a copyvio? It was uploaded before OTRS became established and thus has no ticket number attached. Which does not mean that there is no permission. Actually work is currently being done to get permission in a format that meets our standards today. Please restore the file and put {{Otrs pending}}. Nillerdk (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When and if an appropriate OTRS message is received it can, as you well know, easily be restored. Until then, our precautionary principle requires deletion.

As you know, we get many uploads that are photographs of copyrighted works and therefore Derivative Works. I would guess that in such cases that the artist or his or her heirs actually give consent maybe 10% of the time. Why should they? They could be receiving royalties from the production of copies of the work -- if they consent to putting the image here, those royalties will stop.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the photographer and uploader of the image, and the one who put {{Copyvio}} on it. I have since been in contact with the heirs, who agreed to CC-BY-SA, as per (I guess it ended up in the dawiki queue - the discussion is in Danish). In this particular case, I am fairly certain that no royalties are involved; the dietary advice in the picture are thoroughly obsolete, so there will be no reprinting. --Palnatoke (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now moved the message to the Commons queue. --Palnatoke (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nigamananda pics

Hi, just in case, as a reminder, the file File:Swami nigamananda.jpg was nominated together as part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thakur nigamananda.JPG. It seems it hasn't been deleted yet. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello. Not to cause offence, but I've initiated an undeletion request for the image of the petroglyph. While your closing comments were well taken, I believe this to be a 2D object. The undeletion request may not come to anything, but sometimes these things benefit from a wider discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly free to ask for undelete. Since "petroglyph" means, literally, "rock carving", it must be, as I said, a 3D object. (I should note that the application of the word "petroglyph" to this object appears to be correct -- it is not just a naming error.) If it were a rock painting, as in the aboriginal art in Australia, it would be 2D.
We explicitly exclude 3D objects, including coins, from PD-Art because even if you take a head-on, perpendicular photograph, the direction of the lighting will render the object in different ways with shadows if the lighting is other than flat.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess what I am saying is that the fact that it's a rock carving does not mean that it is 3D. Texture ≠ automatic 3D. A coin is a completely different matter, because even if you take a photograph of just the image on one side of the coin, it is still just a detail of part of a metal-cast 3D object that is undoubtedly a 3D object (one can't argue a coin itself isn't 3D). For that to be the case here, you would have to consider the rock outcrop itself to be part of the petroglyph artwork (using that logic, the cave paitings in Australia would also be 3D). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again for your comments at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Peterborough-i_sziklafigua.jpg. I appreciate your measured position here and there.
I think that the problem we have is that, for simplicity, Commons has framed it as 2D versus 3D. That's fine, but it isn't actually where the line should be drawn -- it must be drawn where Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. drew it, as that is our basis for rejecting copyright in paintings and drawings. So, what I should really have said, is not that this is 3D (which I believe it is), but that it was not covered by Bridgeman and therefore does not fall in our safety zone.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting point (and one I can relate to) and I will have to read Bridgeman. As an aside, I found very little guidance on this issue on the Commons, and I can't imagine that this is the first time this issue has been raised. We might want to add something to the image casebook or elsewhere, so that there are no future conflicting decisions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I had the same problem explaining the deletion of an ancient Egyptian bas relief a few weeks ago -- your argument was very helpful in getting me to realize that the problem is not really 2D vs 3D but whether it was covered by Bridgeman or not. Let's get some more thoughts on the undeletion and then put something together to add to Commons:Image_casebook#Art_.28copies_of.29 with appropriate cross refs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, have you ever thought about becoming an Administrator? With 80,000 edits (about 3 times my count) you are way over the requirement even though few of them are in the Commons space. The fact that you have only 82 items on your talk page suggests a high level of accuracy and mellow. I'd be happy to sponsor you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very flattering. I am not sure I have the temperment to be a good Admin. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Please think about it -- we can certainly use the help. Civil, mellow, experienced -- sounds like qualifications to me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying, but I did want to think about it. While I am not sure that I am as civil and mellow as I would like to be all the time, it is something that I would like to pursue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Good. When you are ready to go ahead, I would be happy to nominate you. I think that nomination by an Admin improves your chances, but you can do it yourself. If I do the nomination, you should accept promptly.
In preparation, you might want to read Commons:Administrators and Commons:Guide to adminship.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to give the go ahead when I knew I would be around so as to promptly respond to a nomination. I had read those pages before, but it was good to review them again, and I also reviewed a number of recent nominations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. Go to Commons:Administrators/Requests/Skeezix1000 and add your acceptance, then transclude the page onto Commons:Administrators/Requests above Matanya. I should add that I assumed you're male -- if that was not good, please change my nomination appropriately.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Consolas sample.svg and many other font-SVGs

Hello Jim, on your user page you wrote that you're familiar with copyright law. I'd like to know, whether you think the requests would be successful. If yes, what to do? Uploading a png with the information that SVG would violate copyright, deleting and redirecting the SVGs to the PNGs? By the way: Does thumbnailing work properly at your location? Since yesterday it is very slow for me (and it is not my browser / connection).

Again, thank you. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First, yes the thumbnails are very slow -- in the last day or two, I often have had to click the highlighted file name (top left corner of the file page) to get them to come up at all. I've never seen it before and thought it was just something new.
As for SVGs of vector fonts -- most of my copyright experience over the last 35 years has been with respect to text, images, and software -- and I hasten to say that I am not a lawyer, but have had IP counsel reporting to me. Since I've never been involved with a company that designed fonts, the question you ask never came up. You may have noticed that in my passes through the DR log over the last couple of days, I did not comment or close any of the SVG font DRs. That's a hint that I don't have a clue to the answer to any of three questions:
  1. What to do with them here?
  2. How one of my braver colleagues will close them.
  3. How a US court would rule on the subject.
(Although the answers to all three questions should be the same, we both know it might well not be.)
It's a very subtle question. Fonts cannot be copyrighted, but the software that produces an SVG font can be. Therefore anything produced with that software, including a font sample, may be a DW.
I say "may be" because not all vector fonts can be copyrighted. If I had the ability and made an SVG version of a very old PD font, say Bodoni by copying it, I could claim copyright in my code, but not in the output of it.
If pressed, I would say that for fonts that were designed as vector fonts -- Calibri for example, we cannot keep them, even in png form. If you want to use Calibri, you have to have a license from Ascender (which all users of recent versions of MS Office do). Those that were originally designed by hand, such as Times Roman, are probably not a problem. But I don't feel very confident in that position.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I searched the web and found:
"First, let's distinguish between a font and a typeface. A typeface is the scheme of letterforms (which is really what you're probably talking about), and the font is the computer file or program (or for that matter, a chunk of metal) which physically embodies the typeface..." from Are fonts copyrighted?
Now there are 2 questions to answer:
1) Is the typeface design covered by a patent? Yes -> delete; No -> 2)
2) How the user created the "typeface - collection". Reverse engineering of ttf - File? Yes -> delete; No, own work -> keep
I hope this website is trustable, but it sounds logically. --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Be careful -- the second question just restates the basic premise of copyright, that it only protects against someone who copies a work, not someone who invents, writes, draws, paints, etc. it anew. My favorite case on that is Phoenix Techologies which set a team to write a complete specification of what the original IBM PC BIOS did and then set a second team, who had never seen the IBM BIOS or any specifications or descriptions written by IBM to writing a new BIOS that would do exactly what the first team's specification called for. I have been told that there was a 75 or 80% overlap in the code of the two, but because the Phoenix BIOS was not a copy of the IBM BIOS, it succeeded and a new industry was born.
Thanks for this illustration. There should be more information at COM:L#Fonts or the information should be divided into sub pages. Furthermore, under each heading, there should be a one-sentence-definition of what it is, probably in another layout. (The best would be some kind of "license wizard".)

“It is important to make the distinction between copyright, trademarks, and patents. Wikimedia Commons generally only enforces copyright restrictions ...”

But there is no information, whether patented objects are allowed. In my view, you have to pay en:Royalties if you use a patent.
Going back to an other topic: If raster images of Calibri are not allowed, we have to delete all charts created with Excel using this typeface? --RE RILLKE Questions? 10:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I say something wrong or offend you? If this is true, I am really sorry. Please point out what I did wrong.

Is there a "wikimedia lawyer", we can consult?

"One of your braver colleagues" already decided: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cambria sample.svg. --RE RILLKE Questions? 13:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Did I say something..." -- No, no, a thousand times no. As I said earlier, it's an area where I am really not expert -- in fact very unsure -- of the rules, so I have little to contribute.
I can say with great conviction, though, that we certainly do not have to delete material made with Calibri or Cambria -- if you want to use a licensed typeface to print a book, you must get a license. But if you own a copy of the book, you do not have to get a license to the typeface to copy pages from the book (of course, unless the text is PD, you will need permission from the author.)
Or, another line of reasoning. I have not read the Microsoft license for fonts, but I am very certain that it anticipates and allows all derivative uses of those fonts -- I am sure that MS does not expect to receive royalties for any DW use of them of any kind. Although there was a time when software developers tried to reach out to get fees for derivative works, for the most part that is long gone. I am sure that MS would object to anyone supplying TrueType files of Calibri and Cambria, etc. as part of a non-MS software package, but DW must be all right.
So we can certainly keep copies of material printed with Calibri, and maybe even keep font samples -- I am possibly probably being too conservative above.
BTW, design patents cover only actual physical reproduction. Thus I can freely photograph an object that has a design patent, but I cannot make a duplicate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and sorry for extorting an answer from you. --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


For the explanation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dcc coat of arms.png. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. --JaGa (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CHARBHUJAMANDIR.JPG

Please do not delete this image. This is the snapshot taken from my own camera in this village "Bamnera". Please do not delete this image. Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasikdave (talk • contribs) 09:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be not one, but three photographs, with an ornate red and gold border and an outer black border. In order to keep it, we would need to know:

  • Who took each of the three photographs and when;
  • Who created the red and gold border and when; and
  • Who assembled the five elements into one image and when.

We would also have to decide that such complex rendering of a simple image was within the scope of Commons -- I think it is not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I get this done with the help of my colleague, who is good in image designing. He might have used photoshop or some other software which I am not aware. It is fine, if rule does not permit for doing this. Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasikdave (talk • contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your messages on talk pages, deletion requests, and the like by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. That will produce a signature and date stamp such as the one you see on my messages.

Collages -- images that are themselves made up of more than one image -- are permitted, but they must have some good reason. This does not appear to have one. Borders, on the other hand, are not generally useful, because they prevent the use of the image in most contexts. So, while creations like this are not forbidden, they are certainly not encouraged.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Thank you Jim for deleting the images. I would be only happy to share the images with Wikimedia, but one cannot upload a file claiming its their own work. Thats not cool.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkbrow017 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Jameslwoodward,

can you give please a comprehensible reason deleting my image here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paris - Tour Montparnasse - Fassade.jpg. I have remarked to an other request. Beside there are much more images of Tour Montparnasse in Category:Tour Montparnasse. Very incoherent your image-deletion. Greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First, please read Other stuff exists -- the fact that other images of the building exist on Commons is not a reason to keep this one.
Second, please read the French copyright law which says, :
"Sont considérés notamment comme oeuvres de l'esprit au sens du présent code :
"7° Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie ;"
Note that it says "architecture", not "notable architecture", "interesting architecture" or anything other than just "works of architecture". There is no FOP exception in French law. The French courts have been aggressive in enforcing the rights of architects, indeed they are probably the most aggressive of any in the world in this respect. Their notable decisions include one to enforce copyright on the lighting of the Eiffel Tower -- so that we can keep daytime images of the tower, but not images taken at night when the lights were on.
With all of that in mind, I, and almost all Commons Administrators, believe that all architecture in France is protected until 70 years after the death of the architect. We delete infringing images routinely. We often regret having to do this -- but believe that our job is to obey the law.
I am sorry that at least one of my colleagues prefers to interpret the law in a different way and keeps most images of French architecture. Often he will be reversed when a second DR is placed on the image.
Commons is not perfect -- we all do the best we can -- and I think you would find that 90% of Commons Administrators would agree with this decision. You may, of course, appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
FOP for France says "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »). --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That may be, but the law quoted above says "architecture", nothing more. I don't think there is any basis in French law for "a definite artistic character". American law, with which I am much more familiar, allows copyright for the very simplest of buildings. Also, of course, I would argue that the subject building has a definite artistic character, so the point is moot. As I said above, you are free to appeal it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air Logo2.svg

Did you intentionally make a full own revert? --Leyo 15:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC) No, thanks very much. I stuck a comment for the following DR on the wrong file and wanted to remove only that. Fixed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Will take in his ass then. And fuck you too. =D Ninja Forever (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:File1.JPG

Hi again. Please revisit Commons:Deletion requests/File:File1.JPG. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for your effort -- I'm curious, though, I see that you asked the uploader where it was, but I don't see a response and I can't read the paper in the man's hands -- so how did you determine which exhibition it is?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Files of User:Manderzwicky

Why did you delete Files of User:Manderzwicky? --Dandelo (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It violated two policies:

As my closing comment said, it was an empty gallery -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, not lists.

Also, user-specific galleries must be in User space. User:Manderzwicky/Files would be permitted, but a mainspace gallery devoted to one user is not. See Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend creating a gallery. I was trying to start a Deletion request of all of this Files. Perhaps I misread the deletions instructions... :-( --Dandelo (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I was about to write a tutorial, but I see you've done it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Aves Hawaiiensis

Once again, can i move these to enwiki? —innotata 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for grousing (no pun intended, I don't think any of these are actually Grouse) -- I wish that once in a while when a group of files are obviously going to be deleted that they would be moved before the DR is closed.
In this case, though, what is your fair use rationale? -- not, surely, that they are the only available images of the birds. And not, I think, that all of them are necessary for Frederick William Frohawk.
So, while I'm happy to undelete them temporarily, let's not waste time if they're not going to be kept on WP:EN either.
I should add that I'm about to leave my desk for the day, so it might be tomorrow before I read your reply.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
They are public domain in the United States. I'll ask another admin to undelete them, so I don't have to reinstate them with too much trouble at enwiki. I thought I'd ask an admin to delete these a week after making the DR, so I could save them and their descriptions and move them to the same names on enwiki to save time, but forgot. —innotata 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Piantina Milano 2.jpg

Hi. I uploaded this file and I have two isseus. 1) This is the reproduction of informative material (a map) freely distributed to inhabitants of this neighbourhood. There is no indication of copyright on it. I have looked for a proper tag for license but could not find anything suitable and now the image has been tag for deletion. Any suggestions on what I should use to avoid deletion? This map is also shown on posters to give indications to drivers. 2) I cannot see the thumb in the file page or when I try to link it to articles. How can I fix the problem if the image will survive? Thanks Mpaa (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All text, maps, photographs, drawings, buildings, etc. have a copyright in almost every country. The USA required copyright notice until the 1980s, but except for that, there is no requirement anywhere of any notice or indication of copyright on a work. So, this map has a copyright.
In some countries, but not Italy, there is an exception which we call freedom of panorama which allows the use of copyrighted images if they are on display outdoors.
The only possible way that this map can remain on Commons is if you can get permission from the copyright owner.
As for the thumbnail problem, Commons is having trouble with the system that generates thumbnails, so that will probably go away soon.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Hey James! According to 17 USC 120(a) I consider that work falling under FoP since that sculpture wasn't brought there as a whole but was put together on the place which makes it an “architectural work”. See 17 USC 101: An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. The word building must be understood as being everything what is built since otherwise other structures as buildings in the sense of a house won't be architectural works as defined by that law, e.g. bridges, dams, streets and so on won't be architectural works. That does not make sense. So IMHO the deletion wasn't necessarily. Have a nice day. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, we've had that argument occasionally before in the USA. You cannot make a sculpture into a building by asserting that it was made in more than one piece and assembled on site. The OED definition of architecture is
"The art or science of constructing edifices for human use."
For the purpose of this argument, the key word is "use" -- architectural works, including bridges, dams, houses, etc. are first and foremost utilitarian, although they may, of course, also be beautiful. We might argue about the Statue of Liberty since you can go inside it and climb stairs and so forth, but not a relatively simple sculpture that has no interior and no use other than aesthetic enjoyment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Robin Hood

The enwiki file I mentioned was moved here to File:CastRH.JPG pending the result of the deletion discussion; should it be deleted now? —innotata 14:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done Yes, thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

== Twinkle ==

Hello James, could you please tell me that do we have Twinkle's privilege here on Commons and please delete this file, it has no description of source and author (here is the logs of this file). Bill william comptonTalk 15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, as far as I know, Twinkle is not available on Commons -- it certainly does not show up in My preferences > gadgets, as it does on WP:EN.
As for the file, it is widely in use -- although I see that has no source and author, you must add a regular DR -- many similar images have had numerous complications which I don't fully understand.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:445-Lyon.jpg

Sorry, you're wrong. All French building by night with a light concept work (not urban light) are concerned. Otourly (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, please show me something to which I can refer others when I delete files according to that -- and what defines "light concept" -- a few floodlights on the front, or something more complex? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons:FOP#France « This can extend to the designer of lighting systems; for instance, the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night. » This light of the basilica Notre Dame de Fourvière was made specially for en:Festival of Lights (Lyon) by some firm only for the events. the light system is an Art work. these pictures weren't the first deleted and that why some times I put DR instead of making the deletion because if I delete it people won't know and each years it's the same thing. I assume we should put a template in order to warn about it in the category. Otourly (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I had seen the Eiffel Tower note at FOP:France and have, in fact, deleted night images of the tower. What I'm concerned about here is that we will be extending that situation -- which has a court ruling to back it up -- to other situations. As I asked above, what is the boundary for the rule? It looks to me as if the image of Basilique Notre-Dame de Fourvière is just floodlights around the perimeter. Obviously, you think they have a copyright. I'm open to the possibility, but we need to define the situation before we start trying to delete a lot of night images of French buildings. You've been around Commons long enough to know that that will not be accepted by many of our colleagues.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
They are not just floodlights, four nights a year, the basilica have lights game on it. During this events 4 milionth people are there. Other nights, the basilica is yellow. but I thinthe light is still copyrighted. I will check on the postcards if you want... Otourly (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You know our rules and how tough some of our colleagues are -- "But I think the light is still copyrighted" is not really enough to delete this one and certainly not enough to create a general rule. Again, I'm willing to believe you are correct -- it seems logical -- but we have to have some evidence more than your belief, don't we?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
So what shall we do ? Otourly (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you want to change things from the way they are now -- either for this image or in general -- you need to find some reference that proves your point. You've been a Commons Admin longer that I -- surely you understand that you can't just say "I know this is true" and have our colleagues accept it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Again all is already written in Commons:FOP#France. Otourly (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for those fixes ;) Even though I am a native English speaker, the non-English environment is literally eating my language skills. Rehman 11:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome -- I've been exposed to so many different varieties of English that I think I can write pretty good standard English from about half way across the Atlantic.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello Jim, i´ve sent a mail to '' to confirm that its our logo, so we can use it for the other images. Does it take a few days to check it, or how can i check if someone is working on it? Regards -- Thunderbike Customs Germany (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS is all volunteers, like all the rest of us, and has a backlog. I'm afraid you just have to wait. I don't think anybody really doubts that you own the images -- the fine line we're trying to decide is how close to COM:PROMO they are.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I´ll check if next images can be uploaded without that logo. Anyway I thought this logo is small enough to be not more PROMO than the CC3.0 itself. So users can edit the images and put our name under it, or leave them how they are without doing anything. It was just ment to be an easy-2-use CC3.0 ... hopefully it´s okay like that. -- Thunderbike Customs Germany (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Ok, thank you for your advice. What should I do to withdraw my request, at least for now? -- Blackcat (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just post a note on the RfA page. And, I was perfectly serious -- put in a while being helpful, constructive, and civil on DRs and I'll nominate you myself -- as you may see in the next few days, I actively recruit Admin candidates, because we certainlyu can use the help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank again for your constructive comments. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lego Minifigure

Hello Jameslwoodward, is it File:Lego Minifigure (Emergency) Crop Blur.jpg is copyvio. Thank you very much you welcome. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please put a {{delete}} tag on it. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Apologies for my initial half-baked contribution on the discussion of the Fernando Leal file, with my thanks for your correction and for the manner in which you put me straight. You may have noticed that in response I scored out my ignorant remark. I am unhappy, however, that the topic should be left to languish - pleasant though it would be to get input from a Mexican copyright lawyer, that seems a fanciful outcome. The issue (panoramafreiheit exemption for murals in public buildings in Mexico) affects more (possibly a lot more) than 30 files, some of them uploaded in 2008. I put together a Note which is too long for the deletion talk page, so, if you will forgive me, I'm adding it here in case I can persuade you to move from neutral to keep.

"Visible from public places: obras que sean visibles desde lugares públicos"

[1] No assistance can be derived from the discussion over the sunstone in the Museo Nacional de Antropología. All we find is an unsupported assertion that panoramafreiheit does not apply to museums in Mexico. My conclusion is that that determination is incorrect. The recent query as to whether only unenclosed spaces are meant is, I suggest, misguided (see below).

[2] Panoramafreiheit under Mexican law copyright law (art. 148 VII of Ley Federal del derecho de autor, 1996) is distinctly more generous than many other jurisdictions in three major respects:-

  • (a) Objects: as with Spanish law ("obras" – works), there is no limitation as to the nature of the work that falls within the exemption (cf., US law – buildings only; UK law - buildings, sculptures and 3D works of art; Guatemalan law - paintings, monuments and allegorical [sculptural] figures - "cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas");
  • (b) Permanence: as with (?) Peruvian law ("obras ubicadas en lugares públicos" – works located in public places, but this is from a summary only), there is no need (as there is under, e.g., UK, German, Spanish and Guatemalan law) for the works to be permanently displayed;
  • (c) Location: nor, finally, is there any requirement (as there is in, e.g., German, Spanish, Peruvian and UK law) for the works to be situated in a public place.

[3] What, then, are we to make of the phrase used in the Mexican law "visibles desde lugares públicos" (visible from public places)? First we must accept that it cannot be intended to exclude works actually situated in public places - for anything located in a public place is necessarily visible from a public place and it would be illogical to include works situated on private property but exclude works situated on public property. But how wide is the ambit of "lugares públicos"?

[4] Spanish law (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, art. 35 §2) spells out where a work of art must be situated if it is to fall within the exemption:- "situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas" (works permanently situated in parks, streets, squares and other public thoroughfares). Ditto Germany (Urheberrechtsgesetz, 1965, §59(1) ):- "Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden" (works permanently located on public paths, roads, or squares). Uruguay (Ley N° 9.739 of 1937, art. 45 §8), by including museums, implicitly excludes all other public buildings:- "expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos" (exposed in museums, parks or public walks). None of these jurisdictions uses the phrase "public place".

[5] Both US and UK copyright law do use the phrase:-

CDPA, 1988, §62(1)(b):- "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." [I suggest the second limb refers to premises in non-public ownership (for example, shopping malls) and does not distinguish between uncovered and covered places: see below]
17 USC 120(a):- "located in or ordinarily visible from a public place". This is said (by a commentator, but without offering any authority) to include internal lobbies and auditoria.

[6] The phrase "public place" occurs (and is partly defined) in several English statutes, e.g., the Public Order Act 1936, Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Criminal Law Act 1967, Criminal Justice Act 1988, etc. The partial definition is:- "includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise". The phrase also occurs in statutes where it is not defined: e.g., Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (regulating street collections), Sexual Offences Act, 1956, CDPA, 1988, and the Road Traffic Act, 1988. The Courts have determined it is a question of access by the public (whether or not regulated as to times of day, or by security checks, or by levying entrance fees), and not of ownership by a public body. Still less does the phrase connote the open-air, for it covers buildings – even buildings in private ownership – but, in any case, ownership is not an issue with the capilla del cerrito, which is state-owned.

[7] US and UK law are merely suggestive when it comes to interpreting the Mexican statute, but the very fact that Mexico chose not to limit the exemption to streets and public squares (as Spain and Germany do) clearly indicates that the exemption - in line with the other elements of the exemption in the 1996 law - is to be interpreted widely.

Absent a determination by a Mexican Court, we have to do the best we can. I hope you agree. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's good, thorough research, thank you. You write and cite like a lawyer -- are you?
After a little discussion, most of it ought to end up at Commons talk:FOP and some at Commons:FOP#Mexico.
At 2(a) you should add Germany to places where FOP covers all copyrighted works -- we get far more FOP cases in Germany than in Spain and therefore our colleagues are more familiar with the rules there.
At 2(c) you lose me temporarily -- rather than
"for the works to be situated in a public place."
I might say
"for the works to be situated in a public place -- they may be actually located in public or simply visible from a public place."
At the end of [5] you leave us hanging. At User_talk:ChristianBier/Archives/2007/December#what_is_the_problem we have the assertion that "lugares públicos" can mean interior or exterior places. Is that correct?
Certainly in English it could mean either. The interior of a City Hall is a public place, as is a city owned auditorium. A government owned museum (i.e. the Smithsonian) is also, particularly if it doesn't charge admission. A church, a shopping mall, a non-profit museum, are probably public in the USA, but if it mattered, any lawyer worth his salt would be sure to give a list. I would guess that an American court would construe the words very broadly, much the same as the UK law, to include any place accessible to the general public, even those requiring payment of an admission.
But I can't help with Mexico, because I don't read Spanish and have no experience with the legal system there.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Cutting to the end of the trail and your question as to the usual acceptation of "lugar", let me refer you to Lugar sagrado for an account demonstrating that "lugar" (as a matter of language) comprehends interior and exterior spaces, viz.:- altars, sanctuaries, temples, churches, monasteries, cemeteries, megaliths, woods, springs, etc. See also Lugares religiosos where Santa Sofia in Istanbul is identified as a "lugar religioso" converted to the use of another religion. Finally (?!) you might consider the usage of "sacred places"/"lugares sagrados" in Canon Law, Bk. IV, Part III which analyses them as (1) churches, (2) private chapels, (3) shrines, (4) altars, and (5) cemeteries. The Spanish text (lugares) is here; the English text (places) is here; for a control, compare also the German text (Orte) which is here. Is this the kind of confirmation you are seeking?
I repeat, there is small to no chance that the discussion can be resolved by any Mexican lawyer happening to pass by, so we have to do the best we can by reference to the ordinary meaning of "lugar" in Spanish, and the indications (such as exist) in the jurisprudence of other countries (including English-speaking and Spanish-speaking). If the Mexican legislature had wanted to restrict the exemption to outdoor public spaces it could have adopted the solution employed by Spain (etc.).
My argument is that the Mexican law is deliberately wide on the three levels I briefly examined (let's ignore, for now, the risk of an objection that it falls foul of the first of the steps in the Berne three-step test), and the same intent is equally evident in the use of the wide term "lugares públicos" which occupies the same linguistic field that "place" does in English. And, yes, you have correctly anatomised this Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Biagio Marin.jpg

Hallo Jameslwoodward, you have deleted File:Biagio Marin.jpg according to my DR. Do you know why Delinker has not acted? The file was not delinked correctly in the WPs. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know -- it has had a month since the deletion, so it should be gone. Where in WP?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

here. But you do not need to do it - I will. I just wondered why Delinker has not acted on any page. Maybe it was a one-time flaw in some script. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't know -- as you say, maybe a script problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bede Hall.jpg

Please take care about second file mentioned in request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Hola no se por que borraste esta imagen no entiendo muy bien esto de (Derivative of non-free content: WP logo is copyrighted) quiere decir que por aparecer el logo de lanix se tuvo que borrar, solo pido una explicación para no volver a cometer el mismo error. gracias

Hi do not know why you deleted this image do not quite understand this (Derivative of non-free content: WP logo is copyrighted) to mean that Lanix receive the logo had to be deleted, just ask an explanation for not to repeat the same mistake. thanks --Erick1984 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- sometimes we should all use a few more words of explanation.
The Wikipedia logo in the screen shot is copyrighted and may not, in general, be used in this kind of shot. Your best action would be to pick a different screen shot.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion request

Hi Jameslwoodward,

Thanks you for deleting possible copyright violations by Deanb. There are unfortunately two more I missed:

Do I need to file a separate deletion request or can they be deleted as a missed part of the previous request?

Thanks, —Ynhockey (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I also deleted
both of which contained images from among his deleted uploads.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of Red Kurdistan

Hi. I wonder, if your conclusion was that this image should be kept, shouldn't you remove deletion tag from image page: Why you returned it back? PANONIAN (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had closed it early in response to a note on the Administrator's Noticeboard -- then I noticed that it was only two days old, so I reverted my changes. I'll probably revisit it next week.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Édouard Guillaume.jpg

Something seems to have gone wrong here. Your edit summary suggests you wanted to delete the file, but in your closing statement the word kept or deleted is absent and also the file still exists, but with a {{delete}} tag. Jcb (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion information

Hi .. I see you deleted File:Tal Brody2.jpg. I am interested in both: 1) exploring possibly getting a new photo of Brody up, for which I would like to know where this one was used; and 2) exploring the suggestion of the user that I might explore fair use at wikipedia images. Would it be possible, for those reasons, to have the information that was deleted? Many thanks.-- 05:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the fair use rules at WP:HE, but I doubt that it will pass scrutiny at WP:EN in the one article in which it appeared -- it is not sufficiently essential to coverage of the subject.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had thought there were many more -- could a bot have deleted them already? My mistake for not recording the information prior to the deletion. The Hebrew wiki does indeed seem to have different fair use rules. I'll obviously have to read more about the US rules, and whether if the "subject" is the winning of the cup, the image might suffice (or not). Tx again.--Epeefleche1 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes to the bot -- in fact I was surprised to find any at all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Tx -- any way to find out where the bot removed them from? Many thanks for your time.--Epeefleche1 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it's way out of my range of expertise. I think it's called the Commons de-linker -- you might search around and find its talk page or its master and ask there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Boundaries of Europe

collection of historical conventions, 18th to 19th centuries

If you are interested in this topic, please see this map, where I have collected historical conventions for the boundary. Your agnostic comment of "One person's error is another person's historical change" is accurate if you are interested in the 18th to 19th century history of geography, and use one of the referenced boundaries I have indicated (there may have been others, but the burden of proof would be on whoever wishes to add another convention). The "minimal" convention marked "D" is the one used in the official atlas published by the Russian Empire in 1745. All other conventions I have seen are somewhere in between the "minimal" (D) and the "maximal" (modern) convention marked in red.

For the purposes of the present day, however, I have been unable to find any convention which has been in use at any point during the 20th century other than the mainstream convention indicated in red, plus the line marked "A", which appears to have been a minority convention in the early 20th century, plus allegedly (but I haven't seen references) in the Soviet Union.

Please see w:continental boundaries for more detail on this.

I hope I could convince you that I am not your average dim pov-pusher with a pet opinion, but that I have actually researched this and am trying to use the maps hosted on commons for researched and referenced Wikipedia articles. This is impossible if they keep getting vandalised. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as a circumnavigator, a collector of maps and charts, and a former Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, I am very interested in such things.
Notwithstanding that, it is Commons firm policy not to get involved in map disputes, but to keep almost all maps that are uploaded unless they are patently absurd. That is largely for the simple reason that Commons Administrators are expected to be knowledgeable about copyright law and Commons policy, but there is no expectation that we can be subject experts on all of the subjects pictured in Commons images -- there are, after all, only about 260 of us, of whom only half are active. It is up to editors at the various Wikipedias and our users in the world beyond WMF to decide which map they want to use.
So, my comment arises not out of apology, but practicality -- I have no way of judging whether you are expert or not, but even if you could prove that you were President of the RGS and Professor of European Geography at Harvard, Oxbridge, and the Sorbonne (an unlikely joint appointment), it would still not overcome our policy of keeping maps that have different points of view.
I suggest that you tag the map with {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} and try to ignore it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Charles Édouard Guillaume.jpg

You closed a deletion request with "deleted" but the file is still alive. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Vrghs jacob redux

As you're aware of some of the history with this editor, can you take a look at this one before it gets archived please? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of image: "copyrighted object?"

As per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:20071210-672_startrektosclassictricorder.jpg (which I just caught up with).... Where is the policy that prohibits original images of objects from fictional creations? There are other images will need deletion (and I won't propose them anonmously, to be sure). Thanks! -- Davidbspalding (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost all objects have copyrights, with the major exception of utilitarian objects. If Tricorders actually worked, they would be utilitarian and therefore copyright-free, but since they do not actually have a function, they have a copyright. You can think of them as sculptures or as toys, either of which are copyrightable.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion question

I had nominated two images here and here for copyright issues (the uploader claimed the copyright was given to him by an anonymous person). They were deleted the latter of which you closed), but the same images were uploaded again here and here with the claim that they were both now "own work". So my obvious question is: Is it, or isn't it, and how can it be verified if it needs to be? MSJapan (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've deleted both and added {{dont recreate}} to his talk page. I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on him and let me or another Admin know if he does it again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Jim, please explain how the deletion of the image I posted of the painting by Vernon Jones can be of assistance to the Wiki-commons/Wikipedia world. I note that User:Tryphon said that link lists the image; it does not, so far as I see. I know that someone trimmed the image that I originally posted; that was silly, frankly, as it removed the context that I had left for all to see. The painting hangs in the Officer's Mess at RAAF Laverton. How many Wikipedians/Wiki-commons people have access there, as I did (and may again, but who knows when...) So, the image was lost to the Wiki world, and did not make it on the page for Williams as it appeared as the featured page on Wikipedia. I absolutely DID NOT know that was a possibility when I posted the image, but I 'fought' the deletion of the image because I knew that it was probably unique; who else can or WILL get a photo of it? Please reply, understanding that I am on a 'flaky' connection and may not reply for some days. (It is why I have not 'fought' further the removal of the image, from now months ago... my computer has been giving me grief.) Peter Ellis (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter, the correct link would have been Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sir_Richard_Williams_portrait.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Peter -- I'll work with you -- and I'm sure my colleague Túrelio will also, as best we can within the rules. None of us like deleting images, but to keep Commons "a database of 9,979,929 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute", we must pay attention to copyright where it is called for.
I assume you understand and don't dispute the fact that the painting has a copyright which belongs to the artist and his heirs until 70 years after his death. Ownership of the copyright is completely independent of ownership of the physical painting. Since there is a copyright, the painting is a derivative work. Although there are exceptions to the copyright rules for certain kinds of works permanently hung in public places, which we call Freedom of Panorama, those exceptions cannot apply here both because the Australian rule does not include paintings and because I don't think that an Officer's Mess is "open to the public" within the meaning of the applicable law.
That leaves us with two possibilities. The first is for you to get permission from the artist or his heirs, following the procedure at Commons:OTRS. That may or may not be possible. The other is for you to construct a fair use argument for WP:EN. Although I'm familiar with such arguments, I am by no means an expert and I don't know if it will fly there since Richard Williams (RAAF officer) already has a portrait of him.
If you chose to construct a fair use argument, you can then upload the file to WP:EN without Commons worrying about it. If you no longer have access to the file, I can temporarily undelete it here for you.
If you have further questions, feel free to ask -- as I said at the top, we're here to help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. I thought that I had made it completely clear on the picture's description page and the deletion page that I thought that the removal of the context (frame) of the image by... well, I can't find out, now, can I... was wrong. I had quite obviously left the context -- the frame and surround. Chronologically, though, when someone asked about the author, I went out of my way on a subsequent visit to RAAF Laverton to visit the image, determine the author, and add the detail to the image's description page. I think that it was later that someone trimmed the image of its context.
You said, "Since there is a copyright, the painting is a derivative work." I assume that you mean that the picture of the painting is a derivative work. A hypothetical: Someone was taking a picture of en:Laurent Gbagbo as he is arrested, and Gbagbo happens to be holding a magazine up to his eyes -- it's obviously him, though. The owner of the magazine claims 70 years on the magazine, the owner of the image used on the front presumably has an issue, too; so, is the picture of Gbagbo rejected? What if he was wearing a suit by Zegna, the design of which is presumably covered by similar legislation? Zegna objects to the besmurching of its reputation by the showing of the image, and wants the image removed, too. Two or three grounds for removal; but, a public interest. This is murky, frankly. What if my friend had stood in front of the Williams image, and I had used the picture of her with her permission to show even more 'context'? Is there a 'reality' here that I am not understanding? Is Commons:OTRS being invoked (I've not heard of it before) because the image was cropped to lose the context?
I thought I was doing a good and right thing to put up the image, in context; and, despite what you have said, I just want to understand why my image was ditched. And, it would have made me happy, when Williams page was the featured page, to see my image there... even though I had no idea that it was a candidate. I guess the issue of the provenence of the image became the issue when someone determined that that was a possibility. Peter Ellis (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You would probably be surprised how many people get into the Officer's Mess at RAAF Laverton, and elsewhere. Guests of the Mess officials? The Public Servants who are members of the mess? The casual visitors to the base, as I was? The civilian, contracted staff including guards? There are undoubtedly more.Peter Ellis (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC) And, these people were the folk I observed around the picture during the two visits sub-hour in question. Undoubtedly, there were others in the weeks/months/years when I was not present.Peter Ellis (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Your last point first -- my apologies -- I probably should not have mentioned the public place issue -- my opinion of it is almost certainly correct - "public" requires that anyone should be able to enter and I really doubt if that is true on an Air Force base, but the question is moot, because the FOP exception does not apply to paintings.
The issue, again, is that the photograph is a derivative work of the painting. As for your hypothetical situations -- Gbagbo and the magazine would depend on whether the magazine was de minimis in the photograph -- while you do not have to worry about every single thing in a photograph, you do have to worry about objects that are principal subjects of the photograph. The case of the Zegna suit is easier -- in general, utilitarian object, including clothing, do not have a copyright in most countries. The photograph of the portrait, though, is clearly intended to feature the portrait itself, whether or not the context is included. That is clear from the file name, and from a simple look at it.
Putting it another way, if you happened to take a photograph of Julia Gillard in front of the portrait, the image would probably be OK, even if most or all of the portrait were visible in the background. But, if you then cropped that image to include only the portrait, it would definitely not be OK. Put your friend in place of Gillard, in an attempt to evade the law, and it probably would be deleted here. It is your intent that matters in looking at the image. If Commons would not routinely host a photograph of your friend, then we can't keep an image of him or her in front of a copyrighted painting.
The law is not much interested in the public interest, in the sense that you mean it. Copyright law is almost universal because most people believe that society is better off if creators have the exclusive right to profit from their works for a period of time -- I think most of us would agree that seventy years after the death of the author is too long, but that the principle is correct. Without it, we would have far fewer books, movies, and other creative works.
I assume that you understand that you may not make copies of recent books and sell them, or make copies of DVDs and sell them. Making a copy of a recent painting, whether by photography or by copying it in paint, is exactly the same thing and is treated in exactly the same way by the law.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is some inconsistency in how copyright is applied. Do paintings fail this test, while other media do not? Why is statuary seemingly excluded? Some examples might help.
Please also look at Category:Ante_Dabro, where most of the images are mine. I had his specific permission to take the 'portrait' picture, that also has some of his work in the background. Where do these transgress? Thanks, Peter Ellis (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned and linked freedom of panorama above. It would be helpful if you looked through that article, as it answers all but one of the questions you asked above. The FOP rules vary widely from country to country, but are most restrictive with respect to paintings. It is that variability that leads to much of the apparently inconsistent handling of works.
Your specific questions:
  • The Warhol gallery shows nothing flat on and, arguably, all the Warhol works are de minimis.
  • The museum wall with Warhol is in Slovakia. The FOP exception there includes all graphic arts in a public place. Although Commons has not researched the issue, that probably means any place accessible to the public, including museums where an admission fee might be charged. Also, the same factors as the first image apply.
  • The Warhol bust is in Poland, and the statue is in Slovakia, both of which have FOP exceptions for statuary in a public place.
  • All of Category:Ante_Dabro are in Australia, which has an FOP exception for sculpture but not for paintings.
A small point. When you refer to a Commons category inline, make sure you add a preceding colon inside the brackets, or else the page will be included in the category and the reference will be blank (I have fixed it above):
  • OK "[[:Category:Ante_Dabro]]" displays "Category:Ante_Dabro"
  • not OK [[Category:Ante_Dabro]] displays "" (and an entry in the category)
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


James, thank you for your acknowledgment! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

scale models

Hi, can you have a look here, please: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scale model of a police car based on an FSO Warszawa M20-57 or 200 of Milicja Obywatelska.jpg

Thanks, Coller

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Logo of terrorist group

Hi James, It's kind of weird to ask but I'm just curious to know that can we upload logos of terrorist groups and other such internationally banned organizations here on Commons, as these groups ain't going to legally exploit Wikipedia, so I don't think we need "non-free use rationale" for them. Thanks, Bill william comptonTalk 00:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am only one opinion, but I would use the same rules for any file we might have. The fact that a group is unlikely to sue for copyright infringement is specifically dealt with by policy, see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. On the other hand, if the file is PD or properly licensed, I see no reason to delete it just because we don't like the organization -- there are many people and things that are repugnant to most of us, but we have them here.
Or, have I misunderstood your question?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

VNIRO artworks

One artwork in the DR, File:Coregonus autumnalis migratorius.jpg still needs to be deleted. —innotata 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it hiding at the bottom.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Citron has pointed out yet another one: File:Scomber japonicus1.jpg, which doesn't have source information (Citron adds this after uploading). —innotata 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Images Direct Link Issue



Jim you raised concern over publishers/sources asking for direct links to the work which in return would prevent the reproduction in non-web environments like print, etc, well in my opinion a direct link means mentioning of the URL, which is pretty much possible in print and everywhere, what do you say?Fanofbollywood (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not think that printing the URL is a solution. It is not the direct link demanded by the license terms and in some cases can be so long as to be a real nuisance on the printed page. Some sites that demand a direct link actually create pages on the fly so it is not possible to link directly to them.
I think that such a restriction is problematic but not necessarily disqualifying. It suggests strongly that the person or entity licensing the file does not understand that the file may be used in print as well as on the web. Arguably they are restricting the use of the image, in effect saying, "Use of this image in print is not permitted." If they said that explicitly the license would not meet our requirements.
Licensors that do not understand what they are doing are potentially a problem, so they make me uncomfortable, but I'm prepared to stretch a bit, and assume that they understand that the license covers use in print without a direct link. In the absence of any other reason to delete such a file, I would probably keep it.
From your language I feel that in your perception a guy/organization who is creating content is absolutely worthless, keeping conditions in everyway is his right, even the creative commons encourage that. If someone can't print the URL (because its too long) then its his problem, if he wants to use the content (FREE) which he thinks is worth enough to use, then he will have to abide by some rules of the publisher. Anyway can you direct me towards any WP policy which doesn't allow such usage.Fanofbollywood (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I gave that impression. I strongly believe that the creator of a work can put any restrictions that he or she wants on the use of that work -- as a writer and photographer (among other things) myself, I benefit from copyright restrictions. If a creator wants to license a work for use as CC-BY WITH NO USE IN PRINT, that's fine with me, and Commons will obey their license and not host the work.
I'm also fine with a creator who says something like, "For web use, a direct link is required. For print use, the attribution must read as follows: 'Photo by John Doe'". If the URL is 200 characters long, then the potential user can decide whether to print it or find a different image. Such a requirement is clearly within Commons limits.
My problem comes because I think that most of the creators on the web who require a direct link to their URL do not realize that they are, implicitly, forbidding print use. That's why I'm willing to stretch the point, because I think they simply have not considered it -- if they had, they would have been explicit, as laid out above.
My willingness to keep some such images on Commons is based on the legal principle that ambiguity is construed against the party who drafted it. Since I can easily interpret "Direct link to my URL" to mean "Direct link to my URL from the web", I am entitled to construe the requirement loosely. I think Commons can rely on that.
But no, please, I have great respect for licenses, as I think my record as an Admin will show. The creator is in charge.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey I respect your prompt and thorough reply, however I still feel that someone who is giving away their content under CC only wants appreciation and appropriate attribution from the society, and even the reproducers will respect that. Anyway thanks for explaining things to me, and coming to think of it your point is also not absolutely incorrect.Fanofbollywood (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Report abuse

I do not see how creating a page titled Report Abuse is Vandalizing .

Shouldn't There a page For Reporting The Abuse Of Wikimedia Commons?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by R9 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The four sections of the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard provide two different places to report abuse -- the choice between them depends on the form of the abuse. You can also report it to any Administrator.
Commons galleries -- those pages with no prefix -- are for collections of images. Ordinarily, creating an out-of-scope gallery would not be vandalism, but your attempt to make trouble for another user stepped over the line.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete req

Please use {{duplicate}} to request routine deletions in cases like this one.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Law

Hello. You deleted files as per “Azerbaijan law calls for 50 years after publication in the case of an unknown author”. But translation of this law into English is not correct. According to Azerbaijan law (Article 25. Term of Copyright) “Copyright arises from creation of work and shall have effect throughout the lifetime of the author and for 50 years after his death, except as provided in Article 26 of this Law”. And Article 26. Special Terms of Copyright means that if the work published anonymously or pseudonymously the copyright for those works arise from the date of the lawful disclosure thereof and shall have effect for 50 years following. The law does not call for 50 years after publication in the case of an unknown author, it calls when the copyright arises for anonymously published works. Maddə 26. Müəlliflik hüququnun xüsusi müddətləri. Anonim və ya təxəllüslə dərc edilmiş əsərə müəlliflik hüququ həmin əsərin qanuni dərc edildiyi tarixdən 50 il müddətində qüvvədə qalır. Please, verify it (In Russian)--Melikov Memmed (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand the distinction you are drawing here. You say:

"Special Terms of Copyright means that if the work published anonymously or pseudonymously the copyright for those works arise from the date of the lawful disclosure thereof and shall have effect for 50 years following."
"The law does not call for 50 years after publication in the case of an unknown author, it calls when the copyright arises for anonymously published works."

Or, in my words

"If a work is published anonymously, then the copyright is fifty years from publication, but if the author is simply unknown, then the copyright is 50 years after the author's (unknown) date of death."

I do not read Russian, but I am happy to assume that your translation is correct. I should note that such a rule is very unusual -- it is different from all the other countries that I understand better.

It does not change the facts, however. Since the author is unknown, there are two possibilities:

  1. The work was actually published anonymously, which case the copyright runs fifty years from the date of publication or
  2. The work was published with the author's name and the name has been lost over time, in which case the copyright will run from fifty years after the author's death.

If we knew that #2 applied, then we could probably keep works made in the 19th century -- that would allow for a 20 year old author who lived to age eighty. But we don't know that. Therefore, our rules require that we apply the more restrictive rule and must show that it has been fifty years since publication. Since we don't know when it was first published, it must be deleted.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

These works created before 1936 and was not published, - from the date of its creation. According to interstate and international compacts the Azerbaijan Republic is the legal successor of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was established in 1918, but was soon merged into the Soviet Union in 1920 and was incorporated into the Transcaucasian SFSR along with Armenia and Georgia in March 1922. The Transcaucasian SFSR was dissolved in 1936 and its three regions became separate republics within the USSR (established separate Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic). Azerbaijan regained independence in 1991. How the works created before 1936 enjoy protection of copyright by the law of the Azerbaijan Republic. The Russian Empire or Transcaucasian SFSR were not a participant in international copyright agreements, so this work is not protected by copyright internationally. So the works created before 1936 on the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan be deemed fallen into the public domain.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. The important provision of the current law is that it allows for copyright for fifty years from publication in the case of anonymous works. Therefore any work first published anonymously after 1961 is still subject to copyright.
Also, the fact that the Russian Empire and the Transcaucasian SFSR were not participants in international copyright agreements does not matter -- if they had national copyright laws, then the national law still applies.
This is not really a good place to debate this -- I think you are incorrect, but I do not pretend to be an expert on Azerbaijan law. You should start a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mixfm logo.jpg

Hi Jim. Deletion is OK since the file seems not to have been in use. The reasoning however is inappropriate: It is not just text, but {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-shape}} surely applies to simple circles. --Leyo 18:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't not clear cut, although there were enough circles and geometry so I think it is over the line.
When I look at a DR and decide whether to keep, pass by, or delete, I consider both copyright issues and whether it is in or out of scope. If one or the other is definitely bad, or both are probably bad, then it's deleted. If only one or the other are probably bad, then I will usually keep it, or pass by, or perhaps just add a comment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't share your opinion concerning the threshold of originality. But anyway, could you make clear on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mixfm logo.jpg that the fact that the logo was not in use was a major reason for deletion? --Leyo 13:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
First, we don't change DRs after they are closed.
Second, Commons Admins do about 1,000 deletions per day. Eight of us do half of them. I don't want to create a precedent by making a subtle change to a closed DR on a deleted file when we already have too much to do. There must be several hundred thousand closed DRs on deleted files, maybe more. I think it highly unlikely that this one will ever be viewed again.
Third, its not being in use had no effect on my decision. Being out of use on WMF projects does not speak at all to value of a file.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your work is highly appreciated.
“to create a precedent” is exactly what I would like to avoid. Several logos that are clearly below the threshold of originality have been deleted on Commons in the past. I had the feeling that Commons administrators have become more considerate in this matter recently.
I uploaded or moved hundreds of logos to Commons (e.g. most in Category:Logos of chemical companies) and would not like to see them getting deleted based on incorrect reasons. --Leyo 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again...

...thanks for all your help with the Admin-thing. Much appreciated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome -- now you get to live up to high expectations!.
You may find this brand new aid for newish Admins useful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag-map_of_historic_Palestine.jpg - cannot agree with your decision


That's the pity but I cannot agree with your decision of 03/25 to remain the file.

In addition to Schlaier's reasons what he described in his appeal of 03/18, I've added my following ones there at it's disscussion page:

  • Can anybody (uncluding the author) put in any R.Source for this "history"?
  • I am sure that the file containing such 'historic Palestine' part in its name should be deleted from Commons because it doesn't represent any "history" but does represent such political views (en:HAMAS terrorists for example) what claim that all historic Palestine is Arab land only, i.g. call to liquidate the State of Israel.

Best regards, --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read my closing comment. Commons, as a matter of firm policy, does not get involved in political discussions or disputes. While personally I agree with you, as a Commons Administrator, I do not have an opinion on a map that is widely used. The only reason we will delete a file that is widely used is for copyright violation. It is not up to Commons to decide what is valuable and what is not. That is up to the editors on the various Wikipedias.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For info

This may be of interest. Regards --Herby talk thyme 08:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Actor Vijay on birthday.jpg

Can you also delete File:Ilaya thalapathy Vijay.jpg as it's just a differently cropped version of the file that was discussed (same OTRS source ticket)? I'd mentioned it in the comments on the discussion. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the Soviet Union and Russia

Hi, Jameslwoodward. Why have you deleted Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the Soviet Union and Russia? We have Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the United States, Category:Psychiatric hospitals in England, Category:Psychiatric hospitals in France, Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the Netherlands, etc. Do you think that psychiatric hospitals do not exist in the Soviet Union and Russia? Could you restore Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the Soviet Union and Russia? Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please slow down and, perhaps, read my edit summary. The page I deleted was

The page you intended to create was:

As noted in my edit summary, you omitted the prefix "Category:".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an easy mistake to make -- I have done it maybe six or eight times myself -- and we see two or three of them every day.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Would you be willing to protect this very non-descriptive title? Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done, although we are not entirely sure this works.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Melopsittacus undulatus

Hi Jim, referring to a long discussion with Kersti Nebelsiek about we agreed in creating new categories like here: . Perhaps I made some mistakes, but it ist not very funny to delete all the work without note while I´m working on this very extensive project.-- Hägar (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please slow down a little and read the edit comments. I deleted:

I think you intended to create:

In each case, as the edit comment says, you forgot to include the prefix "Category:". It is not possible to rename (move) anything into the Category namespace, so there is nothing to do but delete the mistakes and start over.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim, I now created new categories, and I hope it is by the right way now.-- Hägar (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks good except the yellow ones which are still red-linked above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The red one also got a new name, so it cannot become blue.-- Hägar (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


You didn't finish a DR here. :) feydey (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm -- I'm not sure what happened there, but it's done now, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


Just give people the time to add images, please.--Urashimataro (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- there are so many out of scope galleries -- 20-25 a day -- that we are pretty quick about deleting pages that appear to be out of scope or empty galleries. I suggest you either create the gallery in a User subpage such as User:Urashimataro/Sandbox1 and then it copy it to the gallery when it's ready or put a short note on the page, such as "Images coming shortly -- please don't delete." The first is preferred.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I also note that your edit summary on the file I deleted says, "Created category". Did you intend to create:

File:Merry Ducksmas (HD).ogv

Hi Jim. Hope all is well. When you have time, I was wondering if I could have your opinion at User talk:Fastily#Merry_Ducksmas_(HD).ogv. User:Tony Wills has accused me of the "out of policy deletion" of File:Merry Ducksmas (HD).ogv, which I deleted under "empty file" and "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirects". On en.wikipedia this deletion would be perfectly acceptable, but I'm not too sure if the same conventions apply on Commons. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and helping clear things up. Take care. All the best, FASTILY (TALK) 04:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam copyright

Hi Jim. Following a discussion on en, I was directed here to Commons. Since you added Vietnam to Commons:Licensing, ww2censor thought you might know more about Vietnam copyright laws. Does this photo (referring url) fall under any Vietnamese PD copyright policies since it appears to be from the official website of Quảng Ngãi Province (English version)? Does {{PD-VietnamGov}} apply to the image in question? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggested it did not fall within that template's coverage. Ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, scratch that. Goodvac (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I may be the local expert, but only because I needed to figure out the length of copyright in Vietnam, so I read the law and posted a little of what I learned. I note that the web site you cite above has an explicit (c) copyright notice on it. In some countries (the USA, for example), everything the government publishes is PD. In most others, the government PD covers only laws and official documents, not tourist literature. I would guess that this is not PD, but that's really a guess.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. I'll see if they reply to my email asking that they release the image under CC-BY-SA. Goodvac (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosenthaler Kadarka

So you dont like red whine ? Or what is the problem with my picture ? --Gonzosft (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand "Rosenthaler Kadarka". If you are asking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ju88-FUG220.jpg, I think my closing comment covers the subject. There is no evidence that it was taken by a US Government employee in the course of his duties. It was almost certainly taken by a soldier, very likely an American soldier, but that is not enough to make it PD. It must have been taken by a soldier whose job it was to take pictures and there is no evidence of that -- it appears to be an off-hand snapshot.
This is your last warning on personal attacks and comments -- the next one will bring a block from editing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think he was referring to File:Rosenthaler-Kadarka1.jpg, where the problem is that the photograph is a derivative work (dw) of the artwork on the label, so he needs clearance from the copyright holder of the label before publishing it, a common problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. I had looked through his deleted user contributions and Ju88-FUG220.jpg was the only one of those I had touched.
Gonzosft, perhaps my DR nomination was a little cryptic, my apologies, Tony Willis has explained it perfectly above. In the future, it is far better to make a comment on the Deletion Request page, rather than making ''ad hominem'' attacks on the nominator's talk page.
Also, as this points out, it is always helpful if you provide a link to the subject file. The difference between "Rosenthaler Kadarka" and "Rosenthaler Kadarka1" is enough so that the Commons search engine cannot find it.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
to my opinion, in war time 1945 in germany, in the line of fire, when conqering any enemy airfield, there is no time to be "off-duty". if so, the soldiers would most probably have a glas of german beer in their hands and sit in a beer garden instead of carrying guns and inspection war prizes in a hanger.--Gonzosft 12:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not a question of whether they were on or off duty -- it is a question of whether the photographer was a man whose job it was to take pictures or an ordinary soldier who happened to be carrying a camera. Only photographs taken by US Government employees (including soldiers) whose job it is to take photographs are PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pics from domain .us

Hi. Is it the same, when pics come from the domain .us, like this Link (, the same uploading .gov Pictures ? --Gary Dee 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Domains in .us are simply domains that available for use by US people, businesses, and governments, just as .uk is for the United Kingdom and .fr for France. Anyone can have a .us domain. In this case it is the city of Ashland, Oregon, whose images would not usually be PD.
Note that you cannot make any generalizations about images found on sites at .gov, either. Many images on .gov sites have a copyright. For example, the state of Massachusetts use as its main web site and its images are not PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for letting me know. Is it possible to make a request at the city, about in this case using the pics with general info about the photographer, and so on ? -- Gary Dee 16:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, although it may prove frustrating. Read Commons:OTRS for procedures, if you haven't already.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thx. --Gary Dee 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploadable ?

Hi again. Can you please tell me if this picture is uploadable with the magnustool ? I got a feeling that not, but i am not sure ? --Gary Dee 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know magnustool, so I can't answer that part of the question. The library posted it on Flickr with "No known copyright restrictions" which must arise from the terms of the photographer, Dwight Watson's gift to the library, since he died in 1996. That should make it perfectly OK for us.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gary Dee 14:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Asmara, Eritrea - St George's Episcopal Church.jpg

Hi, I do not speak English but I understand there is no problem from me according tony esopi (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:P-8A Posiedon over mountains.jpg

Could you tell me what was the source I used for this image? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure -- the file data was:

English: A Boeing P-8A Poseidon conducts a test flight June 5, 2009.
Author=Boeing photographer
Category:P-8 Poseidon
== Licensing ==

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File Deletion Request

You requested to have File:Thomas-a-odonnell.jpg deleted from Commons due to a copyright error. I believe I have fixed the licensing tag to the proper one. Thanks for the heads up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberteconnolly3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That's half the battle, thank you for fixing it -- the other thing missing is an explicit statement of when and where it was first published -- the USA rule is that anything not yet published has a copyright that runs 120 years from creation, see File:PD-US table.svg, so for anything created after 1890 we need to have publication information to be sure it is actually PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comment on the Deletion Request's (DR) talk page clarified the situation, thanks. I closed the DR as kept.
For future reference, discussion in a DR is done on the project page. The talk page is rarely used, usually only for post-closure comments, and not often then.
Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting ?

Hi. could you please delete File:Sheldon Reservoir Alligator.jpg. My mistake. --Gary Dee (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- deletion under those circumstances doesn't take a special request -- the {{speedy}} would have gotten rid of it in due course.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you. -- Gary Dee (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FBI & Osamapic

Hi. As with the death of Bin Laden, there are at point several requests for deleting pictures of him (although, up to the day he got killed, noone really cared about his pics). So now i would like to know if this picture (poster) can be uploaded without any Copyright problems. Can you please advise me ? --Gary Dee (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It would take research to figure it out -- the FBI has a long record of using images that they don't have copyright to -- which is OK, because it would certainly be "fair use" under US law, but not acceptable at Commons. Since the FBI never actually had their hands on him, it's unlikely that this is a PD image. When and if the government releases post-mortem pictures, they will certainly be PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. But does this only apply to the FBI, or as well to pictures of CIA or Department of Defense ? --Gary Dee (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
All of them, unless you can show that they actually had their hands on the subject and that one of their photographers took the photo.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Rosa 'Pat Austin'

Hello, I just saw that you deleted Rosa 'Pat Austin' on April 12 under the reason that the gallery was Out of project scope: Commons galleries are for collections of images, not single images.
I'd like to point out that such galleries are common for rose cultivars (and I didn't start that custom, even though I probably created most of them during the last year) and I really do believe them to be useful for cultivars - in particular, if they contain some additional information about that cultivar.

Best regards, Anna reg (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct, my apologies. Galleries for plants and animals are an exception to the general rule forbidding single image galleries -- my only excuse is that Commons Admins do around 1,000 deletions a day (half of which are done by seven of us), we therefore work quickly, and occasionally make mistakes. Sorry.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No harm done. Mistakes occur to everybody - and thanks for the quick reply! Anna reg (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


I was checking out these images and it seems that the images File:Sari-and-Mundu.png and File:Mundu-and-Saree.png were deleted accusing that both are copies of each another. Can you please see whether the image File:Sari-and-Mundu.png can be restored?--

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejithk2000 (talk • contribs)
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mundu-and-Saree.png
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sari-and-Mundu.png
Both are copyvios from web...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. They are said to be identical, and both are problems because there is no author or source listed for the individual images. Please post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests if you want to go further with this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


[copied from my talk page on WP:EN]
First to tell you that I am sorry If I caused any problems to you or anyone else who might read this. I am contacting you regarding of the picture of Clive Campbell. I thought It was a great addition from the site I found. Can you please explain me what was that I did wrong? I just want to contribute wiki but it seems it is very difficult to post images here.

Can you be kind enough to answer me that question please. How can I post a normal picture? I put copyright and categories,everything, but it seems it is still not enough.

Thank you for your time.

I look forward you reading your answer.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdnanS (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

[end of copy      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)]

First, a little housekeeping.

  • We're always happy to help newcomers or others who need help -- the rules on Commons are ultimately governed by copyright rules of several hundred countries, and it is very difficult to learn all that you might need to know.
  • Commons and the English Wikipedia (WP:EN) are different, and while many of us are members of both, it is helpful to use Commons talk pages for Commons problems and WP:EN talk pages for problems there.
  • It is also helpful to link to the image in question. You have only made a few contributions here, so it was easy to find the one in question, but it would be very time consuming in a longer list.
You do that like this
[[:File:Clive-image-1.jpg]] which produces this File:Clive-image-1.jpg.

Please note the extra colon before "File" which brings up a link rather than the image itself.

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

Now, with the housekeeping lesson out of the way, let's look at File:Clive-image-1.jpg It is a clear case of copyright violation -- the site from which you took the image,, has a clear copyright notice and no indication at all of licensing. The image is certainly not your own work, as you claim.

I should note that the site has been used in the recent past by another user who is now indefinitely blocked. If you are the same person, be careful. If not, welcome to Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medicina nuclear keosys viewer keosys.JPG

Did you close/decide that one or did you hit a wrong script-button? Because while the DR still looks open and your statement seems to be a personal opinion, the request was removed from the image and the decision request was added to the images talk page. -- Cecil (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I think I started out to keep this one -- the first of three, all nominated by Fastily, and then realized that I was going in the face of a respected colleague's nomination, so I just commented on all three, and forgot to go back and un-keep this image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Can you please explain to me this tagging ? I dont understand it really. Should i ask for deletion ? --Gary Dee (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks to me like -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you uploaded an image from and put {{flickrreview}} and {{PD-USGov}} on it. The Flickr review bot looked at the file (as requested by {{flickrreview}})and couldn't find it on Flickr, so it added the no source tag. It looks like you made three mistakes:
  1. Rather than giving the image itself as the source, you should have given the page at that has the image on it, so that the rest of us can see where it actually came from and with what sort of license. Seeing the file itself is not helpful.
  2. You should not have put the {{flickrreview}} tag on it, because it didn't come from Flickr.
  3. You should not have tagged it {{PD-USGov}}, because it does not appear to be a US government image -- it's from the State of Virginia, I think, and only a few states, not including Virginia, put their images in the public domain.
Solution: I've removed the FlickreviewR tag because it shouldn't have gone that way. I've added a no-permission tag. Please give us the source page, or even better, find the license information at and see if we can keep the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thx for the reply. As far as i remember i only tagged {{PD-USGov}}. The {{flickrreview}} was not placed by myself, i guess there must have been a mistake with that new kind of upload-wizard as i used it yesterday the first time, the only mistake of my part was that i didnt check the file for that tag.

The page its is comming from is here --Gary Dee (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And, I'm sorry to say, that site has an explicit (c) notice. Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, thx. --Gary Dee (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

photografs of rudolf kölbl

Hi Jameslwoodward

I have seen that you partizipated in the discussion about deleting some privatly made fotographs of Rudolf Kölbls wikipedia site.

Well, as I have stated in the discussion regarding that, those photografs were made by my mother in law, who passed away over 6 years ago. So please tell me: How on earth I can ask her about her permission? I have the permission of Rudolf Kölbl and his daughter Jacqueline, my wife to publish those selected photografs.

So, how to proceed??


sun in law of rudolf kölbl

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Famkr01 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I also received an email from this user regarding this issue. And what gives us the right to question every upload by a new user? On the burden of proof scale, those wishing to delete an image must have reasonable suspicion, which is absent in the color print scans. -- King of ♠ 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the images discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Famkr01? If so, we have every reason to question them:

  • Source: Aus dem Privatarchiv von Rudolf Kölbl
  • Author: Freund der Familie
  • Uploader:Famkr01

There is no indication of who the photographer is, other than "Family Friend". It is that person (or his or her heirs) that would have to give permission. There is no indication at all that Famkr01 has any relationship to Rudolf Kölbl or to the family friend who took the photos.

I agree that sometimes images are nominated for deletion on suspicions that are not very intelligent. This is not one of those cases. We are not mind readers. We need to know who the photographer is and we must have permission from him or her or the photographer's heirs. There is no information on that in the images or in the deletion discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he has now clarified the situation and said very clearly who the photographer and copyright holder(s) are. I really don't think it is necessary to ask his wife for an OTRS release for two reasons: 1) It's his wife. She might as well create an account and upload it from hers, saying she is the heir and copyright holder, and OTRS is not required for self-release. 2) If Famkr01 were lying, he could just make up an email address and send a fake OTRS and we wouldn't know. But that is true for all OTRS cases where the identity of the copyright holder is not public information, but standard policy is to trust people and treat OTRS tickets as valid unless, say, the image pops up on the internet under a different author. -- King of ♠ 04:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I think the case should probably go to Commons:Undeletion requests. While I agree with you that a person uploading images for his/her spouse bends our rules but is probably OK in most cases, this is not so simple. We were first told that the image was taken by a family friend. We are now told that it was taken by Famkr01's mother-in-law. That pushes it over the line for me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that open discussion! Just a point from my side: Imagine, there are people out there not beeing "native webbies", not beeing familiar into deep with what wikipedia wants and requires. That is a very complex area and if you upload something for the first time, you have a lot to read and still, this is just the tip of the iceberg. So, this is why I said, the photographs are from the private archive and I am "a friend of the family" - I am NOT deliviring my private life in a first step not knowing what will happen with that - but still it is the truth. This is, why I - then, after the second round of very surprising deletes - delivered this information in direct-mails to all of you... Well, I have learned that lesson now. Matthias (married to the daughter of Rudolf K.) PS: And that line reminds me to Kafka (The Procss)... The situation does as well a little. ... just crossed my mind by reading Rudolf K. because in the book, the main person is Josef K... ;-)) I would be happy if we could solve that... believe me. I took me nights to get into that upload thing...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Famkr01 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You are certainly correct that Wikimedia Commons can be complicated -- mostly because we must obey the different copyright rules of many countries, but also because it is an area of the law that most people do not understand. For example, many people think that if they own a copy of a photograph or a painting, then they own the copyright.
Because it can be hard to start here, we try to be helpful to new editors, with several different ways to ask questions and Administrators chosen, in part, for their patience and helpfulness.
Anyway, your next step with this image is to go to Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope I did not started it twice. -- RE rillke questions? 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Railway workshop Amersfoort

Hi James,

could you please restore the page Railway workshop Amersfoort, that I created yesterday and that you removed shortly afterward? I did put some first images on it, and a first link to nl-wiki. I'm still working on it, and want to put more pictures on it, and some enquiries in English as well, and perhaps a link to an article on en-wiki in the future as well etc, but that's all a bit troublesome, now that the page is deleted.

Sorry, every now and then I use the account User:WJV&DB.

I also asked to rename file:WorkersWagenwerkplaatsAmersfoot19331974.png into WorkersWagenwerkplaatsAmersfoort19331974.png, btw. (I missed an r while typing). Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done, both, although I used the name File:Workers Wagenwerkplaats Amersfoort 1933-1974.png which is more readable, I think. I've undeleted the gallery, but please note that I've tagged File:AmersfoortseCourant19040301Wagenwerkplaats.png with {{delete}} because it is out of scope -- Commons is not for images of text. That leaves the gallery with only one file in it, which is also out of scope -- galleries are for collections of images, not singles and not articles. So -- please do what you intend with the gallery over the next couple of days and then I'll either leave it, or tag it with {{delete}} if I think it is still out of scope. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


After the author contacted me and left a notice on the discussion page of the DR, I decided to start an UR. Please participate in discussion. -- RE rillke questions? 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jim, hope all is well. If you're not busy, and if you have time, could you please provide some input at User talk:Fastily#File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg? Thanks in advance. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 21:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The involved DR is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg. Today Fastily decided to speedy delete the files, based on that DR ?!? (I'm still busy with the revertion of CommonsDelinker, one of the files was heavily in use, what a mess :-( ) - Jcb (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Where the hell did I say I deleted the files based on that DR? Please, please, please read the discussion at User talk:Fastily#File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg before leaping to conclusions! Btw - Would you mind keeping the discussion in one place? It's becoming rather tiring to have to follow you around ;) Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 21:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If you ignored the DR, the situation is even worse. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I honestly fail to see how it is; a copyvio is a copyvio, and DR isn't going to change that. At any rate, please wait for additional input from Jim. I do not intend to escalate the situation without more information first. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Books and wikisource

Hi James. Did you find the time to take a brief tour into a wikisource project? I hope you did. You you like, this in my last work into en.source: s:Horsemanship for Women.djvu that uses both File:Horsemanship for Women.djvu and Category:Horsemanship for Women. Wikisource projects need lots of Commons files! --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 13:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I might, but the link you gave above, s:Horsemanship for Women.djvu, is dead. ???      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Manuel Moisés Montás.jpg

Hi James. My username is Ng2f7 and I need your help getting my pictures undeleted. I used the same picture i use in my public Facebook Page (Search Manuel Moisés Montás), and i clearly stated to Wikipedia Commons that this picture was Copyright Free before I uploaded It. Please help me get back on track. Thank You. --Ng2f7 (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You claimed that the image was your own work. It appears to have come from a Facebook page which is both copyrighted and not your own work. That is why it was deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

[Ticket#2011052410013401] In the Dominican Republic, these pictures are usually Copyright-Free. I paid a friend to do the professional picture (you dont want to be looking badly in front of the whole Wikipedia Comunity!. Please let me know if there is anything else i can do to prove this picture is copyright free and therefore, valid. -- 13:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about FOP in France


A little question about FOP cases: is there a difference about buildings still under construction, between France and other countries like Belgium or UAE? I saw you deleted 2 pictures of french towers under construction, but I remember several pictures of buildings under construction have been kept in Belgium and UAE. I'm really sorry I didn't found the information in the talk pages.

Thanks for your answer   Jeriby (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not about whether they're still under construction, it's mainly whether the building contains any copyrightable elements. When a building is in the first stages of construction, it's just a slavish layout of steel and concrete and therefore ineligible for copyright protection. When a building is close to being finished and contains original elements, then it is eligible. Note that it is possible for a building in France to be ineligible for copyright protection, such as a mundane apartment block that contains no creativity whatsoever. -- King of ♠ 18:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In general, I agree with King of Hearts, although I might draw the line a little earlier in the construction than my colleague. Steelwork for a very special building -- an odd shape, a hole in the middle, etc., would, in my view, have a copyright. But, yes, a building early in the construction process, with none of the finished surface showing, in most cases would not have a copyright. Later in the process, with the finish done on the bottom floors -- as it was in these two case -- then there is a copyright.
I should add that I take a tougher line on architecture than many of our colleagues -- I see no reason why an architect cannot protect his work from being photographed just as much as a painter or sculptor, assuming that the local FOP rules permit. Fortunately in the USA, where all recent architecture, however mundane, has a copyright, we also have FOP.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please consider commenting on Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people

I have just posted a question on Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people, regarding the list where Consent of the subject (who is a non-public figure) is required even for photographs taken in public places in the following countries. I think you may be able to provide relevant and valuable input, and kindly requests that you comment there. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Secret of our Success in Studying and Teaching English

Hello why have you deleted my article ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blog1234 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Your article was created in Wikimedia Commons gallery space, which is reserved for collections of Commons images. Commons does not have a place for articles -- they must be created in the appropriate Wikipedia. I also note that your article with a similar name has been deleted from WP:EN for copyright violation. We also take copyright seriously here. If you have questions, I will try to help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, I know it has been deleted because it contained an information which obviously I cant prove I can use so this text is written by me. And I have the copyrights. If you can help where I can create the Article please dont hesitate to write me.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blog1234 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, Commons has no place for articles -- that is not what we do here. I cannot speak for the English Wikipedia -- you must discuss the question there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi James,

Since you commented at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 28#MineWatcher that you had also noticed the uploads by this user, I thought I'd give you a heads-up that I brought them up for discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MineWatcher after they added even more, even weirder files (and lots of 'em). Perhaps you'd like to comment there too in light of later uploads and discussions. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


What is this all about? I received all those photos specifically for Wikimedia Commons use through e-mail from embassies in question. Please provide me with a specific list of steps I need to take in order for those photos to be undeleted.--Avala (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that it won't be easy -- the author (photographer) of each photo is the owner of the copyright in each of the countries involved (Cyprus, Netherlands, Greece, Denmark). Therefore for each image, you must ask the embassy to get the actual photographer(s) to follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS to give us permission. The photographers' e-mails should specify the specific image(s), using the file name(s) you gave them on Commons, to which the permission applies. If a single photographer took more than one image, they may be listed in one e-mail. When a correct permission (license) is received for an image, it will be undeleted by the OTRS volunteer handling the case.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My food pictures

I am the creator, the owner and the uploader of this images, and I give permission to use it under licences used in Wikipedia Commons. Please! Help Me! Dencey (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My autograph collection

Thanks! File:Schmitt Pál autogramja.jpg

You may own the autographed copy of the photo, but I do not believe that you own the copyright to it. If I am correct, the image cannot be kept on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:DR by NeoUrfahraner

Hi Jim,
I would really prefer that further partisan DRs by the Niabot/NeoUrfahraner camp aren't supported/encouraged by admins. I'm aware that the underlying problem needs a solution. However, as this problem concerns at least 9,000 images on Commons and as these questionable credit specifications have been widely tolerated/ignored on Commons for years, filing single DRs for each of these files now is neither fair to the uploaders nor rational. We first need to achieve a real consensus 1) about what kind a wording (in all mayor languages!) is deemed acceptable or is not acceptable and 2) about the resulting procedures, as I had outlined in my first comment this DR. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Túrelio -- I have great respect for you, both for the enormous volume of work you do and for your being the "voice of reason" in many contentious discussions, so I will follow your lead here.

You should know that I have added {{delete}} to two of Pehlemann's images of EEC Strasbourg for lack of FOP, and removed one of them from a WP:EN article because it wasn't attributed according to his requirements. I will not take any further action on his images without discussion with you.

With that said, I think we need to deal with this issue now. As I said in the Pehlemann DR, it seems strange that we allow users to require attribution that prohibits the use of images on WP:EN and, I think, most other WPs. It also prevents their use on many, perhaps most, web sites, and in books and magazines that gather attributions on a single page (more than half of ten books I pulled off my shelves at random).

For the record, I believe that an uploader should be able to specify the name to be used -- "James L. Woodward" and nothing else. If pressed, I would allow the uploader to specify that he get "most favored nation" treatment -- that is, attribution under the image if that is done for any other image in the work, otherwise, linked, or listed in accordance with all the other image credits. I would not allow the uploader to require a link to a particular place on the web, both because it precludes print use and because it imposes a maintenance burden if the link goes dead.

I agree that we can't deal with tagging all of them with individual DRs. It might be OK to do a Mass DR for each uploader who offends -- I don't know what the numbers are. But first, we need a consensus.

Is the best thing to start a discussion at Commons talk:Licensing, with a note on the Admin Noticeboard and as many Village Pumps as we can?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jim, thanks for the confidence, but I had hoped my arguments were somewhat convincing, not me ;-). (To be sure, I didn't refer to the no-FOP-cases, in which you are fully right; we all had missed them. These images will be locally acceptable at least on :de, eventually on :en. I've instructed the uploader about that.) The consensus process needed for the questionable-credit-specs images will likely be a huge task, that needs accrual (right word?) of a "taskforce" of people with some legal/licensing knowlegde and people fluent in the relevant languages, as we cannot restrict it to english-language specs. Honestly, I have no own experience in the eventual formalities for such a process. May be the best way would be to make a first announcement on COM:AN attempting to attract a few people with experience in such procedures, let them make an initial outline, and then as a second step invite 1 or 2 people for each relevant language to develop either a list of acceptable or of non-accetable wording for the credit spec; and eventually in third step invite the general community to vote about those points that can be solved one way or another. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a consent about what is acceptable and what not needs to be found. But currently we have this images and we should not allow to upload more of them until the issue is resolved. Otherwise it gets worse over time and Wikipedia/Commons measures time in months or even years. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving and editing of Atlases by User:23prootie

Most of these edits in question are from January 2011 and has been move atlases to native names for months User:23prootie has changed the Atlas of British Indian Ocean Territory Introduction and Name to reflect a Chagossian biased slant and moved said atlas to Atlas of the Chagos Archipelago,

Here are the other Atlases that have been changed to a biased slant:

Atlas of the Paracel Islands

Atlas of Muslim Mindanao

Atlas of the Spratly Islands

I don't know how to fix this without messing up said Atlases;

I have posted on the admin noticeboard with no response,

please reply on my English Wikipedia talkpage, as it's my most active wiki BionicWilliam (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted at the top of this page, I like to keep discussions in one place, so the reply is here.
Maps are the most contentious issue on Commons, by far. I am by no means expert on any of these.
"The Chagos Archipelago is a part of Mauritius under the neocolonial occupation of the United Kingdom and the United States"
is too strong. Although the islands had a colonial relationship to Mauritius, they are actually closer to the Seychelles (1,000nm), Sri Lanka (875), Maldives (Male, 625), and India (900), than to Mauritius (1,200). The UK legally separated them from Mauritius before the latter's independence. Although they may belong to their former inhabitants, I wouldn't say they belong to Mauritius. I have made an attempt at rewriting this for neutrality.
  • Atlas of the Paracel Islands -- 23prootie appears to have moved this back and forth. Since "Paracel Islands" is the name by which most of the world knows them, it would be my choice. Since it appears to be China vs VietNam as the principal claimants, an English name is neutral, which is a good thing. I cleaned up the English description somewhat.
  • Atlas of the Spratly Islands -- Much the same. It seems to me that "Spratly Islands" is a good, neutral, choice of name.
  • Atlas of Muslim Mindanao -- I would delete this page. I note that Scotland and Wales do not have separate Atlas pages despite the fact that they have been legally separate entities forever -- Scotland has its own currency and legal system.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks, for the help, Jim BionicWilliam (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/FSO Polonez

I just want to clarify that what I meant by "that is as far as I will allow this gallery to be trimmed" is "this is as far as I will support the trimming of this gallery". The reason for why I used a stronger word is because I get very defensive whenever someone tries to delete pictures, articles or galleries that I put a lot of work into. I am aware that I am but one of the millions of contributors and I can assure you that I use my knowledge and expertise to serve the community. This gallery is supposed to help people who are not as familiar with the subject as I am. I hope you understand.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I do understand -- but please remember that there are a lot of users who get very possessive about "their work" -- it is only natural -- so I react strongly when a user seems to suggest that something is "his".

I rather like your effort here, but I couldn't find any solid examples of galleries that had as much explanatory text. You might want to look around yourself and see if you can find any -- because we may not have seen the last of the other side of this argument.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason for why I decided to create a gallery like this is because I think it really makes it easier for people who are not familiar with the subject to understand it. What I mean is we could simply direct people toward the Wikipedia article but I think that most people would get discouraged if they were presented with a giant wall of text which pretty much every Wikpiedia article is. Here they get all the information relevant to recognizing different production versions and variants without information that might prove unimportant in this case. I think more automobile categories could use galleries like this. I already did something similar with the Category:Polski Fiat 125p and Category:FSO 125p but only in text form. However they could be easily converted to the format I used on the FSO Polonez page and the addition of pictures would make a lot more useful.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gunter Sachs

Bonsoir Monsieur -and the why and wherefore? -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It was completely obvious that the drawing is a derivative work of the photograph. That fact was thoroughly discussed at the DR. You may, of course, ask for it to be undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests, but the case is so obvious that I do not think you will find any support.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Hallo Jameslwoodward, please undelete Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Quarry.jpg - I want to crop the file... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand -- it is a copyrighted book cover -- you can't crop it to eliminate the copyrighted content without making it useless. Please explain your reasoning.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It is only the lower part - the house - which is (maybe) copyrighted. The text above is {{PD-text}}. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what's the point of an image of half a book cover? Isn't that just out of scope?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Come on Jim, it was used to illustrate the article of this book. That is miles away from out of scope. And even it is only half the cover you can use it to illustrate an book or author article. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, you're an experienced editor and I don't see any good reason not to, since obviously you have thought it through.
By the way, let me ask you the same question I ask most of my experienced colleagues when the opportunity arises -- have you thought about running for Administrator? We could always use the help, and you don't need to spend a lot of time on it if you don't want to? You have far more experience than most of our recent candidates -- much more, in fact, than I had. I'd be delighted to nominate you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks. Done and cleaned up. Please hide the copyrighted versions' image content using revision delete - I think this is the best (most transparent) approach compared to a complete deletion of the file versions. Update: Already done by User:ZooFari now. Thanks!
I am admin at dewp and, in fact, I miss the tools here sometimes. ;-) Thank you very much for your positive assessment. :-) Thank you also for your offer to nominate me - but I think I prefer a self-nomination like I did at dewp. The thing is: I cannot spend more time - so my admin activity would probably be relatively low. A few actions when passing by something - but probably not reducing the backlogs much and in a regular manner. I will think about it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jameslwoodward,

I checked the discussion regarding the above file and no other comments but mine were entered. NRL no longer has records of its V-2 launches. These files are archived with NASM, including transfers to DeVorkin. What caused you to conclude it is not in the PUBLIC DOMAIN? Marshallsumter (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The only entry (other than my delete) at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pn 5498 Image V-2-prep---june-1946.jpg is the nominator, High Contrast. The image is credited to a private citizen, hence the nomination and my deletion. I don't understand your comment above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Post deletion comment"

My comment don't "harm" the procedure and I was not been able to post it before the deletion, so I think it can be there. Sorry if it sounds sarcastic or such, but in Italy this deck is absolutely common... no problem for me to delete the image, I've the original deck, it is Commons that loses a rare picture. --F l a n k e r (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make post deletion comments, the place for them is the talk page of the DR. The reason we are so hard on comments on the DR page is that there have been users who attempt to change the sense of the DR after it has closed -- it is intended that it be a fixed record of the event.
Also, of course, if you believe that the deletion was incorrect, you can tell the closing Admin. Failing that, you can ask for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. Making comments on the closed DR page gets you nowhere (although it may feel good).
As for the deletion itself, the problem is that there was no clear date for the deck or the author. Unless you can show that it was before around 1880, we're unlikely to keep it -- any later date could easily have an artist who was alive in 1941.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olek 100pc Acrylic DumboArts-2009-09-26.jpg

There was a second image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olek 100pc Acrylic DumboArts-2009-09-26.jpg. Would you please delete the second one too?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for pointing it out.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olek artist Dumbo row.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it needs seven days before we can delete it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Boris Malagurski photo.jpg

Just reuploaded about 12hrs after you closed the deletion request. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Heidi Wagner-Kerkhof

hi, James, in the very minute while I have been editing that page - you deleted it. I just created Category:Heidi Wagner-Kerkhof, added this cat to 4 files, and started to edit the descriptions within the gallery (at preview stage). What did I wrong? Greetings, --Emeritus (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, James, but I couldn't help me, I got to click on Save again (helplessly). If you think, that page has to be deleted, do it but please confirm and explain to me (just a bloody beginner in commons). Thanx. Btw: Is that ok to delete while another is editing? --Emeritus (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it is I who should apologize on behalf of Commons -- we get about a hundred bad galleries a day -- many of which look just like yours when I deleted it. We are, therefore, very quick to delete a gallery page that does not have any images.
There are two ways to prevent this. The best is to create new galleries in a sandbox, which could be User:Emeritus/Sandbox1 and then copy the whole thing to the new gallery page when you are done. The other way is just to put a note at the top -- "Gallery images soon to come -- please don't delete". That's a little easier for you, but harder for the Admins, because we'd like to simply deal with a New Page, rather than keeping on the list until you are done with it.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
tnx a lot, sandbox would be fine for me :-), --Emeritus (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you understand this, but in case you don't -- you can create the sandbox -- or any other user subpage -- by just typing the name into the search box and clicking on "create the page xxx on this wiki" or, in this case, just click on the redlink above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


"You guys ask good questions" - that was directed to you! Not everybody gets such a "blessing" from the legal counsel of the WMF. You might put it on your userpage ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (chuckling) I just breathed a sigh of relief when he agreed with my analysis of the legal situation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi James,

I’m not going to post any comments further of course, that is OK; the fact that you delete my comments just makes it even more clear that Wiki is a set of ridiculous paranoiacs, who ban everything they cannot understand and therefore handle, and with whom the sane must not have anything to do. Now delete my comment. — Gai Sever (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Like any other organization, we have rules. Commons particularly needs rules because we are, by design, from all over the world and often don't have languages in common. We expect our users to obey them.
The rule about post closing comments is for a very simple reason -- if anyone can make changes after the close, they can change the history of the debate and create false precedence for future Deletion Requests. It's also because post closure comments are not very public. Although the DR will remain forever, it is removed from the log, so it has no links to it.
There is plenty of opportunity for comment -- you can do so here, on the talk page of the closing Admin. You can comment on the discussion page of the DR, although, again, that's not very public. And, of course, if you think that the DR was not closed correctly, you can open a discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests. Any of these is an opportunity for further discussion if you believe it would be good.
I would also suggest that as a beginning user, with a grand total of 25 edits, that you spend a little more time learning our rules and working with us instead of fighting us. We have many active contributors and more than 10,282,024 images and other media files, all of which suggests we are doing more right than wrong.
Finally, some of your images are really striking. I particularly like

which can spice up my talk page for a while.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swastika symbol in ancient greek doll.JPG

Ehm, why this picture was deleted? It was created by User:Stefano84, it seems there was nothing suspicious with it. Trycatch (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks for catching my mistake.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Charlene Wittstock.jpg

Hi, I've tagged this image again, the image is taken by Canon EOS 50D, looking to it's size, border and watermarks (which you removed), I doubt that this is own work by uploader.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK -- but, note that the watermark tended to confirm that it was his own image, not deny it. I'm very much inclined to believe that it is his image -- Assume Good Faith -- per the comments from Asclepias. The Canon would be appropriate to a professional photographer, which he appears to be.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct, but user should at least send a permission or they should upload the original files without any border and watermark to prove STUDIO AZ is the owner of these files.   ■ MMXX  talk  18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is not crystal clear, but I don't think {{no permission since}} is the right tag. The problem isn't lack of permission -- our uploader claims it is "own work" -- the problem is that you don't believe that it is own work. I think you need to use {{delete}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes you're right, but you closed the DR yourself   anyway, I don't think we don't need another DR, we just have to wait for the user to response, otherwise images will be removed and they can be restored anytime that the user clarify the situation.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the user did not respond to the DR -- there's no reason to believe that he or she is going to respond to the {{no permission since}}. Either one of us removes the {{no permission since}}, or we're going to lose the only image we have of a notable person that several of us believes is properly licensed by the photographer-uploader.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, I don't like to lose a valuable image too, but what could we do? besides, apparently user is aware of the situation, for more information please see their talk page on French Wikipedia.   ■ MMXX  talk  17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Kept - why ?

you decided to keep this image. Why? The painter Joerg Mueller is still alive; see here.-- 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Same problem with the other images. -- 16:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  Done thank you -- I misunderstood -- as you saw, I thought the paintings were from the dates as of which they were painted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Alphonse_Persico.jpg

I'd like to know how to came to the conclusion to delete the image File:Alphonse_Persico.jpg (Deletion discussion). If one source (Five Families by Selwyn Raab) says it's an FBI image and another (the article you posted) says it belongs to a New York Post photographer, surely further evidence would need to be acquired before deciding whether the photo should be deleted. Both sources are reliable. --Ted87 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, please note that I did not post anything to the DR and I did not delete the image. My only action on this image and its DR was to close the DR after the image had been deleted by my colleague, Yann.
With that said, I agree with the deletion. Our rule can be summarized as "when in doubt, delete". If two more or less equally reliable sources contradict one another, then our rules require us to delete.
However, in this case, there was no contradiction. The Rabb book, which you cite, shows the image with the credit "Photo courtesy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation." "Courtesy of" is not the same thing as "by" -- it simply means that the FBI supplied the photo and may or may not have actually taken it. Just because the FBI owns a copy of an image does not put it into the PD. Commons experience shows that the FBI uses other people's images all the time, often without credit. The New York Daily News, on the other hand, credits a specific photographer, Josh Williams, for the image. So, I believe the Daily News. They do pay attention to copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll have to look out for that. --Ted87 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

About DR


I have 2 questions about DR you recently closed:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charlène .jpg: Don't you think that a written permission is needed?
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg: I intended to add more images to this DR, but I had no time to do so. There are potentially many images concerned. What do you suggest? Yann (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(Chuckling) -- You're a more experienced Admin than I -- I'm happy to follow your lead. If it were me, I think there are two cases:
  • images from the same uploader(s) that were part of the DR -- I think we can delete these as though they were speedies -- the uploader has had an opportunity to comment.
  • images from different uploaders -- I think these should have a new DR, to give the uploader a chance to defend them. Certainly I agree that they are likely going to end up deleted, but I believe that we should follow process.
As for File:Charlène .jpg, I think Asclepias described the situation well at the DR. But Mmxx agrees with you, in a note above.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the uploader, but I think that images from professional photographers need a written permission via OTRS, unless the original website shows a free license. Yann (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
For Royal de Luxe, these are tricky cases, as some subjects might be de minimis, so I will open another DR. Best regards, Yann (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Jim, I appreciate what you said in closing the deletion discussion. Putting aside whether I agree that there's insufficient originality in the logo for copyright, wouldn't it be a good idea for the file page to show that Commons is taking the position that this is a text-only logo and therefore not subject to copyright?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, but given that the logo is very specific, I doubt that it will ever be used in a situation where there is any question. Indeed, I almost deleted it as out of scope -- not notable.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete every photographic image I uploaded without responding to my comments?

Why did you delete every photographic image I uploaded without responding to my comments? For example, images of historic North Korean land titles, and in a week where George VItale is actually bringing North Koreans into AMerica. Many researchers were working on those. Similarly for other deletions, e.g., of products of paleoterrorism (destroying paleological digs). MineWatcher (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I responded fully to your comments once. The North Korean land deeds were illegible and out of scope -- Commons is not a registry of deeds. You may, of course, post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests, but be careful of your language and attitude, some of my colleagues are less tolerant than LX and I.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red kids.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


File:Vartan Vahramian - Critical Hour.jpg

I uploaded that photo but didn't make it to send the e-mail for the license on time so it got deleted. Now I can't upload it again 'cause it says that it's been deleted. How can I restore the photo?

You don't need to re-upload it, as it can easily be un-deleted. But before that we have to be sure if you send what was missing to OTRS. Did you do that? --Túrelio (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

your assistance please

You closed File:Abu Zubaida interrogation photo -c.jpg. Did you give any consideration to my questions as to the best procedure for transwiki-ing the image to the English language wiki, and the other wikis where it was being in use? Is there a bot that handles this?

I believe it would qualify as "fair use" on wikis that allow fair use -- given that it provides the important "before" image that commentators have asserted shows plucking out his eye was not medically necessary, and was possibly an instance of what had until recently seemed to be only a theoretical possibility. The Yoo torture memos explicitly stated the President could authorize extreme interrogation techniques that included plucking out a captive's eye. Abu Zubaydah's eye was in fact removed, not long after he started being subjected to extreme interrogation methods.

Am I correct that key information on which wikis used this image will have been lost by the time the commons delinker robot removes those links? If that hasn't happened yet could you please take the steps to make sure that information is not lost, prior to the image being transwikied to the appropriate wikis that allow "fair use"?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons will not allow fair use images..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule, it is not up to Commons to deal with images deleted here which might be possible to use on various Wikis. For one thing, the Commons Admin who does the deletion would have to construct a fair use argument in whatever languages were required by its various uses and it is unlikely that he or she would have the languages needed. Even editing is difficult on some wikis if you can't read the language. It is also a fact that the deleting Admin may not believe that a fair use argument is appropriate.
So, yes, it was up to you to fix the problem. I do not generally delete images where someone has raised the issue until there has been opportunity to make the transfer, but in this case, you agreed to the deletion on June 6 and I deleted on June 10.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Help for a new user

Dear Mr. Woodward, You recently deleted a page I had started for the purpose of storing images of Shonen-ji, a Buddhist temple in Miyazaki, Japan. At the time you deleted it, I had added only some basic text describing the temple. I thought this was a necessary first step, but it seems I was mistaken. I would like to start another page to store these photos, but I don't wish to run counter to established policies. Can you tell me how many minutes users are allowed between the creation of a new page and the uploading of their first image? Many thanks, Damian Jordan.

Just put first a few of the related images on the page and then add the text later. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Turelio. Is it allowable for me to recreate the deleted page under the same title, or should I think of something different to call it? Djay49 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC) PS. Whatever route I follow after receiving your response, I will create the new page in a sandbox per the talk above about Category:Heidi Wagner-Kerkhof. I am currently doing that in my first wikipedia page, but somehow I missed seeing that that was also possible (probably desirable) in the Commons. Again, thank you. Djay49 (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'Ve now undeleted your original gallery Shonen-ji; hopefully Jim will not be angry. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Túrelio, exactly what I would have done. Djay49, please read Heidi_Wagner-Kerkhof above, where exactly the same thing happened. You'll see my apology for the general problem and two suggestions for avoiding it in the future.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for help and guidance. I've moved the restored page to a sandbox while I'm working on it. Djay49 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:University Lomonosov 1991.jpg


Can you please have a look here? The previous keep-rational of User:Jcb was "all possible FOP issues are DM". Can you imagine what "DM" means? Perhaps de minimis? Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DM does mean de minimis. JcB routinely stretches things a long way in the FOP area. Since in this image the only thing in the image is a copyrighted building, I do not see how he says that, but I think he will argue that only the surface detailing matters and you can;t see that at a distance.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok; I had the same thoughts about this issue. Thanks, High Contrast (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Protesters camped out infront of the Pearl Roundabout in Bahrain.jpg

Hallo, you should evaluate the picture named how above for remove from the cource for the same reason as for the other pictures And to add: the coin picture of the English Version of the Pearl Roundabout wiki site. Thanks --Linda Susanne (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the other pictures of the Pearl in the same section of the DR log, I did make such an evaluation and concluded that in this case the tents were the center of interest of the image and the sculpture was not.
I do not understand:
"And to add: the coin picture of the English Version of the Pearl Roundabout wiki site."
It is helpful to add links when you are referring to other pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If the tents are in the middle of interest, please show them without due law protected arcitecture in the back. The other picture was File:Bahrain coin 500Fils.JPG --Linda Susanne (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For the tents -- it is permitted to have copyrighted building, sculpture, or other works in an image if they are only incidental to the image, see our section on de minimis.
As for the coin -- I have changed your reference to a link. It is not our usual practice to show images on talk pages. There does not appear to have been a Commons file with the name File:Bahrain coin 500Fils.JPG. There is such a file on WP:EN. Aside from the fact that WP:EN is not our responsibility here, the use there is under a "fair use" tag, which is probably appropriate -- since we do not allow "fair use" on Commons, I am not sure of its limits.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Saint Kuriakose.jpg

I would like to know why you deleted this image even when I had given proof that the image was published on book covers from at least 1939. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saint Kuriakose.jpg). India is a country where its difficult to get scanned copies of covers which are published even in the current year. Why does commons need explicit proof of permission when an obvious proof was already submitted? User:Captainof hope is just vandalizing Commons with his aggressive DRs and this DR is the latest to join his hall of fame -- 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I do not see any comment by you ( in the DR, so I do not know what proof you say you gave. If you have made comments at the DR and here under two different identifications, you should be aware that such action is a serious violation of our rules and leaves you with no credibility here at all.
Second, of the evidence given, (the link to this page) is not helpful, as it does not provide dates directly linked to books. The only images on that page are too small to compare with the deleted image and there are no dates given for any of the books.
I should also add that if this:
"Don't expect others to backfill your laziness to investigate."
is your comment, you should know that is not the responsibility of the DR nominator or the closing Admin to do any investigation at all. It is up to the uploader and those who would keep an image to provide convincing proof that can be seen easily without any investigation. Commons Admins must consider whether or not to delete around 2,000 images per day -- they actual delete around half of them. We do not have time to do any investigation and our rules do not require that we do.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Since its pointed slightly towards me (I suspect the IP is a known user in commons) i can say that, if its difficult to get the proof of such cover's especially in India, you can raise your concerns to WMF for a change in commons policy to allow images from india without sources...rather than fighting over un sourced (PD source) pictures to keep in commons, If my user space is filling up with DR link's, its only for the record and for reference...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  Info - IP Filed a UDR here--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pics Deleted ?????

I am wondering what I need to do to get my pictures undeleted and any useful information that you can give me on uploading them and others correctly and what category or area I should put them in NeilsErikson (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I don't think you can get them undeleted. They appear to all be family photographs that are personal and out of scope for Commons. In particular, Commons is not Facebook or Flickr, and we are fairly selective about what we keep. Unless you or your family are particularly notable in a way that is not obvious, they do not have a place here.
The only exception is that we do allow active contributing users to keep a very limited number of personal pictures on their user page, which, in your case, would be User:NeilsErikson. I have to say, though, that a user page that is largely personal, such as your WP:EN page User:NeilsErikson would not be permitted on Commons. I should add that I am not at all sure that it will be allowed on WP:EN, but issues there are not my concern.
I should add, that I just gone through all of your contributions and tagged most of them with Deletion Requests for the reasons above.
You may, in accordance with our rules, post an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests by following the instructions there, but I will oppose it and I don't think it will be successful.
To answer your more general question, you should read the article on Commons scope carefully so that you have a better understanding of what Commons needs and permits. Your flag icons appear (after a brief look) to be good contributions. Your family material is not.
You might also want to read Commons:Licensing to get a better idea of some of the copyright issues which we face. Your family crest was created on a site that clearly reserves all rights on images created with its software and, in particular, retains copyright on the various pieces that you put into it. Thus it is a copyright violation, as well as being out of scope.
I know that's all bad news -- except for the flag icons -- for which I'm sorry. If you have questions, feel free to ask here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 06:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If the images are in use on any wiki project, I think they are automatically in scope (whatever we may think of them). Until the relevant wiki decides to remove the page we have no reason to delete them, we are just the hosting site. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Categories:Monasteries on postal cards

Good day (morning, evening), James,

You have deleted the category with wrong name, crated by me (Categories:Monasteries on postal cards). I was not aware about the deletion procedure in WikiCommons and I have created this page: Commons:Deletion requests/Categories:Monasteries on postal cards. I suppose it has been created in a wrong way, too. If so, and if it must be deleted, delete it (or remove it), please. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Túrelio, I should have looked for the DR...      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a regular DR, looked somewhat (formally) strange. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Dmitry, thank you for noticing -- in the ordinary course of things, a page that looks like a category, but does not begin with exactly "Category:" will be deleted quickly by New Page Patrol.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Now I see. It was a misprint: monasteries... categories... Thanks for the attention to my message. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear -- a Category must begin with "Category:", in English, with the colon, and nothing else -- not plural, not in another language. Anything else will be promptly deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jim, added that link we discussed at File_talk:McDonald's_Golden_Arches.svg. You asked me to let you know. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew about Permalinks, but didn't think about them in this context. See User:Jameslwoodward/Commons notes for administrators.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


"particularly since summer is upon us and some of our number will actually want to spend time outside rather than in front of screens" - Oh, I wish! ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

-- Sorry about that, although I did say "some of our number". Also, all year round in New Zealand is a good time to be outside -- we spent six months in Lyttleton Harbour (Christchurch) on our trip around the world. Your coldest month -- July -- is a lot like our April, which is a good time to be outdoors -- not too hot.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Vartan Vahramian image

As the closing admin who is also an OTRS member, I need your opinion on whether the information in ticket 2011061510016898 is sufficient for File:Vartan Vahramian - Critical Hour.jpg. – Adrignola talk 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The message is from a yahoo account in the artist's name, so I would question it on the grounds that it is easy for anyone to open a Yahoo account. However, we don't have to worry about that as the e-mail says:
"I would like the photos of my paintings to be displayed on my Wikipedia page so that the viewers will have a better appreciation of my artwork."
which is not anywhere near a suitable license for Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out. Does message number 2 resolve that issue? – Adrignola talk 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it solves the second issue, but I still wonder whether the e-mail writer is really the artist or just our uploader imitating him. It's unusual for a moderately well know artist not to have his own web site. Since this is one of a long list of deleted contributions from this uploader, I'd be inclined not to believe him. It's a close call, though, so I wouldn't be very unhappy if it went the other way.
What do you think? I know you're an Admin -- I voted for you. I see you're also an OTRS person. You must have an opinion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Just like with ticket 2011042810017723 that also has not been concluded with a successful confirmation of permission, where a professional photo is being claimed by someone only using a free email, where I chose not to believe them, I also do not believe this person as well. But I didn't state such in order to avoid influencing your opinion before you took a look at it. So we are in agreement. – Adrignola talk 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we agree. As for influencing my opinion, I completely understand, but as we work together more I think you will learn that while I can change my mind when someone I respect offers a good reason, I don't do it easily or just to please someone else.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sri-Yukteswar-standing.jpg

Why did you remove the image at the Portuguese article of Sri Yukteswar Giri since the image used was the same one present on the version in English? --Bpfurtado (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the question. The image was deleted from Commons for the reasons stated in the Deletion Request shown above. A bot then removed the reference to it from:
The bot is automatic -- when an image is deleted from Commons, the bot removes all places that call for the image within the WMF projects.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Simfiropol Train Station

Hi Jim,

In November you deleted some my photos (File:SimfiropolTrainStation-2.jpg, File:SimfiropolTrainStation-3.jpg, File:SimfiropolTrainStation-4.jpg, File:SimfiropolTrainStation-7.jpg). It turns out that I have no copies of them.

Could you, please, send me their originals?

My email is

~ Aleksandrit (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure.   Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Aleksandrit (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


I couldn't tag the image as it is protected. Allow the tagging of the image and I will relist. --Grcampbell (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Coats of arms and consider that our policy is that the blazon (formal written description) of a coat of arms does not have a copyright, but that individual realizations of the blazon do. Since this is an svg, I think it was probably drawn by User:Wagner51 specifically for Commons. Therefore, while we need a license from Wagner51, which we have, we do not need a license from the designer of the blazon.
If, after considering that, you would still like to tag it, let me know and I'll do it for you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Since it is not a coat of arms, yes. --Grcampbell (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC

For use of the term "Coat of arms" applying to this device, please see:

  • Coat of Arms of France (no link because this is apparently a problem site)
  • [12] Coat of Arms of France
  • [13]] Coat of Arms of France
  • National Emblem of France which points out that it is technically not a Coat of Arms because it does not respect the rules of heraldry, but that it was created in response to a request from the UN for the coat of arms of France.
  • [14] Flags of the World calls it an emblem

I think you are splitting hairs -- it is clear to me at Commons:Coats of arms that this has the same copyright status as a true coat of arms. The blazon of a coat of arms, or of this emblem, is a description. While you can copyright the specific words in a description of anything, that does not give copyright to objects described by those words and would not, for example, preclude someone else describing the object in different words. That is the reason that blazons, as a general rule, do not have copyrights.

This representation is drawn from the blazon's description. It is in that drawing that the creativity applies -- two representations of the same blazon may be quite different, so they have copyright, but the blazon does not.

Again, are you sure?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

none of the sources provided reliably inform me that it is not an emblem but a coat of arms. Even if This representation is drawn from the blazon's description were true, the French government do not call it a coat of arms but an emblem thus rendering that point moot. However, what really needs to be established is who designed this thing and if any potential copyright violations have expired anyway making my argumnet moot. --Grcampbell (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what you call it, emblem or COA, the legal status is the same. Since it was designed in the fifties, any copyright would still be in place because the rule in France is 70 years pma. However, as I have argued above and at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armoiries république française.svg, while the blazon probably does not have a copyright, even if it did, any representation of the COA is not a DW of the blazon.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FOP in Switzerland

As you suggested, I amended Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Switzerland - should be clear enough now, I think? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I amended/expanded it a bit further, maybe you could have another look, also regarding the English wording? I think the fact that (according to legal commentary) temporary works are also subject to FOP (in which Swiss FOP differs e.g. from that of Germany) is of some interest. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I reworded a little. I didn't want people to read "permanent" in the first sentence and stop reading there, as they often do.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewording, looks good to me :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nipa

Hi Jim! Thanks for closing this one. You missed one, though – File:Caribbean giblartar.jpg. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artania GRL-19.JPG

Hello Jim. I didn't understood what exactly I need to do, but there are some links:

  • [15] Grailight Prod., record label (rus)
  • [16] press-release
  • [17] Band's group on Facebook (rus/eng)
  • [18] Band's group on VKontakte (rus)
  • [19] Band's page on

I guess it's pretty enough. Is there another way to prove it's our own artwork? What exactly should I do? Actually I'm a member of band. Thanks. Xood (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK -- as I rule when we see "own work" on an album cover then one of two things is true:

  • it really isn't "own work", it's just ripped off and would need the permission of the album artist to keep it on Commons, or
  • it is really the uploader's work, but the band is not notable enough to be within Commons scope

We very rarely get a case where a band with significant notability uploads its own album covers. In your case, then, the question is not whether it's your own work, but whether we should keep it -- we see many many small bands that would like to use Commons as a place to help their publicity.

My tastes run more toward Beethoven, Bach, and Boccherini, so I am not the one to judge the issue -- that's the whole point of a DR, to enlist opinions from knowledgeable members of the Commons community -- but I can offer you a few thoughts as you think about your response at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artania GRL-19.JPG:

  • All of the material you link above appears to have been generated by the band itself. That's interesting, but doesn't answer the fundamental question.
  • Try, instead, to show us third party reviews, significant performances, and other evidence that you are real and not just wanna-be.
  • Google doesn't show you in its first few pages -- that may be because you share your name with a cruise ship and an equestrian troupe (bad choice of name?) -- but also because you fail the notability test.
  • Remember than Commons is not a place to publicize yourselves -- the fact that you are a band member is good for proving that the image is your own work, but bad because we'd rather have third parties chose what goes on the site, not groups talking about themselves.

If I can help further, feel free to ask here, but please argue the case at the DR, not here -- my placing the DR was largely mechanical and it's the community that will need convincing, not me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  • As for press-release - it's not our work :) It's fully prod. label's work. Facebook, MySpace and VKontakte links are our work, indeed.
  • Also, there is only one third party review of our release for this moment. You can reach it at [20], but, of course, it's on russian lang.
  • Main thing why Google doesn't show us in its first few pages - we're russian-speak band, not english. If you try to google for "артания группа", you'll get few links to us right at first page. As for significant performances - we'd performed with Butterfly Temple (russian's "head" band), Norwegian Black Metal band Ragranok, Swiss Melodic Death Metal band Soulline and Greek Black Metal band Rotting Christ. And we're not staying still.
  • Definitely, talking about ourselves isn't right, I agree, but I have no interest in advertising of us, just posting main info, like other bands, and I always removing some advert, posted by other members of our band on our page in wiki.

Do I understand right, I must repost that to main discussion thread at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artania GRL-19.JPG? Xood (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Argue your case at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artania GRL-19.JPG. We have many Russian speakers, so you may do well there. As I said above, I don't do metal music and also, I don't read Russian, so I don't have an opinion on this case.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Xood (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Could you please delete these image

And close their deletion request. Thank you--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Policy requires that a Deletion Request should be closed only after seven days have elapsed. Please remember that Commons Administrators delete about 1,000 items a day, so that requests for eight of them to be handled out of the normal routine will generally be refused unless there is a very good reason.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The last one hasn't even been nominated for deletion (and I see no reason why it should be). Some of the others could be cropped. LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed -- I didn't look at them all -- I expect the DR might keep most of them, as you say, they could be cropped.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Zit.jpg, File:Zit2.jpg, File:Zit3.jpg and File:Zit4.jpg

Hello, I feel that these four photos should not be deleted. I used these photos for images on a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, if you delete them, those pictures in a Wikipedia article will just be blank except for the caption. I really don't want the tag to be shown when I click that photo for a larger view. That bothers me. Eric567 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The place to the discuss the issue is not here, but at the Deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zit.jpg. The game Oregon II, like almost every other literary and artistic creation in the world, has a copyright. As far as I know and can tell, it is not licensed under any sort of free license, so the images you uploaded infringe on the game developer's copyright. Since the game is widely sold commercially, it is unlikely that the developer will grant a free license to its images.
I understand your frustration, but it is not unusual for WP:EN and other articles on copyrighted games to have no illustrations, although a fair use argument may be possible there. Since fair use arguments are context-specific, we do not allow them on Commons.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normandy.jpg

The rationale for closing this deletion request is not correct. The copyright for advertisements is not owned by the publisher of QST magazine or the Radio Amateur's Handbook. ARRL does not own the copyright for the Halicrafters commercial pages. It may very well be {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Most old US advertisements fall in this category. SV1XV (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diorama Gouvernementsplein Gerrit Schouten.jpg

Hi there, I think you closed this deletion request a little prematurely as nobody answered Yann's question. Could you please reopen it? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My answer to the question should be clear from the closure as "kept". The 2D-3D distinction is not actually valid -- it is simply a Commons shorthand for the Bridgemnan v Corel decision parameter which actually including only paintings by old European masters.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. Do you mean that PD-Art doesn't apply here? I agree to that, but if PD-Art (or PD-Old) doesn't apply here, doesn't that mean that it's in fact a copyvio? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was cryptic -- our use of {{PD-Art}} is based on a US District court case, Bridgeman v Corel. In it, the court held that faithful photographic images of old European masters did not have a copyright of their own because they were "slavish copies" with no creativity. Commons has extended the meaning of that decision to include all photographs of Public Domain paintings, drawings, and photographs, wherever they were taken. I should add that I agree with that extension, but some of our colleagues do not.
As shorthand, we refer to those objects included under PD-Art as "2D" and everything else, mostly sculpture, as "3D", but since that's not actually the distinction the court made, it is not really a good one. Some of our colleagues claim that when a frame is included in the image, it is 3D and therefore outside of the scope of PD-Art, but that was not actually part of the Bridgeman decision.
As far as I am concerned, if the image is of a painting, particularly an old European master, with or without frame, it clearly falls under Bridgeman and, therefore, PD-Art, which is why I kept this one.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. But you are realising that this is not a painting, but a diorama (see Category:Dioramas)? I admit that dioramas are sometimes flat and can usually only be viewed from one direction, but if I read that not even images of coins are considered PD-Art according to COM:PDART#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet because of their 3d qualities, surely this diorama isn’t either? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I ignored "diorama" as a mistake or mistranslation. Even looking very closely it is hard to see that it is not a flat painting. Do I understand correctly that various pieces are separate and are sitting at various depths, with an overall painted background? If that is the case, you are absolutely correct, and I will reverse the closure. Thank you for your patience with this.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I thought further discussion was necessary. When you look at it up close you'll see all kinds of shades, which indicates depth. And according to the museum the whole piece is 32 cm deep. I would say that's a little bit deep for a painting. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your persistence here. You are completely correct.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vsdc.jpg

You marked it as "kept" without giving explanations.... may I ask you why? Thank you in advance, --Broc (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The explanation was "working too fast - clicked the wrong buttons". Thank you for catching it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chiranjeevi welcome.jpg

Hi Jim,

You closed it as Deleted, but the image is still here, and the image's talk page has a Kept template. Yann (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I clicked the wrong button.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Hey. My pl-fellow admin JDavid asked me for a help with the certain issue regarding Pieter Kuiper uploads. So, Pieter was asked to provide proper source information (direct links namely), which would allow to validate his uploads copyright status. Somehow he not only ignored this request, but removed the templates and started to convince us, that our "demands" are invalid. I took part in the discussion, even pointing out some of the Commons guidelines, but still nothing. Moreover, basing on his own point of view, Pieter modified one of the guideline pages, so now it "fits" his arguments. As far as I can see, it's not the first time when he is asked to give a proper source information and not the first that he ignores it (see one post above). Therefore I'd like to ask you for a help. It might be, that we, with JDavid, are wrong, but I don't think so - no matter what's the pictures legal status, they lack a proper source information. And still, their status is not as obvious as Pieter might think. Thanks in advance. Cheers. Masur (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct. See my comment at User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#Photos_from_Kurier_Lubelski_or_College_Park_Archive. If it was completely obvious that they were taken with an automatic camera, as he claims, and were, therefore, PD, I might overlook the lack of source, but they may have been taken with a photographer's finger on the button, and if that is the case, we need more information.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Today, I've blocked Pieter Kuiper for 3 days for removing templates from images. Just to let you be informed. Masur (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Permission received

I have received permission from the author of the deleted File:Bougainvillia-ramosa.jpg for its use in Commons. I have sent a copy of the email to and I hope this is sufficient. I am just about to go away for a week and will not be available for correspondence, but please leave a note on my talk page if there is anything requiring my further attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That should be sufficient, but I'm curious -- why did you leave this message for me? I don't see that I was involved with this file in any way -- that is not a problem, I'm just curious.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

One tiny correction...

...on this and this, I'm a her and not a him. ;-) Greets, Trijnstel (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. I try hard to use "him or her" and "his or her" when I'm not sure, but I must admit that when I'm typing fast, I sometimes forget. Thanks very much for slapping my wrist about it -- I'll try even harder.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, don't be. You couldn't know this and it's not a big mistake. I'll add a female userbox to my user page to avoid mistakes for the future. Trijnstel (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


You should have a little more respect for others. This photo was linked in the Spanish Wikipedia article "Estepa (Sevilla)" and "Club Balonmano Estepa".

Not a college team, is a federated club with many titles in handball base in the region of Andalucia (Spain). Are you going to delete that article for not playing international competitions?

A little respect for others, not bad.

Zorrillo-Estepa (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have good respect for others, but please remember that Commons Administrators delete approximately 1,000 files each day and our backlog is increasing at the moment. Eight of us do half of those, so occasionally we make mistakes. I would be happy to look again at this one, particularly since from what you say this appears to be such a mistake. Please tell me which image it is.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. Do not worry, I just took a little courage the reason for deletion. Anyway, the article you said is quite outdated and would require an overhaul. Regards. Zorrillo-Estepa (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to delete other photo


Our recent discussion regarding the photo of Voltaire Y. Rosales.jpg has brought to light that I have another photo submitted, making it two.

Kindly delete the OTHER photo which is not the photo being used under the wiki entry Voltaire Y. Rosales. I may have uploaded the other photo by mistake. I've been looking for the other photo but cannot seem to find it using the contribution link.

I have found it, but cannot seem to nominate it for speedy deletion.

Best Regards,

Vic Viclr33 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)viclr33

According to Commons records, as User:Viclr33 you have uploaded three images:
Since the first appears to be your own work and can be kept, while the second is probably going to be deleted, I'm not sure I understand what you would like here and why?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for reply.

May I make a general comment on OTRS? The RISKS digest has had many discussions of a meme the security experts there mockingly call "security through obscurity". They assert that security should rely on procedures that are secure by design, that can survive peer review -- not through counting on keeping untested procedures secret.

Maybe I have failed in my searches, but it seems to me that the OTRS procedures are obscure. I could find no documentation as to how the OTRS team confirms the identity of an outsider. If the obscurity is by design, intended not to offer clues to vandals as to how to spoof the team, I think that would be a mistake.

I'll be frank, there have been a number of deletion discussions, mainly on the English language wikipedia, where I have been disappointed by the OTRS team. In several of those discussions some of the participants in the discussion kept repeating that the subjects of wikipedia articles had requested the deletion of those articles. But I could find no record, on the talk page, or in the discussion, of any messages that looked like they came from the subject of the article.

After participating in several of these discussion I came to the conclusion that all assertions that a real world individual had requested deletion should be ignored, unless an OTRS volunteer confirmed the bona fides of the individual making the assertion.

I'd really like to be able to trust that the OTRS procedures are robust enough to defeat being spoofed by all but the most determined disinformation campaign.

The instance I found most disturbing was that of the biographical article on w:Houston McCoy, one of the two police officers who killed the w:Texas Tower sniper. There was nothing objectionable in the current state of the article, some previous revisions had been obscured from ordinary users. I found multiple articles that stated or implied that McCoy had suffered very severely from PTSD, with all that implies, and I presume that was what had been removed from the article.

As above, there was no indication on the talk page that McCoy, or any of his relatives, had ever requested deletion. However, the talk page had been deleted four or five times. It was possible that the deleted versions of the talk page contained a message that claimed to be from the McCoy family.

As above, I requested confirmation that an OTRS ticket had been generated to document the bona fides of the request to delete the article. No OTRS volunteer came forward to confirm or refute that a legitimate request had been made. An employee of the WMF did go on record as saying that he or she was satisfied that the request had been made, by a member of McCoy's family.

In several of these discussion the same WMF employee has made similar replies to my requests for confirmation that the real world identity of an outsider had been documented through OTRS. I am not going to apologize for finding the WMF employee's personal satisfaction over the real world identities unsatisfactory. I don't think he or she should be circumventing our procedures.

Mind you, if the OTRS procedures are not robust enough to reliably detect subterfuge, that too concerns me.

Have I missed where the procedures are documented? If so could you tell me where to read about them?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not a good source for information on OTRS. I tend to share your concerns, indeed, the reason that I asked for OTRS status was because I had run across several cases where I thought it was possible that the OTRS volunteer had misread the e-mail. I've run across at least one case since then where the volunteer accepted an email from (I don't remember the real name) as conclusive evidence that we had permission from the notable photographer John Doe for the use of his images, notwithstanding the fact that (if I remember correctly), John Doe had an official web site.
I have not, however done much with OTRS except to read e-mails when they were part of a situation I was working on. I have not read any documentation to speak of.
I tend to believe that OTRS volunteer is a job requiring more judgement and care than Administrator, if only because an Admin is working largely under the glare of several spotlights and OTRS actions, although public to all OTRS volunteers, are, as a practical matter, done in private. Yet the Admin vote is more difficult than the OTRS.
As for confirming the identity of an outsider, obviously if you get an e-mail from and that is his official URL, then you can be pretty sure you have the right person. Similarly, if he is a Harvard professor and the e-mail comes from you are probably OK. Beyond that, I don't know.
Commons and WMF are by no means perfect. I believe that we perform useful tasks and that the project as a whole is a very good thing, so I'm happy to slog away in my corner of it and ignore the imperfections.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sergey Brin.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately try to avoid your nominations where you say "and other uploads of..." because I don't believe they are correct nominations. I think each file must be listed and tagged, which you do not do. It is also, as you know, much more time consuming to do deletions when DelReqHandler does not do the work.
So, my apologies, I closed this by mistake, and have reverted my closure.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Optimus Prime patent.png

Hello Jameslwoodard, Taraka to give royalties a Habro in 1984 en:Transformers (toy line). you welcome FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, put I have no idea what you mean or what it has to do with the image I closed as kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inside Hindu temple in Paramaribo 3.JPG

Please undelete. COM:FOP#The Netherlands applies to public places, places open to the public, "plaatsen daar men komt en gaat". A temple should qualify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, that is not broadly correct. Schools, opera buildings, and museums are not public places for the purposes of FOP. It seems to me that religious buildings are closer to schools than to railway stations and other transportation facilities which are covered by Netherlands FOP. Unless you can show a reference that specifically mentions religious buildings, I'm not going to reverse this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course you would not, so Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Inside Hindu temple in Paramaribo 3.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk page

Hello James, since I am not an admin (yet) I need your help in order to do a thing: could you please merge my talk page with the usurped one and possibly unify their histories? Thanks in advance -- Blackcat (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never done it, but I've found step by step instructions, so I should be able to. Could you confirm that you want the history and posts that are now in User talk:Blackcat (usurped) added to the existing history and posts that are now in User talk:Blackcat? And perhaps tell me what happened here? I would have expected that User talk:Blackcat (usurped) was the remaining account of some other person whose name you had usurped as permitted at COM:USURP, so I don't understand putting them together? What am I missing?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
First of all some explanation:
  1. When I joined Commons i adopted the username Blackcat it because Blackcat (which is my home account on was already used.
  2. in 2009 I asked for usurping the existing Blackcat account because it was de facto unused (just couple of edits in NS different than Zero)
  3. A talk page Blackcat (usurped) was created and the talk Blackcat was redirected to it (i didn't notice at time)
  4. Consequently for the next 2 years people wrote on my redirected page and I never received any notify (as I should have if anyone had written on my proper talk page)
What I am asking is that all the history of Blackcat (usurped) is transferred to Blackcat; once done, the page Blackcat (usurped) can be left to its fate. Am sorry for disturbing you, it's a simple operation but without sysop flag i can't do :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem -- I'm happy to help -- I just wanted to understand what I was doing and why.
I think I'm   Done. I should have saved an off-Wiki copy of each of the histories before I merged them, but I didn't realize this is one instance where I couldn't look back.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If the user required the old user page (Not talk page) to be removed, I think it is possible..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. as i said it was an easy thing to do but sysop flag was required. -- Blackcat (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yeung Sau Shing Albert Yeung.jpg

File:Yeung_Sau_Shing_Albert_Yeung.jpg copy from HK news media, e.g. orientaldaily [1], eastweek[2] 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This picture, while available in the above news media, is actually a photo of a press release from Emperor Group. Emperor Group has authorised the use of such picture in wikimedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
"authorised the use of such picture in wikimedia" is not a sufficient license for use on Commons. We require a free general license available to all users. Please give me a link to their release of the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Stan Masters images

Hi Jim, Why did you delete the Stan Maters images? They were File:Holekamp Lumber.jpg, File:Once, a King.jpg, File:Grover Texaco.jpg, File:Gas, Oil Tires.jpg, & File:Yard Switcher.jpg. They had been marked with deletions requests, but I got written permission (exactly in the format instructed) for 3.0 Commons permission from the copyright holder. I sent the permission by email to OTRS and marked the images OTRS Pending at both the image and the deletions request page. I thought I did everything right - but you deleted them, so maybe I didn't. It is certainly possible I still made an error as I am relatively new to all this. If deleted in error, can they be un-deleted? Should I re-upload them and email the OTRS permission directly to you? Sorry for the hassles, I appreciate your guidance.... 314editor (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On June 16, you said that you had sent the permission to OTRS, but on June 29, when I deleted the images, the OTRS permission had not cleared the system.
In fact, OTRS had received an e-mail related to these images, ticket #2011061610010141. Since the e-mail referenced images on WP:EN, it is possible that the volunteer did not follow up correctly -- I can't tell why it did not proceed on the ordinary course.
The e-mail is from a man, initials RNM, who asserts that he is the owner of the copyright of the images. However, he gives no reason for that assertion. Since he is apparently an antique dealer, the next question is whether he simply owns the paintings or whether he actually owns the copyright to the paintings. Many people do not understand that ownership of a work of art does not give you ownership of the copyright and that transfer of copyright is a fairly complex process, which is why most copyrights are licensed, not transferred.
I have sent him an e-mail from OTRS asking for more information. When he answers, I can easily undelete the images if warranted. Do not upload the images again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great. RNM does not own those paintings - he is the actual copyright owner as he purchased the copyrights from Master's widow. Thanks for taking care of it. 314editor (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If so, he has not registered the transfer -- I find no USCO record for RMN or any applicable one for Stan(ley) Masters.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim, RNM tried to reply to your email with the copyright info, but it got bounced back to him. I tried to forward his email to, but it got bounced back to me. Is there another email address we can try? You could email him with it directly if you wish...314editor (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. A glitch perhaps at Commons e-mail server -- I know there have been a variety of server issues over the last several days. You're doing the right things and we'll figure it out, although please be patient -- it may take a day or two.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. RNM and I have both been trying for almost two weeks to send the reply emails to OTRS but they all get bounced back by the Commons server. RNM purchased all the copyrights (not the paintings, the copyrights) from Carlene Masters (Stan's widow) in an agreement written by his attorney titled "Copyright Sale Agreement" signed by both parties on February 7, 2008. He keeps trying to email you and is willing to share a copy of the actual agreement if necesary, but no emails are getting through. Can RNM either call you or email you to another account? 314editor (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the return-mail message: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: 314editor (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for all the trouble you're having with this. I'm just walking out the door for a couple of days in Mine, so I can't look at the problem now. Why don't you start from scratch and have RNM send an e-mail, with the full license permission, using the words and e-mail address in the box in the middle of Commons:OTRS? Make sure he names all of the images listed above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. RNM already did send that email you suggest above. OTRS received and processed the permissions from RNM with the correct wording, but you deleted the images while they were in process. I believe that you had already reviewed the copyright permission email (or trusted the person who did), but you had concerns about whether he was the actual copyright holder and not just the owner of the physical paintings (see above). You had not yet been told that RNM purchased all the copyrights (not the paintings, the copyrights) from Carlene Masters (Stan's widow) in an agreement written by his attorney titled "Copyright Sale Agreement" signed by both parties on February 7, 2008. Maybe you have had enough assurances by now to undue the deletes? 314editor (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim - did you see this previous post to you above? I figure it got misseed, but I hope I'm not getting blown off!314editor (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for your patience.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect left behind after file move

Hi Jim, I have a question about redirects. Being a file mover for some time, I do realise that sometimes admins will delete redirects with meaningless/wrong name, such as File:BSicon STRr+3.svg. Is there any guidelines regarding redirects, or it is up to the admin's view as long as the redirect is not in use? Thank you. --Ben.MQ (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lot of debate about it -- sorry, I can't remember the link. I think the majority (including me) think that if the file has been present under the old name for more than a very short while (a week, maybe), we leave a redirect in order to maintain links for possible off-Wiki users. The other side believes that this is a waste of resources, albeit a very small amount of resources. So, I'll delete the redirect only if the file is very unlikely to have been used off-Wiki. Note that just because the name is silly or non-descriptive (File:DSC123456) does not mean that there should not be a redirect -- it's the content that counts, not the name.
By the way, although I don't really understand it, I think the BSicons have a very carefully thought out naming system, so the name you mention may have a logic that we don't understand.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A man happy to fix a copy machine

Hi Jim! I just found an image that was said to be deleted, but is still haunting us with its ghost. :) Thanks for all you do! Missvain (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I clicked the wrong button. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you deleted the crest of the university? File:Brasao 01.png

Because you cleared the crest of the university? Could you help me with copyright? The images can be used.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the file because it is a copyright violation. Whoever created this file has a copyright in this particular drawing of the coat of arms. In order to keep it on Commons, we will need permission from its creator, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
I note that User:Thiago Puga has uploaded a new copy of this image as File:Brasao 03.png. I have deleted that file as well. Please note that it is a serious violation of our procedures to upload a file when it has just been deleted. The proper procedure is to first ask the Admin who deleted file, which you have done, and then follow his or her instructions. You may also ask for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests, but that will not be necessary if you can get the creator's permission.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Policía Nacional de Panamá - Placa 2010.jpg

Quiciera solicitar la restauracion del archivo, me he ilustrado un poco y se que puede aparecer por ser una insignia oficial del gobierno panameño--AnelGTR (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a photograph of an official police badge. I think you were the photographer. If that is correct, then the design of the badge is copyrighted by the Panama government and the photograph is a derivative work -- Commons:Trabajos derivados. We cannot keep it on Commons without permission of the Panama government.
Esto parece ser una fotografía de una tarjeta de identificación oficial de la policía. Creo que fueron los fotógrafos. Si eso es correcto, entonces el diseño de la insignia es propiedad de el gobierno de Panamá y la fotografía es una obra derivada - Commons: Trabajos derivados. No podemos seguir Commons sin el permiso del gobierno de Panamá.
translator: Google
If that is not correct, please tell me here. I cannot write Spanish, but Google helps me read it well enough.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for all the suggestions and your work. I will consider all the above for you. Since I had no clear policies and procedures to follow in order to save time, resources and avoid conflicts. Question: I want to create new versions of some existing format flags. Png or. Jpg and convert them to. Svg, how I can do that? --Luisfege (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons encourages the creation of svg versions of all suitable files, including flags. It would be very good if you created svg versions of any flags that do not have them. It would also be good, at least on WP:EN, to change existing png or jpg flags to your new svg versions.
That is very different from creating duplicate files in the same format where the only difference was the name -- names can be changed easily by any Admin or FileMover.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request question

I have a question about the deletion request for European championships steel thistle.jpg. The file is shown to be in use on the English Wiki, but that article (Steel Thistle Pipes and Drums) is deleted. Why would the Commons image show that it's in use if the article is deleted? (And if its use on the English Wiki was enough to prevent its deletion, could that be reconsidered?) — AJDS talk 03:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The links in Commons files that show use elsewhere in the project often take several days to update after the deletion in the other place. And, yes, it's a reason to reconsider, which I have done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Restore of Solothurner Madonna

Hi Jameslwoodward, per IRC request of the user I have restored Solothurner Madonna. It is work in progress, more images are coming in the near future, will be looked like Darmstädter Madonna by Hans Holbein der Jüngere then. Raymond 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK -- if you want to avoid the problem in the future, please create the page in a User subpage such as User:Raymond/Sandbox1 and copy it to Gallery space when it is ready.
Remember, please, that Commons Admins delete a hundred new gallery pages every day, working very fast, so it's better not to put a new page in place until it is in scope. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

restore of File:Mode2.JPG File:Type3.JPG File:Type1.JPG File:Mode3.JPG


could you restore previous files. This picture come from [21] which have right : Confirmation OTRS


best regards

Erwan1972 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't understand what you are doing here. You started the DR on File:Mode4.JPG, which I closed as deleted. That led directly to my deleting the other five files, since they all appeared to be copyvios of the same document in your DR of Mode4.
Now you cite an OTRS ticket, which predates all of this, and ask me to undelete four of the six. I've done that. But why just four -- why do you think Mode4 is a copyvio, while the others are not? They all appear in the same document which Schneider has licensed as CC-BY-SA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the undeleting !
i have done a mistake, i forgottent some file !
i have ask for a deletion but few minute after a suppress this request in file (when i see the otrs right).
best regards
Erwan1972 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Next time, please keep in mind that removing the {{delete}} from the file has no effect on the deletion request. You must, at the very least, put a note in the DR that you are withdrawing the request and the reason.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draco nebula.gif

Hi Jim,

With respect to the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draco nebula.gif, the issue raised is that the usual NASA PUBLIC DOMAIN copyright may not apply as the original image is from using ROSAT. I sent an email to David Burrows, who is the PI for the project and the lead author for comment. Here is his reply, "Thanks for your inquiry. Our data on the Draco shadow was published in Nature, but the image you are using is an updated version that is in color and has contours of the molecular cloud overlaid, so in my opinion it is not covered by the Nature copyright. (However, I am not a copyright attorney). This figure is also available on Web at one of my pages, as indicated by the link on the HEASARC site. The Nature reference is:

D. N. Burrows & J. A. Mendenhall, "Soft X-ray shadowing by the Draco cloud", Nature, 351, 629 - 631 (20 June 1991).

I think that the attribution you have given for this image in the figure caption is appropriate."

The caption for the image is "The Draco nebula. Credit: Dr. David Burrows and Jeff Mendenhall of the Penn State Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics." On Burrows web page it states, "the Position Sensitive Proportional Counter on the US/German ROSAT satellite", url= There is no copyright at all discussed on Burrows' web site. I also checked the NASA HEASARC sight (url= for other copyright info that may apply and found none.

Inquiries to NASA about such matters are usually met with silence as its copyright is the PUBLIC DOMAIN, so I believe this image has been deleted inappropriately as the NASA copyright (PUBLIC DOMAIN) of the US Federal Government applies. Putting it simply, there is no one to complain that the image is not so covered.

What would you like me to do? Marshallsumter (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I am being dumb, but I don't understand.
Burrows and Mendenhall are at Penn State, and as far as I can see, are not NASA employees. They are to be credited when the image is used. The image was taken using a German satellite that NASA operates jointly. I don't, therefore, see how it can be a NASA image.
On those facts, Burrows and Mendenhall own the copyright. That is true even if they were working on a NASA grant, as they are not NASA employees.
Certainly you could get OTRS permission from them, but I think that's what it would take to keep it here.
Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dhanush2.jpg

Hi. I am not against policy. MY only point until very much sure that any image that are uploaded violates the rule, then take immediate action and delete. But unfortunately, Vensatry (talk) was suspecting more than a dozen images and nominated all of them for deletion. In regard to that context I mentioned we should not suspect all "Own Work" and simply delete them before thorough and detail background check is done. Once proven, take immediate action. It is very clear here that this image:File:Dhanush2.jpg is taken from net and violated the policy as proven here "". This is the right way to deal things than simply suspect all works and nominate them to delete it.----Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said in the DR, you have our policy and practice backwards. Unless we are reasonably sure that an image is properly licensed, is PD, or is otherwise free of copyright, we will delete it. It is up to the uploader and any others who want to keep the image to prove that it can be kept, not the other way around.
It is perfectly all right to nominate a file for deletion if you are unsure of its status -- we do it all the time to allow the community to bring its collected knowledge and experience to bear on the subject. With that understood, I agree that perhaps Vensatry went a little too far with his nominations, but certainly no where near being wrong in any sense.
And, perhaps you might be a little more careful with accusations -- Vensatry has nominated only six, not "more than a dozen" images for deletion:

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stalking by Teams or Groups-DOJ FOIA Documents-Page1of3.jpg, Page2of3.jpeg, and Page3of3.jpg

Jameslwoodward, The three aforementioned files have been deleted. If you could share what went into the final decision, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

From the DRs:

  • Out of scope: text document Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content "Excluded educational content includes: (...) Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." Lymantria (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What holds you back from adding the content of these files to Wikisource? Lymantria (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lymantria - this is not used anywhere and is out of the scope of the project. Ruhrfisch (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, Clearly, this is an arbitrary process and, IMHO, reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Our policies have been developed over several years by the community. If you do not like them, you can try to build consensus for changing them, but until then it is the job of Administrators to enforce them.
In this case, you had two Commons Administrators and a WP:EN Administrator who all firmly believed that these pages were out of scope and had no place on Commons. They quoted the relevant policies for your reading. That is hardly arbitrary.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Kantarelli 1956

Thank you for deleting the file as requested! --Htm (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Supriyadi 11.jpg

Ok... than i request courtesy blanking, so that this page no longer active is archived in his history, because : [22] [23].  --Lilyu (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked your contributions, and you don't seems to be active atm. I remove link to my user page, until you are back online and able to decide and answer my previous msg. Sorry, but i prefer. --Lilyu (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You may not remove your name from a DR -- and, anyway, it does no good because it will always be in the history. If User:Jameslibra vandalizes either of our pages again, he will be blocked.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
[24] Thx, you're really helpfull...   --Lilyu (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're responsible.  --Lilyu (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've indef'd User:Jameslibra today for this mornings vandal spree. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. An earlier reaction would have been more appreciated before it became bigger, courtesy blanking may have stopped it faster before he understood wiki enough to found out how to look in history (still no proof that he's able to do so), and it's so simple to bypass a block...Lilyu (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Earlier? I blocked him 12 minutes after he started his vandal spree. --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As for responsibility, the solution to vandals is not to become vandals ourselves, but to block them, as Túrelio did, very promptly. I don't understand why you think removing your name or mine from the DR would have erased our names from his memory or in any way prevented his further vandalism.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, accuse me of vandalism, my pages and files are blanked, but i'm the vandale. All i asked was an archiving of the DR in its history. He's a beginner, without those links he would probably have not found my pages anymore. Now it's too late. You're the admin, when he first started his disruptive behaviour, you did absolutly nothing before i react, not even a warning on his talk page. Yes, Túrelio did his admin job and reacted promptly. --Lilyu (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think that removing your signature from the DR would have accomplished anything. Neither of us knew he was a vandal until after he blanked our pages. By that time he knew who we were -- removing your sig would not have erased his memory. As soon as I knew that he had vandalized us, I gave him a warning on his talk page. He was blocked twelve minutes after his next offense.

Perhaps you do not understand that this kind of thing happens fairly frequently and that we have a routine to deal with it. We don't block vandals after the first act -- just warn them. After the second act they will get a block, the length depending on how badly they acted. That's what happened here. You seem to think that I should have acted faster -- well, I'm glad to say that I have a life off line and that I acted as soon as I was on line and saw the problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamengkubuwono I.jpg

Previously you commented that I was wrong in putting on my request to delete this file on the talk page. Today I corrected my request, please see if I put my request correctly this time. Thanks, Naval Scene (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The DR was mechanically correct, but did not have a valid reason, so I have closed it as Kept.
We do not delete files because they have a bad name or bad description. You can edit the description yourself and request a better name using
{{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}}.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Help requested

Hello James, maybe you can help solving a misunderstanding. The user Jappalang has proposed for deletion several photos about a Russian monument; RfD have FoP (freedom of panorama) ground; I opposed to a couple of them and now I am being accused by him/her to blindly campaign against every deletion based on FoP (see here or another diff), which is not true (If I were opposing FoP I would be opposing ANY RfD based on that; I simply opposed to a couple of proposal because IMHO the monument is a de minimis and pointed out that it was a misuse of FoP policy). Now, the deletion itself is not the point. But I didn't appreciate that - even though vaguely - my good faith is questioned and I am being charged of leading a crusade against anything that have FoP on the ground. I just don't want that RfDs get into personal positions. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- I was away for a couple of days. I agree with Jappalang that the statue cannot be called de minimis in this image. If you cropped out the statue, at the maximum size of the image, the various men in the image are just barely recognizable -- that is, without the statue in the background, the image is useless.
As for his or her reaction to your position -- it is possible that Jappalang is putting your reaction together with others in a way that may be a little unfair to you. We certainly have colleagues who take de minimis positions in cases that I think are ridiculous. Although I have no doubt that this image is a copyvio DW, I don't think your argument is ridiculous -- just wrong. You would, I think, have done better to explain how you thought that a statue taking up half the image was incidental to it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I accept that my ideas and opinions can be questioned. I am here just for that. I don't like that are my intentions to be questioned. I don't like to read that i am "campaigning against deletions with FoP on the ground" (which is not true); further I read someone say "De minimis can't be claimed in good faith in this case". This is not a good way to discuss, I guess... :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the language there is not well chosen. I have myself been angered from time to time by words that are accusatory in American English, but that the user thought were neutral. I also understand Jappalang's frustration -- at least one of our colleagues uses de minimis far too often in sculpture and architecture DW cases.
It would have been better to say something like:
"Blackcat is either acting in bad faith or has a very different understanding of de minimis than most of us",
but diplomacy and care in phrasing is not everyone's skill here. Remember, too, that some of our colleagues are young and inexperienced in dealing with others that have very different backgrounds and language skills.
As far as your understanding of de minimis goes, there is no way to decide a de minimis case mechanically -- some of our colleagues will say that it must be no more than 10% or 25% of the image, but I don't think that works. The test I use is to ask,
"Can I blur this out without changing the overall impression one has of the image -- composition, interest, color coordination, and so forth?"
Unless the answer is a solid "Yes", then the work in question is not de minimis.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your support. I guess that this derives in part also by the fact we come from different languages. The file might be deleted or not, I just pointed out why IMHO it shouldn't be deleted. I will survive even without :-) Of course the de minimis is not to be calculated on the basis of percentage of picture occupied: but it wasn't me who started telling "The statue occupies the XX percent of the picture thus is not a de minimis", and i simply stated the fallacy of such argument because mathematically was 15 per cent or less, not half; there should be a stronger reason for deleting, i.e. like you said "if the copyrighted object influences very heavily the photo so much that leaving removing it the photo is totally different then is not a de minimis". Maybe there should be a maximum amount of RfD that can be open per month by user, to avoid frustration :-)))) -- Blackcat (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL -- I could support such a rule, but of course it would not apply to you, me, or anyone else that you and I appointed. Only to people who do not agree with us in every respect.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:D -- Blackcat (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Finish this? -- Cecil (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done, as Jim seems to be offline. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Brit Mech

Hi Jim ! In fact I am busy working on my FR-Wikipedia "sandy" writing an entry on that toping and collecting pics to create there another gallery. I created the page here to exploit the bits I am using on Wikipedia. But Rome was not built within an hour   ! Thib Phil (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but please remember that we delete more than 100 new galleries a day, many of them looking very much like yours does now. It is very much better to create galleries in a user subpage, as I suggested, rather than have your work deleted -- sure, it can be recovered, but that's a nuisance on both sides.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, heavy showers here in Brussels for the moment ! So, I will spent the next hour to feed that page   ! Thib Phil (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


I'll have to take a look at that. mickit 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg


I see that and I found some more pictures :


--TaraO (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TaraO. I've opened another DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alex Ovechkin - 1.jpg: --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Then another rule should be added : only reliable workers can open RfDs LOL :-)))) Anyway on only autoverified users can open a RfD (no IP can), and only an autopatroller or sysop can add time to discussion if consensus has not been reached in one week. Btw for RfA: am glad of what you said, but next time I'd better be on RfA page because someone else candidates me ;-) -- Blackcat (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

RSAF Roundel (low vis).svg

Thanks for dealing with one of the problematic RSAF roundels. Could you also look into "Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSAF Roundel (low vis).svg"? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it's probably eligible for speedy, it's probably best to let it run its seven days as a DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I nominated it at the same time as the other roundel which has already been deleted (wasn't it by you?), so I thought perhaps this one had been overlooked. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, there seems to be a problem. You closed the discussion as a "delete", but the image is still there and now has been marked on the talk page as having been kept. — Cheers, JackLee talk 02:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Weird. Of course sometimes that happens because the closing Admin clicks the wrong button while using DelReqHandler, but the {{Delete}} tag was still on the image -- DelReqHandler would have removed it if I had clicked on "Keep". Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of some of my photographies concerning my article about Étais-la-Sauvin

Hello, because about my few english, I will talk in French that is my mother tongue. Excuse me for the inconvenience.

Je suis stupéfait de découvrir par hasard ce soir que vous avez supprimé dans mon article concernant mon village d'Étais-la-Sauvin certaines de mes photographies dont je suis l'auteur et dont je possède tous les droits. Je veux parler bien sûr de mes photos du chemin de croix de l'église, les fichiers qui se nommaient Chm_croix_Etais. Je souhaiterai qu'on m'explique clairement la raison de cette suppression.

Pardonnez-moi de prendre un ton quelque peu marqué, mais quand je vois le temps que je passe à mettre en place des photos et qu'on vient les supprimer en quelques secondes derrière moi, cela me fait bizarre et n'est pas très encourageant pour contribuer au développement de Wikipédia.

Thanks for your comprehension ans for your explications in French if possible for you. David89 (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David89 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am amazed stunned to discover by chance tonight that you deleted my article about my hometown of the Were-Sauvin some of my photographs, I am the author of which I own all rights. I refer of course to my photos of the Cross of the church, the files that were called Chm_croix_Etais. I wish we clearly explain the reason for this suppression. Forgive me to sound a bit strong, but when I see the time I spend to develop pictures and we just delete them in a few seconds behind me, I am weird and not very encouraging to contribute to the development of Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding for years if your explanations in French can for you.
translator: Google and JLW
The works were created by Edgar Delvaux in 1956. Since he obviously died after 1941, he or his heirs still own the copyright in the works and your photographs are derivative works, which would require his permission to be kept on Commons.
: Les travaux ont été créé par Edgar Delvaux en 1956. Depuis qu'il a de toute évidence mort après 1941, lui ou ses héritiers possèdent toujours le droit d'auteur dans les oeuvres et vos photos sont œuvres dérivées, ce qui exigerait sa permission d'être conservés sur Commons.
translator: Google and JLW
reference French Wikipedia article on the church
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chm croix Etais 02.JPG

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

DR for File:Voyage4dimension1.jpg

Hi Jim, could you please also delete File:Voyage4dimension1.jpg - per the DR on the file page (closed by you). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done Sorry for missing it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

disagree with the William Tell delete

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rossini-William Tell Overture.ogg

The state level restrictions are U.S. state local restrictions that are not strictly copyright. Our project has long looked only at the real copyright restrictions, not other diverse restrictions (e.g. swastikas in Germany). Also, there are a huge class of files in this area and the community needs to make an overall decision, rather than as done in this individual file deletions discussion. TCO (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. In the United States there are overlapping state and Federal laws in several areas. Copyright is one such area -- the state laws are exactly about copyright. While I obviously agree with the deletion, note that CLindberg, who is our clearest and most knowledgeable editor on US copyright issues, agreed with it.
The fact that there are many such files that might be deleted is not relevant -- there are always files that ought to be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see him hit the delete icon. Also, I still disagree with local state resctrictions. If one U.S. state had a restriction would we restrict our overall project (I realize this is more like most, but the principal applies). The rules are for Commons, must be OK in US and in country of origin. What if we were on some Federal land like Guantanamo...then we would not even be in a state. The one state I can buy is Florida since the servers are there. Other than that? It's their lookout. TCO (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, differences of opinion are what lawsuits are all about. There is no question that state laws are binding on their citizens and certainly the state copyright laws are binding if applicable. Commons hasn't paid much attention to the subject because generally the Federal copyright laws are more restrictive, but there is no question that, for example, a work first published in New York is subject to New York copyright law. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the states had copyrights on architecture before the Federal law came into effect, but since we have FOP, Commons has never run into that problem. You may certainly start an Undeletion Request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion based on what laws

You are requested to provide substantiated facts about libyan law for this deletion:

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First, the closing Admin is not required to prove that the image is not OK -- it is required that the uploader prove that the image is OK. You have not done so, therefore it was deleted.
According to Commons:Licensing#Libya, Libya has what I would call an "ordinary" copyright law. It specifically includes:
"Works included in the arts of drawing and painting with lines and colours, engraving, sculpture and architecture."
There are three posters that are prominent in the deleted image. All three of them fall within the scope of the sentence quoted above. One of them also has "Photographic and cinematic works", which are also specifically protected.
Of course, everything above depends on translation from the Arabic original. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that the Libyan law is actually substantially different. But unless you can prove that, there is no basis for keeping this image without permission from the creators of the posters.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
So you mean to say that it is the uploaders job to provide proof against all speculations that a certain law or jurisidiction might be valid in another country? The deletion request and your action seems rather biased. I don't know why you are so fascinated by FOP or the lack of it, but anyhow then - why are no other pictures that clearly do show "works of architecture" in Libya and would thus violate your non-FOP list (like Category:Tripoli) affected by your action?
If we accept these tactics any picture made in a country whose language is not common among Wikipedia can be removed - based on whatever political, economic or other agenda - by any WP-editor-and-his-admin-friend. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, guys, give this poor almost monoglot American a break -- at least give me the gist of your discussion ;-) To answer (I think) Bernd.Brincken's question -- yes, the political posters have a copyright -- certainly in the USA and I see nothing in the English translation of the Libyan law that would suggest that they do not. I don't think German law is applicable -- the only countries whose law might touch on the image is Libya, the country of first publication, and the United States, where Commons servers are located. If the first publication was on Commons, then the United States is the applicable law for that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The title of this thread points to Libyan law of course. The idea that German law could apply or that anybody who uploaded pictures would believe that, and that FOP would therefore be a relevant question, is only in your head and some other FOP-fascinated people. Release that weird idea and explain (be it with links to translations) how a political poster is protected in Libya and pictures thereof may not be published. Secondly, would you kindly explain why pictures that do show pieces of art or architecture in Category:Tripoli should be allowed in Commons? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
My comment about German law came from your raising it in the DR. Of course it has no applicability to this image.
I quoted the applicable translation above, "Works included in the arts of drawing and painting with lines and colours, engraving, sculpture and architecture." As far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe that a political poster is any less the subject of copyright in Libya that anywhere else. It is up to you, as the uploader, to show why political posters are somehow not covered by that rather broad statement of copyrighted works.
The fact that other images should also be deleted is not relevant here -- feel free to nominate them.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the fact that no other images that obviously fall under the criteria cited for deleting this one does hint that it is a biased decision, and that is .. at least interesting.
The assumptions about Libyan laws I have commented here:
Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Bengasi_court_tribune_0833.jpg --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

German discussion

@Bernd.Brincken, für uns ist zunächst einmal COM:FOP#Libya maßgeblich. Wenn du begründete Hinweise darauf hast, dass unsere bisherige Rechtsinterpretation falsch ist, kannst du gerne eine Änderung vorschlagen. Auf deinem Foto ist zumindest das Poster in der Mitte der oberen Reihe schutzfähig. Bei der Darstellung links daneben kann ich aus deinem Foto nicht ganz ersehen, ob das ebenfalls ein Poster von jemandem ist der an einem Schreibtisch sitzt oder ob da wirklich jemand an einem Schreibtisch vor einem Poster sitzt. Für die Löschung ist aber ohnehin das zuerst erwähnte Poster ausreichend. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Das Poster ist Teil einer politischen Kampagne, die Regierung in Libyen abzusetzen - sind in Deutschland oder den USA politische Plakate auch "Work of art", die nicht reproduziert werden dürfen?
Wie sieht es mit der Grafik in diesem Bild aus [36] oder diesem [37]?
Am Rande bemerkt, der Mann am Schreibtisch bewegte sich während ich die Aufnahme machte, also vermutlich handelt es sich um kein Foto ;-) Die Begeisterung, in Fotos wiederum abfotografierte Fotos (die dann fremden Rechten unterlägen) auszumachen, ist ja recht bemerkenswert. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Die Absichten/Zwecke (Kampagne o.ä.) sind für das Copyright völlig belanglos und die beiden von dir verlinkten Fotos sind mit deinem nicht vergleichbar, weil die in ihnen erscheinenden "Plakate" lediglich Text und einfachste Symbole enthalten, die nicht schützbar sind; ganz im Unterschied zu dem "Frauen-Poster" in der Mitte deines Fotos. Falls das Foto auch auf :en verwendet wurde, kannst du versuchen, es dort (lokal) unter Inanspruchnahme von "fair use" hochzuladen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, das entsprechende Logo wird aber in der englischen WP unter "fair use" veröffentlicht:
Also dürften die o.g. Bilder in anderen Ländern - und Commons - ebenfalls zu löschen sein. Wenn man den gleichen Maßstab anlegt. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jim: I have to correct your assumption in the conclusion of the deletion request. After german law anything that can be photographed from a public place (even if behind a window) falls under freedom of panorama. There is only one additional restriction: It must be intended to stay there until it's physical lifetime ends. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right -- German FOP covers absolutely everything that is permanent and visible from a public place -- even literature, which gives it the broadest content coverage (but not location) that I know. I knew that, have used it in several situations, and must just have slipped a brain cell last week. My apologies and thank you for the catch.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of several images

Hi Jim/Jameslwoodward. Sorry I have to bother you, but I want to discuss something. I saw you deleted several images today which I uploaded weeks or in most cases months ago. I don't agree with most deletions. Especially File:Maurice Dumas and Duifje Schuitenvoerder.jpg: the photo was taken in 1913 and múst be in the public domain. Effeietsanders claimed that "the author can likely be found in lower right corner", but he's wrong. First of all, my source was not the news paper, but another site. Therefore I don't know who's the original author and I don't know how to find it either. And there are more which are (in my eyes) falsely deleted. Take for example File:August de Laat.jpg (uploaded after asking advice of another admin - he said it was ok), File:Wedding Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and Margareta Fouché d'Otrante.jpg‎ (I honestly don't know the author and don't know how to find it) or File:Abraham Asscher.jpg‎ (official portrait yes, but I don't know the photographer - btw, I don't like the tone of Beria, who implicitely calls me (as the uploader and a Dutch person) dumb: "No one will believe they don't know who take a official portait. Dutch people is not that dumb."). Could you please explain to me why you deleted the images? Of course it's possible you're right and I'm wrong, but I would like to hear a more expanded answer if you don't mind. (I can learn something about that too in that case.) Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Saibo already explained a lot to me on IRC, but I'm still curious to your answer. Trijnstel (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for being polite and careful in your request -- they're not always so. I don't know that I'm right -- I rarely do here on Commons, but I think I made the correct decisions. Keep in mind:

  • It is up to the uploader to prove that the image is OK, not the other way around.
  • The fact that you don't know who the photographer is does not make the creator anonymous for the purpose of most country's copyright laws -- not known by you does not equal anonymous. That has the unfortunate effect that we see many scans where the photographer is unknown, so we cannot keep them. If someone can get his or her hands on the original, we might learn who the photographer was.
  • There is no exact rule for deciding when an image is old enough to assume that the photographer died before 1941, which would make the image PD in most countries, but 1913 is certainly not early enough -- even 1880 could be a 20 year old photographer who lived to be 81 years old.
  • I agree that Beria might have phrased her comment differently -- she should remember that not all of us read English well. I think it was a compliment, though -- in effect saying that the Dutch are both too smart and too careful to not know who took an official portrait. The same thinking applies to the wedding photograph -- it was an important wedding so it is hard to believe that someone doesn't know who took the photos.

Feel free to post an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests, but I don't think you'll succeed. You have three Admins (Beria, Effeietsanders, and me) as well as Saibo, who, while not an Admin, is a very experienced colleague, on the other side of the question. While Admins are not the last word, we all have a pretty good idea of how the community will feel about an issue. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask any of us.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A link for the first bullet point: Commons:Project_scope#Evidence (although in Commons' daily practice uploaders get help to show that something is public domain - at last in the deletion requests). Good answers, Jim. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the (really extensive) answer. :-) I understand the whole issue around the public domain a lot better now (thanks to you, Saibo and Effeietsanders). Of course I'm sad the photos were deleted, but I have to agree with you. They weren't in the public domain (yet). I haven't spoken Beria yet, so I don't know her reaction of my comment. Trijnstel (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright is everywhere !

I think you're a serial deletor... But are you sure there's not a copyright on your deletions ? The word copyright might be copyrighted... I don't know, but I have deleted all my files, thank you for wiki... historicair (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi historicair, is there any special case you like to have a comment on? I know Jim is doing good work so I guess he did the correct things. You may want to read (at least the first sections of Commons:Licensing. Do you know this page? Or Commons:Image_casebook? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
this one :

vote is 2 keep / 2 delete, and the argument of deletion is an absolute non sense... But there's no problem now, I clean all files, like this one, for a clean and beautiful wiki : historicair (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests are discussions - no votes. If Jim does not change his closure you can ask for undeletion at Commons:Demandes de restauration with good arguments. But please do not vandalize other files like you did at File:French_soldier_uniform_WWI.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is not an obvious case -- I think my decision was correct, so I will not reverse it, but I would be happy to see you make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests, as Saibo suggested.
I will go further than Saibo, however, on the subject of your recent uploads -- if you make any more changes to your existing files, you will be blocked from editing.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a problem now. I have uploaded about 500 files (svg maps, pics...) here, but these are my last words on Wikipedia, I quit. historicair (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Please note that this file has been re-uploaded in what seems to be the same inappropriate form. --Crusio (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again, {{Dont recreate}} posted on uploader's talk page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be clear that I obtained copyright permission from Strathclyde University Archives and I pasted the e-mail message giving permission in the discussion pages. In my opinion, you people are making far too much of this copyright business. This is a photograph of a University Principal being used in his Wikipedia biography. Even if the copyright were challengeable, which is not, who in this world is going to challenge the copyright for this in court of law? Please explain yourselves as I don't understand or appreciate this insane and unreasonable behaviour. Ajsinclair (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I have now introduced the photograph under another name and will insert in the said biography. Please let me know if there are still objections to this act. Ajsinclair (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of this discussion, here is an excerpt from the talk page cited above:

Permission to use this portrait has been expressly given by the Archives Section of Strathclyde University Library for the purposes of Sir Graham Hills' wikipedia biography. Here is the e-mail message confirming this permission:
<message header and private information removed>
Dear Dr. Sinclair,
Thank you for your email regarding permission to use an image of Sir Graham Hills (Ref: OP 4/302) in his Wikipedia biography. The University Archivist has considered your request and agreed to grant permission for this image to be reproduced for this purpose. As it is being used for non-commercial purposes there will be no publication charge but we would kindly ask that you please credit Strathclyde University ::Archives for the image.
Kind regards,
Kimberly Sommerville
Archives Assistant
Strathclyde University Archives
<message footer removed>

As touched upon in the subject Deletion Request, this permission fails our needs in three areas:

  1. It is for non-commercial use -- Commons requires permission for commercial use
  2. It is for use "in his Wikipedia biography" -- Commons requires the license to be free for any use
  3. It does not represent that the archives own the copyright -- while they may own a copy of the photograph, ownership of the copyright is a different matter. It will almost always rest with the photographer or his or her heirs.

Your question:

"who in this world is going to challenge the copyright for this in court of law?"

is explicitly rejected by our policy.

I suggest that it might be possible to upload this image to WP:EN with a fair use rationale, but it cannot be kept on Commons without clear permission from the copyright holder following the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. The fact is however that this photograph is already thirty years old and no one seems to know who the photographer was. Also, it was obviously given to the Archives by the photographer for their use, otherwise why else would they think that they had the copyright? Also, the law is specifically directed against the use of copyright material for profit. No court of law is going to bother about copyright where there is no money involved. Otherwise, they would be swamped with cases. This is why you are making far too much of this copyright business as regards photographs. It is the law we must respect not overimagined ideas of copyright usage. Ajsinclair (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My apology for the off-subject comment which I have removed. However, even if we assume that the photographer gave the copyright to the University -- an action that would be very unusual -- we still have the fact that the University's permission falls short of Commons requirements in two ways.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a final word. In my view, Commons requirements are overstingent and oversensitive to point of making it difficult for contributors bring the most innocuous material into Wikipedia. Surely, the law of copyright should be the guideline and what Wikimedia could now do is clarify the legal position for using copyright material in Wikipedia. If the material is not for profit then there should be little legal impediment to using copyright material provided it is properly acknowledged and referenced. In short, what do the lawyers say? Ajsinclair (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you miss an important point -- Commons is a repository for images for all users, commercial and not. All of the off-Commons users of my photographs are commercial and that is typical of other contributors. Businesses and publishers who come to Commons for illustrative images must be satisfied that they can use them without repercussions -- hence our policy.
The current image is a case in point -- the University has licensed it for a single non-commercial use -- a WP:EN article. How would the University react if a publisher made a poster of it and started selling it on the web (a little far-fetched in this case, I admit, but not impossible), or another publisher included it in a new book, a history of Glasgow? Both are commercial uses.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely my last word on this matter! See what I mean about "overimagined ideas of copyright usage"! The fact is that we are not responsible for other people's irresponsible behaviour. The law does not anticipate illegality in the way you are doing otherwise no one would do anything for fear of giving other people the opportunity to break the law. You may be burgled whenever you go out the door! If people use images from Wikimedia for business purposes, it is their responsibility to worry about copyright since they are operating commercially, and it is not for us to worry about it as a non-commercial operation. But I doubt we will never agree about this! Ajsinclair (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You still miss the point -- Commons is, by design, a repository of images and other media that may be used for commercial use. That is our purpose.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Home town

Where did you live User:Francodelansburg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francodelansburg (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to say here and now.
Additional note to others who might see this:
are all User:Francodelansburg's uploads, deleted a few minutes ago.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kenzo 02.jpg

Hi Jim, you closed this deletion request as "Deleted", but did not delete the image. I assume you simply forgot. Would you please delete it? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget, sometimes DelReqHandler hiccups. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Canadian Medical Association Journal first issue.jpg

Could you have a look at this one, please? As far as I can see, it is (was) copyrighted by the Canadian Medical Association, not the Crown. And although it was published in 1911, I'm not sure we can be certain that the creator has been dead for more than 50 years. As there is a logo and not just text, I assume that copyright would apply. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  • PS: the link to the source is dead. --Crusio (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd keep it. Given the poor quality of the image, the logo is illegible and therefore de minimis. Given that the Association dates from 1867, it is probably PD-Old as well.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. --Crusio (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Pilates_at_a_Gym.JPG

(Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pilates_at_a_Gym.JPG)

This image was contributed by LocalFitness to wikimedia commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License in higher res than available on our site. For permission/licensing regarding photos uploaded, please see the Copyright & Trade Marks section at

Can you please undelete this image?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalFitness (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
First, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which gives a signature and date stamp.
Second, please do not create a "File:" page without a file -- it just makes it harder to examine the situation.
In order to undelete this image we will need two things:
  1. Permission from using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. While I recognize that your user name is the same as the name of the company, anyone can sign up for any user name, so we ask for an e-mail from the image owner.
  2. A change in the license. While CC-BY-SA-3.0 is fine, your additional requirements as stated on the image are not:
"Permission=Online use: ok to use provided is linked back to. Offline use: the following text must appear under the photo "Photo by:". Attribution Link Requirements - Online usage: A link back to Offline usage: the following text must appear under the photo "Photo by" Required attribution text: Photo by"
All of this has the effect of making the image unfree -- many web sites and print publications collect attributions in one place. Requiring attribution under the image would, for example, eliminate any use on WP:EN, which has attribution only on the image page and not with the thumbnail. In a nutshell, the CC-BY license allows you to require attribution and the words used, it does not allow you to specify location or require a link.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding the image was already previously submitted and approved under the OTRS procedure? But I have resent the permission email. If you need anything further please let me know and I will provide it.

Regarding attribution, the only way to 'attribute' anything on the internet is via a link - that is the whole basis of the internet. So I do not agree that that is an unreasonable attribution requirement and I am confident it is fully compliant with CC-BY-SA-3.0. The attribution link can be no-followed or not it doesn't matter, but whenever credit is given for anything online if it isn't via a link I struggle to see the point? Especially given we are an online-only business, this is the only way we can get credit for the work we contribute.

Re: location and position of the attribution - that is not an issue - this doesn't have to be under the image it can be in another position. Happy to modify those requirements.

Hope that helps explain everything! LocalFitness (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we disagree about your license terms, the best thing would be for you to make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. But before you do so, note again that your terms may, as I believe, violate the spirit of a CC-BY license. They certainly will preclude use of the images on WP:EN and many other places.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg

You may want to close the discussion at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Tan and Mary Tan 2011.jpg" as OTRS verification has been obtained. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Several deleted files

Jameslwoodward - Why did you delete all the files, I was working on replacing them with new files, to prevent broken links. Please read all the discussions that I was having on my talk pages. Geek2003 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion refers to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by James38
You had twice removed {{Delete}} tags in violation of our rules. You were lucky that you were not blocked. I deleted the files because their status was unclear and the status of your replacements was also unclear -- those I looked at also appeared to be copyvios. While our rules require us to Assume Good Faith in ordinary circumstances, once a user starts abusing our rules, we look very carefully at anything he says or does.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

misinforming bot?

Hi Jim,
when checking the uploads of Hindustanilanguage, I stumbled over this strange discrepancy: DR closed with deletion; DRBot's DR note "keep". --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would happen if I closed the DR as Kept but did not click either DelReqHandler button on the image. I've also noticed that DelREqHandler hiccups occasionally, usually by not acting on the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uppsala aerial view 1940 Cathedral University old town photo.jpg

Hi Jim! James? Jim James? King James? ;-) Well, I have a question about this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uppsala aerial view 1940 Cathedral University old town photo.jpg. Is there a reason why you haven't changed (and also the photographer) the license to the one suggested by Pieter? I don't know about this Sweden license, maybe it can be kept then. But as it was when I started the DR and still is right now: I don't think it can be kept. --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It was clear to me, Pieter, and you (I think) that the image is PD-Sweden. Therefore I closed the DR as Kept. If you or Pieter thinks that the license should be changed, then by all means change it. It is not up to the closing Admin to make such changes. Please remember that Admins delete about 1,000 images a day, and the backlog is growing. We simply do not have time to do tasks that can be done by others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


When a user does something pin-headed, I'm going to call him on it. He had no business nominating those photos for deletion. And your reaction to it displays the same depth of ignorance. The implications of his logic and yours WOULD ERASE EVERY USER-TAKEN PHOTO IN WIKIPEDIA. Or is that your goal anyway? It would be deletionist nirvana! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anas querquedula 1921.jpg

At this DR, you missed File:Aythya ferina 1921.jpg. —innotata 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dacia Logan VAN 1.6 MPI on Kamienna street in Kraków (3).jpg


Can you explain why you deleted this picture? You did not provide any comment about deleting this picture.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not generally comment when the nominator has correctly stated the problem. In this case, the image of the sunflower has a copyright, therefore your photograph is a derivative work, and there is no evidence that a license has been obtained from the creator of the sunflower image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
To me it seemed like you completely ignored my response. It was based on a series of deletion requests for pictures of model cars that I uploaded from Picassa. After a long discussion it was agreed that cars as utilitarian objects do not fall into the same category of copyright law as statues for example (you can see the complete debate here). I can understand that my argument may have been invalid in this case but it would be nice to at least here some kind of explanation of why it was considered invalid. Also if those two pictures are considered derivative work then why is this picture considered to be ok? I mean it has the same image of a sunflower visible on it. Does the angle make it somehow ok? Also if I hunted down this car again and did a picture of the rear from a greater distance (from another side of the street for example) would that be acceptable for Wikimedia Commons? And another question if I cut out the image of a sunflower and reuploaded the picture again would that make it ok for Wikimedia Commons?
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for the appearance of ignoring you. Please keep in mind that Commons Admins delete about 1,000 images a day -- eight of us do half of those -- and the backlog is currently growing. If I can save a few seconds by not typing a comment when closing a DR, that's a few seconds I can use elsewhere -- among other things, giving very full explanations when a user requests it, as here.
In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scale model of a police car based on an FSO Warszawa M20-57 or 200 of Milicja Obywatelska.jpg, you will note that I argued at length for deleting the image. I believe that all models have a copyright -- that is certainly supported by case law in the United States. My colleague Jcb disagreed.
File:Dacia Logan VAN 1.6 MPI on Kamienna street in Kraków (2).jpg seems to me a case where de minimis would apply -- the sunflower is almost invisible at that angle and the block of text on the hood (bonnet) is PD-text-logo.
IF you cut out the sunflower, or pixelated it, it would eliminate the DW problem, but would it be in scope? Without the painting, would the image be worth having?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A Comment on this DR

I don't know what's the difficulty in this DR as you say? The uploader didn't have an issue with the DR request. I notified him of the DR notice and he made an eye opening response here Seems that not all "mil" sites are US Government automatically, he says. But its your judgment call. Admin High Contrast's indirect comment, I think, was the same--that there was no link to a US Government official web site either. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I haven't a clue what 'mil' is official and what is not but if Admin High Contrast refuses to pass the image then that's good enough for me since he's more experienced here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen a .mil page that was not owned by the US DoD or its divisions. The WP:EN page [[}WP:EN page .mil|]] is very clear on the subject. It is certainly true that .mil sites can have images taken by non-military people and therefore having copyrights, but almost always they are specially tagged. The site itself is clearly official.
I read High Contrast's comment as wanting further research, not, as you say, "refuses to pass the image". He simply suggested that a DR would be a good thing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Traditioneller Schwibbogen.jpg

Dies war eine totale Fehlentscheidung. Der Schwibbogen hat kein Copyright. Komm ins Erzgebirge und schau dich um. In fast jedem Fenster ist zur Weihnachtszeit genau ein solcher Schwibbogen zu sehen. Es ist absolut inakzeptabel wenn hier Admins ohne Sachkenntnis herumlöschen. Liesel (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This was a total mistake. The arch is not copyrighted. Come to the Ore Mountains and look around. In almost every window at Christmas time to see exactly such a flying buttress. It is absolutely unacceptable if admins around here without clear knowledge.
translator: Google

Re: Commons:deletion requests/File:Traditioneller Schwibbogen.jpg
Please read my DR closing comment again. The fact that it is a traditional theme does not mean that this specific realization (instance, creation) of the theme does not have a copyright. As I said, Santa Claus is a traditional theme and in the US and elsewhere you will see thousands of them every Christmas season, but all recent ones (after 1923 in the US) have a copyright. The same applies here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the other ones in the same category? SEveral of them are exactly the same flat two-dimensional cut-outs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If you, or others, would like to nominate more images for deletion, that would be good. But, as you well know, it is not the closing Admin's job to follow up on all the possible related problems.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
They should not be deleted. Am I that unclear? As for your Christmas comparison, have a look at L Batlin & Son v. Snyder. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No more work on Commons

Hi everybody there. These recent deletions made me very upset and I will certainly double check if I ever contribute to Wikipedia Commons again. I am sick and tired about all these regulations and requests. And for sure I will not contribute any more to improve articles with any pictures here. Do what you want, but not with me. I am out.--Cruks (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that would certainly be too bad -- I haven't looked at all your images, but we always hate to lose a contributor.
On the the other hand, I really don't understand your being upset over File:CAPA VEJA 0BAMA.jpg. What did you expect? -- it's a recent cover of a magazine and you have offered no evidence that the magazine has licensed it to Commons for general use. Given your experience with Time-Life and the AP, you must understand that all magazines have a copyright and by now you also must understand that Commons works very hard to respect copyrights.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So tell me really why a member of the Editorial department of Editora Abril has sent me the file to my email, knowing at the same time that it will be used on Commons? What do you think? He is surely aware that all contributions on Commons are free to share worldwide. And the picture you had before was one of the end of the 1980's. A shame such an old picture on Wikipedia. I wanted to contribute with a new one, but instead its going to be deleted. Its a laugh.--Cruks (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
From that moment on he (Paulo Bianchi) sent me the email with the cover, he agrees on the Copyright terms of Wikipedia. Nothing more and nothing less. What is so difficult to understand about that?--Cruks (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That is your interpretation. We need an explicit statement of a defined free license (of your/his choice), such as shown here: Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries. You may call this bureaucracy, but we prefer it that way to protect Commons and "our" re-users. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait Many Maurer.jpg

Good catch there, Jim. Seems that I and Leoboudv had missed the fact that this image was not originally made by the owner of the Flickr account. Apparently it has now even been taken down over there because I can't find it any more on Flickr. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  •   Comment: Thanks for catching this Copyvio. I had assumed good faith here--which I mentioned--in flickrpassing the image. Turelio has told me that Google images is more effective at finding stolen images that TinEye (which I have) since it has access to a larger database of photos. I suppose good faith doesn't work well at Commons as at wikipedia with some users sadly. Keep up the good work. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I just got lucky -- I happened to notice the credit on the Flickr page.
As between Tineye and Google, they are both useful. To find an image with Google, you need to know what to search on, so if you have a name or a subject (and it isn't very common), you will be more likely to find problems. On the other hand, TinEye can find an image with no information other than the image itself. So they are complementary approaches to the problem.
I think many, perhaps most, of the problem images are not bad faith, but bad understanding of the rules. While I have run into a few users who told bald faced lies about images, most of the time the claim of "own work" means that the user uploaded it, or scanned it, and does not understand that the author is the creator, not the scanner or whatever. So I am mostly willing to Assume Good Faith, while still keeping a good lookout for bad understanding of the rules.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. I shouldn't have assumed that everyone exercises bad faith. Some people are just mistaken since many users here think that since they took a picture of a picture or uploaded or scanned a picture, it is 'own work' when it is not. When I was a newbie here, I made a mistake in the first category I cited and someone filed a DR on the photo. That was when I found out what a Derivative image actually was...and I asked eventually asked Admin Kanonkas to delete it before the 7 day long DR process ended. I saved the original photo on my flickr account here licensed under ARR. I managed to contact someone anyway and find a legal replacement below:
  • File:Lisa Brokop by Mark Farrell in 2006.jpg

She was in my 1991 high school grad class in BC, Canada, before she moved to Memphis, USA. This was the only 'own image' by me that was ever deleted. Oh well! Such is life. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  •   Comment: PS: This image under DR by Turelio is a strong speedy delete candidate by an uploader with only 2 images. But its your call, of course. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong disagreement

I strongly disagree with your deletion of File:Darth_vader_hot_air_balloon.jpg. Your reasoning is as logical as arguing that the earth is flat and the sky pink. But then of course that was at one time conventional wisdom. Deleting the picture does not delete reality, what is seen by the naked eye in public places and public events. At least you should have extended the courtesy of copyright to the creator of the other balloon. Acting and censoring on suspision is so contrary to an encyclopaedic effort. What a dissapointment. I will not bother to follow with undeletion requests, Kanguroo courts rule here. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the DR, there are many works of art and other copyrighted creations whose images cannot be kept on Commons because the image would infringe their copyrights.
You yourself are a maker of very high quality photographs, so it surprises me that you argue so vehemently that we should simply ignore the copyright of another creative artist.
As for acting on suspicion, our clear policy is that it is up to the uploader to prove that the image is OK. You have made no effort to do that, not even answering any of the objections put forth.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I am a very strong defender of intellectual property, but stronger defender of public rights and a fervent opposer of the privatization of public places, spaces. The owners of copyrights cannot reasonably expect the private citizen to abstain from photographing the urban lansdcape just because their image may appear, as prominent or incidental as it may be. Yet, Coca Cola, for example, pollutes the landscape with endless advertisings, what about my right about not wanting to be exposed to such obsenity? Do I have to police myself in the way I do photography? No, out in public, fair game. One thing is the spirit of the law, another is the prostitition of the law. Answering the objections? Didn´t you read them? This is just a pure, unadulterated and simple case of good old fashioned censorship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with part of what you say. Certainly it is disappointing that most of the Alexander Calder sculptures we have pictured on Commons are in Germany, because the USA FOP rule allows only architecture as an exception. I would certainly like to see broader FOP in the USA (and France, and other places). That, however, doesn't help this image, because there is no FOP exception in the world (except, possibly, Vietnam) that allows images of copyrighted creations that are temporarily out in public.
Fundamentally what you are asking for is a major revision of the world's copyright rules -- that there be no copyright on anything in public view. Until you get Congress to enact such a revision, yes, you must police yourself when you are taking photographs for commercial use in public.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I cannot help but I feel compeled to add my 2 Rs. Like Thomas I am not very happy that this image is deleted, as well as many others because of Commons interpretation of copyright laws about FOP. According to Commons current rules, Jim is right that this image has to be deleted. However I think that Commons current rules are completely flawed. Many images which are deleted here would certainly not be viewed as a copyright violation by a court. I have stopped uploading many images to Commons because of that. When do we get our system fixed? Best regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I certainly don't like losing this particular image. My disagreement with Yann's point of view is that we really have very little case law, so we don't know what a court would say -- that's particularly true of architecture -- the only two cases we regularly quote are French and are one each, keep and delete. I therefore disagree that Commons interpretation of the FOP rules is much different the law as we can know it. If there were more cases, then we might do things differently.
I don't believe that a painter or photographer who has his work temporarily shown in public should lose the copyright to it. But, as I suggested above, I think that sculpture that is out in public should be fair game. For me, the divide is between 2D and 3D -- the sculptor and architect make their living by selling 3D things, so that a 2D image of their creations is good advertising and doesn't detract from their revenue stream. The 2D artist, though, can legitimately make money from selling 2D prints and copies of his work, so I would apply tougher FOP rules to them. My favorite rule is the UK -- any 3D work permanently located in public. I might go further and argue FOP for any 3D work, period.
And, again, FOP doesn't apply here, because the balloon is temporary wherever it goes (except maybe Vietnam).
Question, Yann -- as our most senior Admin, have you seen a change in FOP policy and its implementation over the years?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This image is one of the few cases where deletion might be justified (not permanent, famous copyrighted character, although even that is subject to debate, see recent UK case about Star Wars [38]). However there are many other cases where deletion is IMO abusive: too restrictive interpretation of de minimis rule, no clear copyright on the object (simple buildings, folklore, toys, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I don´t believe that a photographer or painter should lose their copyright if their work is shown im public, but their work, if shown in public as part of the landscape is fair game as far as being part of a public scene. In this case, the picture is that of a public event, where the object in question is shown within a context. If someone is to use the image as a copyright violation, then let the owner hash it out against the offender, why should the community defend a private individual who chooses to display his goods in public? That is the risk he takes! This is the same as blaming the gun manufacturers for the particular violence. This reminds me of the tuna-dolphin controversy: Everyone for the dolphin, but what about the tuna? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Well Jim, you have your work cut out for you! Just visit the Coca Cola category, plenty of food for deletion there!!!! Check it out!!! [[39]], afterwards, you could continue with Pepsi, McDonald´s, etc., etc. What´s good for the goose is good for the gander! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And as a partig shot, think about this airship as the Goodyear blimp! However, it too must go! [[40]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your line of reasoning would leave us without things like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade -- a lot of balloons of copyrighted characters. While I don't watch it, I know that a lot of kids love it.

The case of the Goodyear blimps is moot -- the whole logo is PD-Old. A fast glance through Category:Coca-Cola_advertisements shows that most of them are either old or PD-text-logo. Although I didn't look at all sixty closely, I doubt that there are many problems there (I did tag one).     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not my reasoning, I did not delete the file. Here are some other good ones: [[41]], [[42]], [[43]], etc., etc... Or are there other "reasons" not to? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. If the law followed your line of reasoning (if it is in public, copyright doesn't apply), events like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade would not happen because the owners of the copyrights would not display the characters in public.
I see nothing in Burger King to complain about -- the only possible copyrights which show are de minimis. File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg is PD-text-logo. Category:Mascots, on the other hand, appears to be full of trouble, thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viaduc-Millau-Elevation.svg

Hi, You've deleted the drawing of viaduc de Millau, drawing that we can find in all books, the drawing being a schema, such as the schema of others cable stayed bridges ,and not an exact reproduction. The photos had been deleted in 2009. Please explain me why this obsession about the viaduct of Millau. Why all others media about the buildings of the architect Norman Foster (such as   or  ) are still on Commons. And it is the same problem with most of the buildings which have been builded in the XX century for which the architect is not dead more than 70 years ago ?Roulex 45 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read our information on Freedom of Panorama -- basically, architecture and design of things like bridges is copyrighted in almost every country. In some countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, there is a special exception to the copyright for photographs of buildings. This applies to the two Norman Foster buildings you show above. In others, including France, there is no exception and the designer has exclusive rights to make and publish images of the design, including photographs, paintings, and drawings. Therefore, your drawing infringed on the Virlogeux and Foster copyright.
And yes, there is the same problem with all recent buildings and other creations in countries without FOP -- notably Belgium, France, Greece, Iceland, and Italy.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


I agree with the rationale of the deletion, but:

  1. The photo was promoted to POTD Aug. 1st last February. It's a pity we had to wait so much to "clarify" its copyright status... :(
  2. Should the same reasoning be applied to File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg?
  3. Should the same reasoning be applied to photos of Disney characters? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cultural sincretism in mexican toys.jpg and also User talk:Dodo#Reply. (So no, I won't delete any file uploaded by User:Tomascastelazo.)

Regards. --Dodo (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. Yes, it is.
  2. Yes. I have put a {{Delete}} on it.
  3. Yes, if they are balloons. However, I think Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cultural sincretism in mexican toys.jpg was closed correctly as a keep on the grounds of de minimis.

You might want to look at the discussion above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guards


Your most recent DR borders on harrassment. Your opinion cannot be above the general interests of the community. Unless you are a qualified jurist, you should act with caution in these matters.

Your logic is destructive and selective... visit the Walt Dysney characters´ pictures!!! Let´s see if you really are impartial censor.

And with regards to my previous question about who is looking over the guards, the answer is evident. So much wisdom in Juvenal. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg. I do not seek out DR nominations, preferring to spend my time on those things that only an Admin can do. However, as you will see above, I was asked about it by another editor and took what I believe is appropriate action. It was certainly not intended to be harassment -- and in any case, a correct nomination cannot, by definition, be harassment. If I held any particular animus toward you I would go through your whole list of uploads. Given your attitude toward copyright, I would not be surprised if there are more problems.*
* Of course not! You´ve already made up your mind! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As for those watching the guards, I note that yours is the only voice that believes the Darth Vader deletion was not a correct, albeit unhappy, decision. At least three Admins concur in that assessment. I don't always like it, but I believe I apply the law and Commons policy correctly and fairly in almost all cases. My decisions have been reverted far less than one percent of the time on about 24,000 deletions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sure... and I know the answer to Juvenal´s question about who is looking over the guards... more guards. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And 25,000 users who have made at least one edit in the last thirty days -- any of whom can raise a question at any time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
...and 25,000,000 flies... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo, Jim explained very detailed what the problem was with this file. His decision is definately correct. Accusing him as a "censor" or somebody whose aim is it to harass others is highly inappropriate. For further information in this issue, please read COM:DW and COM:FOP. Thank you. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

High Contrast, jim explained in detail his assumptions, that´s all. And calling him a censor, well, that is what someone who carries out an act of censorship is called. Do you speak english? I ask so that we get our definitions well, coming from Webster: Definition of CENSOR

transitive verb to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> See censor defined for English-language learners » Examples of CENSOR The station censored her speech before broadcasting it. His report was heavily censored. So, he who carries out the act of censoring is a censor... One is what one does.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

...and that's the problem: it is no censorship. What you did was to upload a copyright violation. Because Commons is a free media host, we can just accept files that are really free. --High Contrast (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded what someone alleges to be a copyright violation, and that someone is attempting to carry out an act of censorship, whether you like it or not, understand it or not. The meaning of the word is clear. A painter paints, a writer writes, a censor censors. And a painter can paint well or not, same as the writer, same as the censor. Get it? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion request

Hello Jim

Here is my explanation--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Adrignola -- he or she seems to see something there that I don't. It may be as simple as the fact that the Flickr user might have changed the contents of "Oscar 2009 set". The OTRS e-mail is not clear to me whether it is speaking about specific images, or the "Oscar 2009 set" as it was then defined, or what.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)



i sure hope you're right. call me shell shocked, but i don't buy the copyright notice on the statue theory. i think it's copyright notice on the first copy. keep in mind it's not unveiling, but first copy date. here's where the law breaks down, imposing publishing standards on art. (don't know if there's any case law for sculptures in the notice time period). that's why we rely so much on death of artist, since it's clearer. i suppose a bad argument to keep in commons is better than none. Slowking4 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm right or not -- there is little US case law on copyright on sculptures. As I said at the DR's talk page, unless you assume that a sculpture is "published" (as defined by the law) at the time of unveiling, then if the sculptor doesn't authorize any copies, it will have a perpetual copyright as an unpublished work. That is ridiculous and violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliefs in Västra Götaland County

Sorry, made a duplicate. You may erase the one not containing images.Dagjoh (talk)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jamiluddin Aali.jpg

Hello, did you delete the image or transfer it ( Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jamiluddin_Aali.jpg. Also, please reconsider the precedent of Hadiqa Kiani which I have quoted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First, as I said at the DR, I did not delete it, -- I simply closed the DR. I agree, however, that it was a correct deletion.
It is, as you say, a photograph from a TV show. The show has a copyright which the image infringes, so we cannot keep it here without permission from the owners of the copyright of the TV show.
I do not see how File:HadiqaUN-02.jpg is a precedent -- it does not appear to be a screenshot.
If I do not understand something, please explain.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you possibly temporarily restore File:MaltaPost%logo.png that you deleted recently, or email it to me, so I can upload it to the enwiki for a fair-use? The png does not appear to be available on their website. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done, temporarily. Forgive me for asking, but you were the nominator of the DR -- what did you expect?     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, copied; you can delete it now. I thought the uploader might have got their act together, but unfortunately I may have scared them off though they were likely only concerned about the one topic. Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OTRS volunteer

Hello Jim

Are you really an OTRS volunteer? Because you are not in the list here. If so please remove OTRS userbox for everyone to notice this. Best regards--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I really am an OTRS volunteer. I went through the process in March of this year. However there is something weird, because, as you have noticed, if you click on the "verify" link in my OTRS userbox, it does not come up. On the other hand, I have full access to the OTRS system. I have just left a note at the OTRS Café (equivalent to Commons:Village pump, but reserved for volunteers only) asking how to fix the problem. Thank you for telling me about this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem was that the list of OTRS personnel is updated manually and it is essentially up to each new volunteer to add him or herself. Thanks again for starting me in the right direction here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MukhopadhyayBalaichand.jpg

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, I do not believe that your "and other uploads by" DRs are within policy because you don't tag the individual images. If you want to do mass deletes, by all means do them, but don't try to hang a DR on one image and have the closing Admin break the rules by deleting images that have not been tagged.
I have reverted my actions on this DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

... and the reason is???

Could you have the courtesy of an explanation as to why you deleted the image that I uploaded. [[44]] I cannot see anything other than an abuse of power. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think my colleagues and I have thoroughly explained the situation to you at great length. I see no reason to spend more time on the matter.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The image was a legitimate image that illustrates a social phenomena, like any other social phenomena like prostitution, abortion, human rights, animal rights, etc., etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Minorities-in-Macedonia (FYROM)-Vardarska.png

Hi! There is a file renaming request at "File talk:Minorities-in-Macedonia (FYROM)-Vardarska.png" that needs an administrator's attention (click "Edit" to see what the proposed name is). Filemovers can't deal with this case as the file is protected. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Введите меня в тему

Удалены файлы ремонта Пушкинской. Верните мне для локальной загрузки.--AndreyA (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Enter me in the topic. Deleted files repair Pushkinskaya. Give me back to the local load.
translator: Google
OK -- please give me a list of the files.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Protest (but who cares?)

You apologized for your false statement that I had not notified Rama of reporting him to the User problem board. But you continue with baseless accusations of bad behaviour, and you condone Rama's invective against me. Consider this an official protest. But Commons is quite rotten, and nobody will care. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it was not a false statement -- it was accurate at the moment I looked at his talk page while writing my comment. It turned out to be incorrect because you, at the same time, were adding the note to his talk page.
Second, you did behave badly yourself -- edit wars are not productive, as you well know, and you could just as easily have started the DR to end the edit war. You certainly know that you can start a DR with a comment such as "I think this is silly, but User:Rama keeps putting {{Speedy}} tags on this image, so here we are", but instead you just continued the edit war.
You really frustrate me, Pieter. You are a major contributor to Commons -- not just from numbers of edits, but from the depth and breadth of your knowledge and your ability to dig out obscure facts that are useful to a discussion. I value most of your work highly. But -- a big but -- you have an adversarial attitude that won't stop. That gets in the way of your good contributions much of the time and sooner or later is going to get you banned indefinitely. That would be a loss for Commons, but would certainly make life here easier.
This case is a perfect example. Mattbuck and I have both expressed unhappiness with both of you. I strongly supported your assertion that Rama has acted badly. What do I get? -- an "official protest" from you because I had the temerity to suggest that you also acted badly.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the tag, but I also tried to discuss (on Rama's talk page, on the talk pages of the images). I then decided that trying to save this image on Commons was hopeless. After that two others reverted Rama, without making further attempts at discussion, yet you choose to single me out for an accusation of bad behaviour. An "adversarial attitude" brings up the threat of an indefinite ban, because it would make life easier for some admins. Commons is pretty rotten indeed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is, to some extent, part of the same problem. There are certainly days when I shy away from any discussion with you -- or doing anything on an image that you have commented on -- because I just don't have the strength to face a possible bad reaction. I have sympathy for Rama's not wanting to discuss it with you.
You say:
"An "adversarial attitude" brings up the threat of an indefinite ban, because it would make life easier for some admins. Commons is pretty rotten indeed."
What do you expect? I work cooperatively with almost everyone else on Commons. Sometimes I disagree with them, but we don't create trouble for each other -- your Wall of Shame comes to mind. We work out our differences, or ignore them. With over 10,000,000 images on Commons, we can all afford to lose some battles. Being adversarial doesn't get any of us anywhere. We're all volunteers and anything that makes our colleagues less likely to contribute is bad for Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:FIFA_series_logo.jpg

Hi, I have listed File:FIFA_series_logo.jpg for deletion here 8 days ago but since then nobody has commented on it. Could you possibly see the discussion and comment on in or even take action and delete that image if you agree with my reasoning? I personally think my reasoning is logical. Thanks. JuventiniFan (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done See my closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA series logo.jpg. Seven days is a minimum that a DR must remain open, but since only a few of us are doing general DR closures at the moment, we have a backlog.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. After reading your comment and the other one, I have agreed with you that the file should be kept since it is used in other Wikipedias. Also you are right, there is no particular reason to delete it. I didn't realize that. Thanks again. JuventiniFan (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for processing the deletion of File:Ertuğrul_Gazi.jpg. I only now noticed that two gallery files, File:Famous Turkish people 3 rows.png and File:Famous Turkish people 4 rows.png, also contain this image. Should I file a separate deletion request for them? Fut.Perf. 16:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's I would recommend. Technically I could just blow them away, but they are both in use in more than one place, so we should give people a week to replace the problems. I note that in both cases this is not the only problem image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna chandy judge.jpg

It's been open for more than a month, can you (or a tps) close the discussion? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've passed over it several times because I don't have a useful opinion. I'm reluctant to delete it because it is used all over the web and it's the only photo the world has of her -- at least the only one Google images can find, but policy says I must ignore that. If she is younger than 46 in the image, then it's OK, but that's a close call and I shouldn't keep it based on that. Sorry.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's funny that the two of us who saw the image came up with different ages! I don't mind one way or the other. I came across this image on (from where it was transferred here a couple of days before it got deleted at PUF) as part of a set of images from the Press Information Bureau, India which were marked incorrectly as PD. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
On a different note, now that I've found the source at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sholay-Main Male Cast.jpg does it make sense to mark it as copyvio and be done with it or should we let the discussion close? cheers SpacemanSpiff (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Another question, does it make sense to add the source Flickr account to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors or is it too soon to do that? Do we have some sort of threshold for number of improper licenses we come across etc? I couldn't find an answer at Commons:Questionable Flickr images. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Another place where I don't have a useful opinion -- I mostly deal with cleaning up bad uploads -- others deal with preventing them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll check on the currently open discussion at AN. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Coats of arms by Otto Hupp

I mean you made ​​a mistake Jim. Coats of arms are not copyrighted by the author anymore if this was {{PD-Coa-Germany}} (or {{Flag-Germany-b1945}}). -- πϵρήλιο 00:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not my reading of Commons:Coats of arms, which seems pretty clear that each representation (drawing) has a copyright, even if the blazon (official description) is old. That follows from the fact that the blazon is what counts and that each representation can differ significantly and creatively while remaining within the requirements of the blazon.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Coats of arms from Germany are public domain, wether the author still lives or still have died. Please also look at the License-Template {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. This explains itself actually automatically. --ChristianBier (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't read German, but clearly {{PD-Coa-Germany}} and Commons:Coats of arms contradict one another. You may well be correct, but we have a bigger problem than just the Otto Hupp images -- we need to change one of those two pages. This is probably better discussed in a wider forum -- why don't you take it to Commons:Undeletion requests?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
@Jim, already some days ago a user on the German-language COM:Forum complained[45] about these deletions. However, the resulting discussion revealed, at least IMO, that it is not 100 percent clear. I've therefore invited a COA-experts from :de to draft a diagram showing which kind of COA from Germany (+eventually Austria and Switzerland) are copyrighted in Germany and which not. To this then our policy will be added and the final step will be a translation into english. --Túrelio (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Túrelio. I certainly have no axe to grind here -- just a desire to do what is right in the face of conflicting quasi-policy pages. Please make sure that the German COA expert remembers that the images must also be free under US law -- or we must consider a special tag that notes that they may be free in Germany but not here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. It's my intention that it should then be clear which can be hosted on Commons and which only locally on :de. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If I can help, please ask -- otherwise, I'll back out of the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Army 52500 Reid 3.jpg

With regard to your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Army 52500 Reid 3.jpg

I visited the rocket museum in Huntsville Alabama, about 25 years ago. While there I took a bus tour of the Redstone Arsenal. I remember how large it was. I remember how the huge test jigs for the Saturn 5 rockets had been allowed to rust. I remember they had preserved the original tiny, primitive test bunker. I remmber how this pond, and this fountain, were at the central crossrods of the base.

The Redstone Arsenal is a historic site, one of the half dozen or less historic sites in the history of the US space program. How many photos would be too many photos of the Redstone Arsenal? It is a large base. Hundreds of photos would not be too many. Maybe thousand of images would not be too many. If I recall my visit accurately, th if this image was taken from the other side of the pond, it would show the administration building in the background. Potentially generally superior images of the pond could be taken. Nevertheless, I suggest this image, as an image from a central location in a historic site, this image would remain in scope. Geo Swan (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. If you stand on the southern tip of South Beach and point a camera east, you get a photograph of nothing but the Atlantic -- almost certainly out of scope. If you point it west, you get a panorama of Miami, very possibly in scope. Saying that if the subject image had been taken from the other side of the pond it would have been a good image is similar -- location and direction of aim is everything.
This is a personal image of a middle rank military officer out of uniform, sitting near a very ordinary small pond that has a single small water jet in the middle. There is absolutely nothing in it that is notable.
Feel free to take it to Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of my Wikimedia Referendum 2011 Vote

Hello. Yesterday I tried to vote in the image filter referendum, a referendum to gather more input into the development and usage of an opt-in personal image hiding feature.
But there was sudden internet disruption after I pressed the "submit vote" button.
Please let me know @ my talk page if my vote has been recorded because I am told that I can vote only once.
Your kind gesture in this regard will help me in contributing constructively to the Wiki Projects, which is also my intention, aim and effort. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
@Jim, I've replied already to the identical question on my talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
& mine on SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I wrote to three people so that even if one person replies, it should work. Good to know that you all really teamed up!! kudos!!! Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to my colleagues for dealing with this and for telling me I didn't have to.

For User:Hindustanilanguage, I will say that while asking people that are very roughly a third of the world apart (Germany, India, East Coast USA) almost guarantees a quick response, it potentially makes more work for all of them. If you do such things often you will soon get no answers to questions because we all have more than enough to do here without responding to the same thing three times.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request closure

Hi, sorry but I do not understand the reasons for your decision when closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mercury Rising.jpg. Could you pls explain?. --ELEKHHT 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it may be the only one of the series where I did not make a comment. User:StellaMcme uploaded more than twenty files, all of which were problematic in one or more ways.
  • Photographs of sculpture where Netherlands FOP does not apply (either indoors or temporary)
  • Showing Groenewoud/Buij as the author and source of the image and then changing to "Own Work" after the DR was added.
  • Images from the Groenewoud/Buij web site.
  • Record album covers
This case is also a Groenewoud/Buij sculpture. While the image does not appear on the G/B website (the others do), it does appear on several copyrighted websites, including and
It is certainly possible that User:StellaMcme is the photographer of all of these and that she has the permission, where necessary, of G/B, and the other sculptors and creators to put them on Commons with CC-BY-SA licenses. However, given the variety of problems in her uploads, we will need evidence beyond our usual "assume good faith" to keep any of these.
See also
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I see, thanks. --ELEKHHT 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What to do? What to do?

Dear Mr. Woodward: What if anything can be done about Kuiper's neverending hatred? Please give me some constructive advice! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

First, please, it's "Jim" -- "Mr. Woodward" was my grandfather.

Generally, categories have very limited information on their subjects -- one sentence at the most. I think the current version at Category:Emil Eikner is probably appropriate.

While Pieter Kuiper's attitude is often difficult, he does a great deal of good work on Commons. I'm not sure he's wrong here -- I myself wonder if Eikner deserves the attention we have given him. From where I sit, with no knowledge of the particulars, it appears that with 46 images in the category, Eikner is probably over-represented on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, Jim: Your use of the word "deserves" is very disturbing to me. Are we to judge here what another user "deserves"? As Deputy Chairman of the Southerly Clubs, and without ever requesting or expecting as much as a “thank you”, Emil Eikner has been directly or indirectly responsible for contributing over 1,000 images to the public domain through Commons since 2008, many of them rare and extraordinarily valuable. He has done that because his non-profit organization officially supports all forms of legal free-flow of information and images, not for any other reason.
I work for him intermittently in that regard, since he no longer is willing to work here under his own name or any other user name, having been severely attacked and insulted several times already in 2009.
If 46 images out of over 1,000 happen to show his person, I'm sorry that I fail to find that that is anywhere near any kind of over-representation, and I do not see one single image of the 46 that I would consider inappropriate or totally valueless to Commons.
Shall we remove some anyway, just because Emil Eikner "deserves" to have them deleted? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I offended you here, Serge. You came to a neutral party looking for help and I tried to be both clear and neutral:
"From where I sit, with no knowledge of the particulars, it appears that with 46 images in the category, Eikner is probably over-represented on Commons."
That's hardly a statement that we should go out and delete some of them -- just a comment that perhaps he was over-represented and that it was not obvious to me that Pieter was wrong. I was careful to point out that I had no background -- all I could see was that Eikner did not appear to be very notable -- no WP article and few Google hits -- and had 46 images in his personal category.
If you had provided the explanation you just gave of who Eikner was, I would not have made the comment. I think it is unfair of you to jump all over me for making a neutral comment when I had limited information.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops! I thought you knew, that's why I was so flabbergasted. But - come on! - "jumped all over" you is an exaggeration. Kuiper does that (and has been doing to us for years). I don't, or at least I never intend to (like Kuiper always does). Sorry! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
All's well that ends with mutual understanding. Perhaps "jumped all over" is a little strong, maybe I over-reacted a tad to "very disturbing" -- but I don't like to be very disturbing to anyone who doesn't truly deserve it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meerut District population Charts.png

Hello, Jim. The result of the above discussion(regarding a bar chart) was keep, whereas for a pie chart(Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chart (1).png) from the same source was delete. I was wondering if there was a technical/legal difference in the creativity involved in making the two that merited one a copyright violation and another not a copyright violation. If not, shouldn't this be converted to delete too? Or should the other be re-uploaded? Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know what I was thinking, less than one minute apart -- probably just hit the wrong button. Thank you for asking. I've undeleted File:Chart_(1).png. It could use a better name -- if you give me one, I'll rename it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, how about Proportion of Meerut district in population of Uttar Pradesh. Or maybe Meerut district population as percentage of Uttar Pradesh population. Could you remove the deletion tag, if we're keeping it? Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - St. John the Baptist (Youth with Ram) - WGA04111.jpg

The renaming of "File:Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - St. John the Baptist (Youth with Ram) - WGA04111.jpg" requires an administrator's intervention. Hope you can help. Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jack, I'm going to turn you down on principle -- no matter what my colleagues think, very long file names are a nuisance and I'm not going to lengthen one that is already too long. There's no reason to give the full name of an artist who is widely known as "Caravaggio"....      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Jim! You missed one at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:European_Parliament_Buildings_(2008)-01.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I thought they were the same file -- the names differ only by a single space.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hematopoiesis pl.png

You said it is in use. Yes, it is in use, but in fact the only place is Talk Page of our Polish Wikiproject Medicine, where author was documenting his steps to making SVG in two languages and asking for correction.

I asked him there:

Wspaniale, dobra robota! q:) Czy myślisz, że w takim razie można PNG wywalić...? ~~ Vinne2 [czyt. "winetu"] ✉! 21:19, 15 sie 2011 (CEST)
(en: Great, good job! Do you think we can delete the PNG...?)

and he said

Chyba tak :) M•Komorniczak -dyskusja- 22:50, 16 sie 2011 (CEST)
(en: Probably yes)

If you're not sure you can use Google Translate.

I didn't delete the file from that Polish page because I didn't know if you decide to really delete it. If I delete that from our page you'll delete the file? Vinne2 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done see:
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Vinne2 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Double closure?

Hi Jim. What did you do here? --Leyo 13:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. As you must have discovered, DelReqHandler makes it easy to do that if two of us are working down the list at about the same time -- I don't refresh the whole list after every action.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the explanation. --Leyo 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wuhazet case

pl-Commons admins: User:Ludmiła Pilecka (female and also pl-admin, but not so active), User:Masur (also pl-admin), User:Lukasz Lukomski (also pl-admin, but no so active), User:Odder. --Túrelio (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- see Special:Contributions/Jameslwoodward      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This time you were faster. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm an old man and a slow runner, but my fingers still fly.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I too was already 7 years old, when Kennedy spoke at the wall. --Túrelio (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That makes you around 54 -- that's still young -- my wife and I sailed around the world, ending when I was 54.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As Beria herself now asked for mercy (her words) and a pl-colleague seems to have to talked to him, you might reduce his block to anything appropriate, after he apologized to Beria (which has to happen on his talkpage, of course). --Túrelio (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wuhazet now has put an apology to Beria on his talkpage. As it is in polish, here is the Google-translation. Though the translated text reads somewhat strange to me, seems acceptable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Beria has, after receiving the apology, already unblocked him by herself. Case closed, I think. --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


As I see, user:Masur & user:odder (both - Polish speaking) control this problem, so I am not necessary there. Julo (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for Paulino Bernabe (Senior)

Dear Jameslwoodward, Thank you very much for your message and your explanations about categories. I think I understand and will try to avoid over categorization for my next files. Best regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)