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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


Merry Christmas!

Luck is not in ur hands But decision is in ur hands Ur decision can make luck But luck cannot make ur decision so always trust urself. Happy New Year 2018.

. --The Photographer 14:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Photos at question

Good afternoon Jim, these photos are my work. I have set it on a 2 sec self capture. Therefor I capture my own images professionally.

Thanks for reconsidering the photos.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 December 2017‎ (UTC)
Unfortunately, since you did not log into your Commons account and did not sign your post, I do not know who you are or what photos you are referring to. Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 2,000 of them. A dozen Admins do most of that work and we look at hundreds of images every day. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This image

Dear Admin Woodward,

Do you know what the license of this image is today on December 29, 2017? It seem s to have 2 licenses but both have expiry dates. One has a general CC BY NC SA 3.0 license? The other is CC BY SA 3.0. Is it free or not free for Commons? --Leoboudv (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I was just thinking it could be a replacement for the only under image of its species under DR but I din't know if its free. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. The date block next to the licenses seems to say that from 2013 to 2017 it has one license and from 2017 to 2013 (backwards in time?) it has the other. I think we should not use it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank You for your reply. I will not upload this image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Open Foundation West Africa

Hello Jameslwoodward,

We have just noticed that a user group page with the aforementioned name has been deleted by you. The page was supposed to serve as a source link to pictures that will be uploaded in the name of the user group as resolved in the case of Can you please check your action and advice accordingly. Thanks --Flixtey (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The page was created in main space as a gallery. Commons galleries are used only for collections of images, so a user group page there is out of scope. With the single exception of Iran, which you cite above and which I have deleted for the same reason, all of the listings in Category:Wikimedia user groups are categories, not main space gallery pages. I think the confusion may have arisen because there are many such pages in the category on Meta, but the rules on Meta are different from those on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

2 Mushroom Observer images

Dear Admin Woodward,

Could you kindly mark these 2 final images for 2017 that I uploaded:

I trust the license is acceptable. Best Regards and have a Happy 2018, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank You for all your volunteer work here and may you enjoy the New Year with your family. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

JhealdBot (4)

Hi! Would it be possible to sign off the request for JhealdBot (4), at least insofar as the tasks already demonstrated? All the other 'crats appear to be away. Thanks! Jheald (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. On the one hand, you appear to be a very solid citizen and the bot appears to do useful work. On the other hand, I've never approved a bot request before, and while I fully understand the process, I'm reluctant. I suspect that one or more of my bureaucrat colleagues will be back online soon after today's holiday. Unless you are desperate to get started, I'd appreciate it if you could wait and see if you can get Eugene or another 'crat to do it early this week. If that doesn't happen, feel free to come back here and I'll take a serious look at it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Okay, no problems, thank you very much for your time. Jheald (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This DR

Could you please have look at the above DR. There is a replacement image mentioned which I uploaded but it is not marked. It could replace the image under DR. Thank You for all your help, Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Guanaco has reviewed the DR and marked the image I uploaded but thank you for your help all the same. Have a Happy New Year. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Undelete in 2018

Please don't remove it, but replace it with Category:Undeleted in 2018. Makes it easier to track all the stuff we're pulling from the garbage bin :-) Multichill (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to do this, but OK, I'll do it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Multichill, a comment from your changes at File:BonnardFranceChampagne.jpg. Please complete the license template correctly at the image and check to see that the author and source are correct. Also (this doesn't apply to this one, but it does to other Bonnards) please make sure that when you undelete that you check URAA -- generally a post 1923 work will not be PD yet, but several such Bonnards appear in {{Undelete in 2018}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pierre Bonnard - Nu Feminino.jpg which I have corrected. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

About the Shield of the Justicialist Party

Hello. First of all, I must thank you for your enormous work to manage Wikimedia Commons.  

My problem:

I uploaded the image of the Peronist Party's shield, without realizing that it have a copyright.

In this accredited publication it's mentioned:

(...) "was sketched towards the end of 1943, commissioned by Ángel R. Guzmán" (...) " he hurried to write it down in the Intellectual Property Registry with the name "Distinction of Peace", rights that it later gave in exchange for exclusivity in manufacturing." (p. 2-3)

I don't want to have a sanction since I did it without realizing it.  

Another problem:

Many users have uploaded and will continue uploading this image (1, 2, 3, 4), because there is a predisposition to assume that it is in the public domain (it's an image very reproduced as the coat of arms of the Argentine nation).

Would not it be convenient to place a notice like the Dalí's category? (Within the category of Peronismo)

Best regards.   --Nikos3194 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done the first. As for the second, yes, by all means go ahead. Take a look at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House for a format. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and suggestion. Seeing other comments from users who, without having made contributions, want to be administrators, I understand that it must be difficult to be an administrator. Best regards.  --Nikos3194 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Jason Rich Smith

I'm sorry! Can you help me with my page, please? Jason Rich Smith (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No. If you decide to actually contribute useful text to WP or images to Commons and not just create pages that advertise yourself untruthfully, then by all means ask for help. But until you do some useful work here, you aren't actually entitled to a User Page much beyond your name and truthful babel-boxes. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I become an administrator on Commons? Jason Rich Smith (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

By hard work, honesty, and making many useful contributions. At the moment you are much closer to being banned than being elected an Admin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, James. I'm User:InfernoGeek, a new user on Commons. I hear you are an administrator. How can I become one? I need a mentor, if you are available to help me contribute. I'd love to become an administratior. Thanks, bud! (InfernoGeek) (talk to me) 11:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a deletion from a few months ago

Why did you delete the page \? On Wikipedia, typing W:C:\ into the search box takes the user to Commons and the page \, which the reader may not necessarily want. Ups and Downs () 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are concerned that if a Wikipedia user types W:C:\ into the search box, they will end up at the Commons page \. For some reason you'd like to protect them from that. Why this case? Why not, then, redirect all non-existent Commons pages? Also, why redirect to WP:EN? The same thing happens if a User at any WP types the combo, so it seems to me that while your redirect might help a WP:EN user, it will further confuse a User at any other WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 08:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan Parliament License Question

[copied from an e-mail]

Hello James
I have been trying to convince the Parliament of Pakistan to release the photos of parliamentarians under CC license but they have some concerns. A major concern is they think people would misuse the photos because the CC terms allow modification of photos.. I told them if someone want to do any distortion with photos , they won't bother about copyright terms, etc. But they insist, at the end of the day, any lawmaker can approach them and ask how could they, on their own, provide us consent to use their photos.
So I was thinking if I suggest them to add a clause "The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material." The same was done with Commons:Deletion_requests/File:General_Qamar_Javed_Bajwa.jpg
But I wonder if it would be Okay? Your suggestion required.
Thank you


Saqib, first, I think that the DR that you cite is a poor precedent because you closed it. While non-Admins are permitted to close DRs as kept, and I agree that the closure was appropriate, I don't think the community will put a lot of weight on it as a precedent. Also note that that image had a CC-BY-SA license.

I think that the clause you suggest will be OK for Commons, but it won't prevent someone modifying the image in a derogatory way and publishing it. That is, while it is probably OK for Commons, it may not solve the problem stated by the Parliament. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of a home-made Coats of Arms

Hello Jim, I saw recently that You decided not to delete this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Counts of Reutern COA.png

I'll try to explain why it should be deleted. JinxandTonic is an imposter that pretend that he has inherited the titles and names Count(Graf) von Reutern, Baron von Nolcken. I think his real name is Joshua Wood ( This Coats of Arms is home-made by him. I found out about him by coincident while adding parts of my family to Genipages. You might wonder why I do care about this, but the thing is that the Reutern-Nolcken family is my grandmothers family and I have a good knowledge about this family. There is always only one member of the family that has the title Count/Graf von Reutern, Baron von Nolcken and it is always inherited by the first born son. Today we have the 5th Count von Reutern, Baron von Nolcken living in Germany. I would appreciate if You could help to stop this imposter. Best Regards

Jan Colliander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solvik~svwiki (talk • contribs) 12:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

As I said in my closing comment, the file is in use. Therefore, our policy forbids deleting it for any reason other than copyright violation. There is nothing more to be said on the issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Home-made Coats of Arms

Hello Jim, This is another home-made Coats of Arms made by Joshua Wood. It is not the correct one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barons of Nolcken COA.png

For the same reason as with the Coats of Arms for Count von Reutern, this should be deleted. Best Regards

Jan Colliander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Solvik~svwiki (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Again, as I said in my closing comment, the file is in use. Therefore, our policy forbids deleting it for any reason other than copyright violation. There is nothing more to be said on the issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

My Pictures

Hello. First, sorry for my english. Now my question: why have you delete my Pictures? I have a permission for all pictures by the owners. LG Archerwik (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You may have permission, but there was no evidence of it on any of the files and the source sites were all marked with an explicit copyright notice. In order for the images to be restored to Commons, wach of the copyright owners must send a free license using OTRS. Note that you may not forward any licenses you may have -- the license must come directly from the actual copyright holders. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I have asked the owners now if they would send the permission explanation to Wikipedia. One more question please: for the next time, can i see the marked source sites anywhere in my account? Or is the mark on the files only? Greetings --Archerwik (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you can see the sources. If there are any that you cannot remember, please list them here and I can look them up for you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. An admin retrieved four pictures where I did not remember the source. I've written to all the owners now, except one: File:Samstagsberg 1711.jpg. There is no author known in the picture, maybe it is in the public domain because of the age, but I can not prove that, so I have already put the deletion request there. Greetings --Archerwik (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It shouldn't be deleted -- it's a crop of File:Kroenung Karl VI Frankfurt 1711.jpg which is old enough that it predates copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, thx. Greetings --Archerwik (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi! Can you help me with a categorizations question? ...I would like to ask you that the Category:Theatre directors does it include assistant directors too? Because this. What do you think? Fauvirt (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You could create a new category, but I think it would be better to simply include them in Category:Theatre directors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Is it so right: Category:Theatre assistant directors? Fauvirt (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the last two cats -- having "by country" and "from Hungary" seems way to much detail when we have only one Assistant Director. I also think that having it link to Theatrical Occupations is better -- it's not a subcat of Directors, it is a different occupation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You said it, but if you think so, I'm okay. Fauvirt (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of historical images

Hi James, what makes you think the various historical images you recently deleted are copyrighted? That's ill-thought and simply plain wrong. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 2,000 of them. A dozen Admins do most of that work, so we work fast and occasionally make mistakes. I would be happy to take another look, but unless you give me file names, I don't know where to look. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Women by clothing

Hello Jim, btw of such category I noticed that there's not a meta "ByCat" for it (such as : "categories by organization" for association, political parties and so on). What is more suitable for it? Either "categories by clothing" or "Categories by outfit" (or else, if you know something that fits even better)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Category:Women by clothing is in Category:Females by clothing , which in turn is in Category:People by clothing. I think some of the cats in Category:Females by clothing should be moved down to Category:Women by clothing, but otherwise, I don't see much to do. Perhaps I am missing your point? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes @Jameslwoodward:   but is my fault. What I was trying to say, I agree that we must be consistent with the category tree, but I was noticing that Commons lacks a supercategory for topics like clothing, shoes, etc (in short, outfit). For example, the category Musicians by musical group is meta-categorized under Categories by organization (flat list). Thus I was wondering which super-category could meta-categorize all the categories about the "outfit" of a person. Hope to have been clearer now. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess I think that Category:Clothing is pretty much the top category. It reports to, but that seems a little artifical to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, do you accept any stalkers? --E4024 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure -- different thoughts are always welcome here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, don't expect too much of this humble contributor. I was just eager to say, seeing that words like clothing, dress, women etc abound in the talk between two experienced users, (BTW I like well-dressed women :) that since yesterday I opened three cats on clothing (two of them specifically female) to discussion. Please both of you (and others who read me) spare some of your time to participate at those discussions which you can find here: Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2018/01. Many thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I dont see what I have done wrong and why you deleted my image here.

After you deleted my image you stated that 'Active' 'Contributer' comes first, Ive only just started here. The suggestion that I feel this place is like facebook is not at all appropriate and not called for. I wished to add an image that will appear on MusicBrianz for A Busker Unheard / myself, I have not hidden anything for the purpose of my upload and the page, that until you deleted it, was A Busker Unheard. I came across this place as a place that deals with images rarther than text etc and that my upload was fully appropraite and adds to the site in a genuine positive way. I also feel it has benefit to a minority who can see the image, just as any single image of any person of any interest.

John Harrison

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJRHarrison (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

You violated policy in a variety of ways. First, the gallery page A Busker Unheard was deleted because Commons does not allow single image galleries, see COM:Galleries. It also does not allow users to have personal galleries, so the page was invalid for two reasons.

As I said at Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Busker Unheard aka John Harrison.jpg, Commons also does not host personal images. There is an exception for personal images of active contributors, but, so far, you have contributed nothing useful to Commons. I have subsequently closed that DR and deleted the image because the image appears without a free license at In order to restore the image, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (almost always the photographer) must send a free license using OTRS.

Your comments above suggest that you are a person that might be notable. That is not at all clear. There is no WP:EN article and no Google hits on the first several pages. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Could you please look if some of the files uploaded circa 29 February 2016 by this user are the same images, with more or less subtle differences in the filenames, that you had deleted on 16 February 2016 per this deletion decision and, if they are the same, if they were somehow validated since the deletion? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I deleted 20 files. I suspect that most of the rest of the uploads are also copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry's Girl.jpg

Unfortunately your reasoning when closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry's Girl.jpg is a little weak -- Banksy is far better known than the artist of "Harry's Girl.jpg", but a large percentage of Banksy's works are technically illegal graffiti, so there are a lot of images in and under Category:Banksy... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Request review

Hi Jim: Don't know if you remember File:Hoers meme.png, but I don't see a source for the image, and the permission seems a bit wonky, too! Thanks for your review! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hoers meme.png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete \?

This title is an interwiki redirect on purpose for technical reasons. Because typing in C:\ in the Wikipedia search box gets you here, this redirect should be undeleted. Ups and Downs () 19:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

First, we don;t exist to solve all the problems that can be created on WP:EN or elsewhere by mistyping. Second, and more important, for some reason it redirected to your user page. I confess that I have no idea what was going on, but deleting your redirect eliminated the problem. Please don't create it a third time -- if you do, you will probably be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Alvarodpas

You forgot to delete two AEMET files uploaded by Alvarodpas, as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alvarodpas, they've been nominated for deletion since 12 January 2018, as all other files were deleted on 19 January 2018.2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:C90A:AA9C:7791:1582 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Dear Jim, can I ask you something, please? As a Commons administrator and bureaucrat, which by the way makes you a local five-star general, why on earth did you ignore my argument at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Georgeville, Canada (Unsplash).jpg and simply proceeded with the deletion of the file nominated (surprise!) by another Commons administrator? Does it mean that non-administrators' opinion does not matter any more, and peons like myself should not bother the Commons nobility with their thoughts? Thanks in advance. --Taterian (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was working fast, and did not leave a complete explanation. The fact is that the source has an unacceptable license. Please read {{Unsplash}} and note that image was uploaded after the license change.

I also agree with the nom. The chances that an image of an unknown person staring into the camera will actually be used for any educational purpose is low. The image does not fulfill your proposed use -- to illustrate the diversity of Canada -- we know nothing about the woman pictured. There is nothing to show that she is a Canadian citizen or resident. It might be used to illustrate the diversity of people who happen to have their pictures taken in Canada, but that's a real stretch.

Finally, note that as the closing administrator, on questions of law, I am required to apply the law as I understand it and ignore arguments that misstate the law. However, on subjective matters, I should (and do) respect the arguments on both sides. In this case, a respected colleague thought that the file should be deleted. Taterian, a name I did not recognize, thought it should be kept for a reason that I thought weak. That left it two to one on a subjective issue. Hence the deletion.

Two side comments -- first, with your record, why not become an Administrator. Although I didn't recognize your name, the stats page says you have contributed more to Commons than most Admins. Which brings me to my second side comment -- on your Userpage, you show several stats "per administrator". That's misleading. In the last month, only 123 of the 235 Admins made more than 10 Admin actions and 75% of the work was done by a dozen of us.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: If the file had an unacceptable license, that clarifies the issue. Regarding your offer, thanks but no, as it will take all the fun out of it. --Taterian (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This Deletion Request

Dear Admin Woodward,

As one of Commons most experienced Administrators and copyright specialists, perhaps you should make a comment in the above DR. To keep or delete..that is the question. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply. I agree to delete as a courtesy request too and have said that in the DR now. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded byAndrey Filipov09

Marked by you as closed but only two files of three were processed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. Admins use a script called DelReqHandler to close DRs and it occasionally hiccups and fails to delete a file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I think your deletion at[1] was quite premature. Commons:licensing says: "Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version." We had explicit permission for the copyright holder, so your deletion isn't even in line with Commons:precautionary principle. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

However, I think it is a mistake for Commons to act as a party to something that has a result contrary to what the creator expects. As I said in the closing comment, if we host the image at low res with a CC license, then outsiders can use the image at high res under that license and the creator will have no recourse. Unless we are convinced that the creator understands that, we would be acting against the creator's express wishes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the authors idea was that there shouldn't be any high-res version anywhere online, and he wanted it removed from here so he could be ensured there was no high-res version. IJReid (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The artist states "All the other images in the PDF are fine to use, there has just been a mix up regarding the high res version of my artwork -I thank you for bringing this to my attention!" This indicates that the high res version wans't even supposed to go in the paper, but it's probably too late for him to change now. In any case, that's not really our problem, as whether we delete it here or not it will still be available from the pdf. So why should we punish ourselves because the paper incorrectly uses a high res version, when we can simply use a lower res version and everyone is happy? Doesn't make sense, especially since Commons:licensing specifically allows for such procedures. FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The difference is that if we have the low res image here with a CC license, then anyone who has the high res version -- from the PDF, having purchased it from the author, or otherwise -- can legally use it any way he wants under the CC license here. By asking us to post only the low res version, the author thinks he is protecting the high res version, but he's not. If he understands that, then fine, I'd be happy to keep the image here. But at the moment it appears that he does not understand that and I think it is disingenuous -- close to dishonest -- of Commons to take advantage of his naivete. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The PDF is freely accessible and CC licensed itself[2], otherwise the image wouldn't have been uploaded here to begin with. So I don't see how it makes any difference that we have a low resolution version here, anyone can go get a high res version from the PDF itself if they want (regardless of whether they have seen it on Commons first or not), and that's not something we can do anything about. There is also a chance that the artist makes the publisher update the PDF with a lower res version of the image, and then we should be all good. Not that I think that would be necessary for us to keep the image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Again -- I don't know how to be any more clear... The page you cite has an explicit copyright notice. If we do not restore the low res image here, then anyone making use of the image on that page is violating copyright. If we do restore the page here, then anyone can make use of either version under CC terms. The author appears to think that if we keep only the low res version here, then the high res version cannot be used under the license. That's incorrect and I don't think we should be taking advantage of the author's naivete. In order to restore the image here, I think we must get the author's explicit acknowledgement that he understands that under US law the license here would cover any resampling of the image, large or small. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I sent him an email asking if hes 1) aware about the copyright problems and 2) willing to let it remain if someone who wasnt part of this discussion uploaded it as the high-res version. We should at least keep the small-res version here as a courtesy, but if he is accepts it, if someone other than one of us uploads the high-res then he would let it stay. IJReid (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
And again, this high res image is from the PDF version[3] of the article, and if you look at the end of the second page of the the PDF, it says "This is an open access article under the CC BY license (". The other copyright notice you are talking about appears to apply to the website itself, not this specific article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that since you're taking the position that the high res version has its own CC license, that you should be arguing that there is no reason why we shouldn't keep the high res version on Commons. I would go along with that -- what I object to is our agreeing to the author's incorrect assumption that if we keep only a low res version that the high res version cannot be used legally. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What I'm arguing is that the PDF currently contains a version of the image that is in higher res than what the artist supposedly agreed to, as indicated by the artist's comments. So the artist appears to be fine with a low res version being used in the PDF, and consequently by us. But at present, the PDF still contains the image in high res, though the artist indicated he wanted to get it changed. Or that is at least how I interpret his comment: "All the other images in the PDF are fine to use, there has just been a mix up regarding the high res version of my artwork -I thank you for bringing this to my attention!" FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Just accidentally came across this conversation. I think James, you have made a worrying step too far. While I agree that, provided both resolutions are the same work-of-copyright, the CC licence applies to both, what the author does with any high resolution copy is absolutely not our business. Our policy is that hosting the low-resolution copy is fine. So while the author is at some very small legal risk that someone might be brave enough to use the high resolution image commercially without paying for it, I suspect that any lawyer would advise such a re-user not to be an idiot and just pay the very likely small fee to use the image legitimately under commercial terms. The reason that Commons is unwilling to host the high resolution copy is partly a moral one but also partly that there is often legal uncertainty. While in this case, the downsizing is being suggested explicitly, in other cases, we cannot be sure both images are in fact the same work-of-copyright. I think it is a very dangerous precedent to set that just because there exists somewhere a higher resolution version of an image, that someone might download or purchase, that we need to delete our modest-resolution copy. We have thousands of low-resolution images in our repository that the photographer is offering at higher resolution on stock image sites or privately. Many of our photographers include templates on their pages offering higher-resolution or even RAW versions of files to those who wish to pay. Since the image author was engaging in the discussion, all that was needed was a caution that just because we will respect your wishes doesn't guarantee everyone else will. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You misinterpret my position. I have no problem at all with hosting a low res version of the image provided that the author fully understands that the CC license on the low res version also applies to the high res version, allowing people to use the high res version in any way allowed by the license. My problem comes with the fact that in this case I don't think the author understands that. Although we are certainly not lawyers for the author, we are people who believe we understand copyright law fairly well, and I think we owe it to our contributors to ensure that we have not misled them. That's particularly true in a case where the Commons participants in the DR went along with the author's suggestion that somehow a low res version here would solve his problem.
In fact, you state my position exactly in your last sentence -- all I am asking for is that we ensure that the author has received that caution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
But what you say doesn't exactly apply to this situation, as the high res image will be present in a CC licensed PDF whether we host the image here too or not. If it was behind some paywall, sure, I would see your point, but that's not the case. The artist doesn't gain anything at all from us deleting the image here, as long as it is still in that PDF in full res. We only punish ourselves with absolutely no gain for anyone. Note that the artist never indicates the image shouldn't be in the CC licensed PDF, only that it should not be there in high res. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Our licensing policy does not have, as a requirement, that we ensure the image creators are fully cognisant of the issues surrounding the licences they use. I appreciate your concern for the artist, I really do because many do not, but you are not their lawyer. AFAIKS the image is still deleted, which contradicts your claim that "all I am asking for ..." As I explained, the risk of having the high res image available elsewhere is minimal. Not many know how to extract JPGs from PDFs. People who are conscientious enough to obey licence terms when using an image commercially, will also be legally savvy enough to not be stupid enough to chance it. As FunkMonk says, the CC licence on the PDF means he is at risk whether we host it or not, and the only way to get the high res version is to get the PDF, so I really fail to see how Commons is contributing to his problems. Frankly, even putting a high res image up the on the internet as "(c) All rights reserved" is asking for it to be stolen and misused and some consider that foolish, yet people still do. The photographer has permitted us to host the low res version of the image and given us a free licence for it. That is sufficient to undelete that version. Any wish you have to educate the photographer is something you guys can arrange and do outside of a DR. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why, instead of spending time double teaming me here, one of you doesn't try getting the photographer to agree that he understands the risk outlined above. That's all I ask. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've taken in anything I've said. The higher resolution image already has a CC licence, for the publication in the PDF. Hosting the lower resolution image with a CC licence is not only legal, per policy but also the photographers express wish. Your argument for deleting it, is false. It does achieve what the photographer wants: that a major image repository is not offering the high resolution image and that the low resolution image is available for others to use. The minimal risk that someone might notice (a) the Commons CC licence and (b) extract the JPG from the PDF while (c) overlooking that the PDF is already CC licensed, is negligible. The "two resolutions" jeopardy here is no different to all the other cases where Commons hosts low resolution images while the author offers high resolution images elsewhere. Indeed both CC and WMF used to promote that as a strategy and we have thousands of images uploaded because of their misleading advice: our solution was not to go "Oh the photographers were mislead so we should delete all the images" but to agree to only host the low resolution copies. That's the policy consensus, yet you seem to think "delete the low resolution copy too unless we have a signed letter from the photographer's lawyers saying he knows the risk". Let me repeat: what the photographer does with his high resolution copy is not our business. He is more than happy for us to host the low resolution copy. So what is your problem? Btw, I don't know FunkMonk so there is no collaboration.. I've just been involved in the original discussions with CC/WMF that clarified the mess they made over this issue. You are not following consensus here. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This may need a wider discussion, as it has consequences that reach beyond the deletion of this image if this precedence is followed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded byAndrey Filipov09

And what about File:Sgamestridss.jpg? Ankry (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. That's usually a DelReqHandler hiccup. When it happens, feel free to simply delete the file. If I deliberately don't delete a file in a DR, I will always say so in the closing comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User TP

Hi. User:Masalli qasimli creates a special writing for his user name which avoids reaching his talk page. Can you have a look at their edits on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Masalli qasimli, please? Ty. --E4024 (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done, see User_talk:Masalli_qasimli#Your_signature .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry --Masalli qasimli (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


I was checking incorrect file links on nlwiki and stumbled upon this image. It was deleted because of a DR, so I checked the DR. And was a bit surprised with the nomination. According to the requester there is no FOP in Germany. However Commons:Freedom of panorama says there is Freedom of Panorama. So which is correct? The information by the requester or the commons page about FOP? Mbch331 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Same applies for File:Muffendorf(Bonn)St.Martin742.JPG. Mbch331 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The nominator might better have said "there is no applicable FOP in Germany". Germany has one of the broadest FOP provisions in the world, but it applies only to works that are outdoors and visible from public places. See User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 for a summary you may find useful. The stained glass in these two image is indoors, so FOP does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'll remove the image links from the article. Mbch331 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If you were to block me

would you make it indefinite? The reason why I am asking is because I am not a troll, just someone who wants to improve Wikimedia projects. So should I bring the problems with typing in C:\ in the search bar on Wikipedia to phabricator? Oh, and please ping me using the {{replyto}} template, I did not see your reply. Ups and Downs () 02:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If people leave a message for me here, I assume that they will, as instructed above, look here for a reply, so I do not ping people when I reply here.
My objection is that you have focused on a single mistake of the many possible mistakes that people can make and decided that you would deal with it. People make mistakes. It's not our job on Commons to deal with the results of someone mistyping on WP, particularly when the fix is more problematic than the mistake. You are so insistent on this -- why have you not tried to deal with "DE:\" and the myriad other possible mistypings? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello! Could you please do not delete these photos as this photos was done by me and genuine.

--Masalli qasimli (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Masalli qasimli, the images all violate Commons rules in a variety of ways. You may discuss them at the various Deletion Requests. There is no point in discussing them separately here. If you continue to upload images that break Commons rules, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

3 images for review

Dear Admin Woodward, If you have a moment, please help mark or review these 3 images that I uploaded of rare mushrooms that Commons has few or no images of.

Thank You for your time, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done Nice finds! .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help. The third image was a top Mushroom Observer photo. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Final request

Dear Admin Woodward,

Can you kindly mark this 1 images please. This is a final courtesy request. I will not disturb you anymore on marking images.

Thanks for all your help, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done -- It's not a problem, I'm happy to do it. You always come with interesting images which I enjoy looking at. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • OK, Thanks for your time. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

2 images

Dear Jim,

If you want, please feel free to mark these 2 high resolution images below.

Thanks for everything, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank You for your help again, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

US public domain tag

Hello Jim, Do you know what kind of United States public domain tag should be added to this file? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Use {{PD-old-100-1923}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeff' Edit on Taiwan lack of FOP for buildings

Dear Jim,

I hope that Jeff's edit is correct--that there is no COM:FOP in Taiwan even for buildings. The Article 58 Taiwan English translation text is a bit unclear sometimes. What is "Reproduction of artistic works"? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#FOP_in_Taiwan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks. This was a major change. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Jeff has made a response to Taiwanese FOP on the suggested talkpage. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CanucksBySeason.png

Hi Jim. You deleted File:CanucksBySeason.png per Commons:Deletion requests/File:CanucksBySeason.png back in October 2017. File:Canucks01.png and File:Canucks03.png weren't added to that DR, but they probably are similar and also can be seen at These two are licensed as "own work", but I'm not sure the uploader truly realizes that downloading something you find online and then re-uploading it to Commons automatically makes it 100% your "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for checking on these and also for catching File:4-MAJOR-GENERAL-W.A.-HOWARD-MEDAL.png. There may be more of these medal photos as well, so I'll look again later on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Itemsousitemimgaff.jpg and File:Sea cadet Service Medal.jpg looks like it might come from here and here respectively. I don't know about the copyright statuses of the medals itself, but I doubt the uploader created them and holds the copright over them. I guess it's possible the uploader and the website owner are the same person so the photos might just need OTRS verification if the medals are not protected. Do you think these files are ones which needs {{copyvio}} or COM:DR? Also, just a general question. Are medals (military or otherwise) typically considered a type of COM:CB#Jewelry for Commons' purposes or are they treated like mini sculptures? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I found sites for all of his other medals whose images matched exactly -- size, etc. I looked at the two you cite and concluded that they might be the source, but probably not. While I suspect that the two are not "own work". I can't prove it. As far as the copyrights go, the medals may or may not be copyrighted -- it may have expired or it may be covered by a "government works" exemption. However, the medals are 3D objects, like coins, so the photographs also have a copyright -- they do not fall under Bridgeman. You could hang a DR on them -- definitely not a {{Copyvio}}.
Jewelry is copyrighted as "sculptural works". Medals are a subset of jewelry. If you look at the list of copyrightable works at 17 USC 102, you will see that the only category that fits is "(5) Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response Jim. Just want to clarify the meaning of I found sites for all of his other medals whose images matched exactly -- size, etc. Does this mean these other files you found sites for were licensed correctly for Commons? If they were, then maybe assuming good faith that these two are also OK might be the right thing to do. If, however, this means that those files were deleted, then that might indicate that the uploader might have made a similar mistake with these two. I think that the claim of "own work" is a bit iffy, but I don't want to be bitey since I've already have had some "interactions" with this editor both on Commons and English Wikipedia. Also, one of the two files I linked to above can be found here which is licensed under a "CC BY-SA 3.0". Maybe that's the source, but when you try to open the image in a new tab your taken to the Drouin website I linked above. Anyway, if a DR is warranted for these files and would not be considered a waste of the project's time, then that's what I'll do; however, the editor is currently under block for a few more days and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to start a DR about a file while its uploader is unable to respond. It might be perfectly fine from a policy stand-point, but I don't want to be seen as taking advantage of the situation when the uploader is unable to respond. Would it be considered problematic to DR an image while its uploader is under a block? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I found and deleted half a dozen images of medals where the look of the image and the image size exactly matched this user's uploads. These came from two or three different sites with explicit copyright notices. So, there is no reason to Assume Good Faith here -- quite the opposite. There's no policy reason not to DR an image while the uploader is blocked. It might be a good idea to note that in you DR comment Where it's a short blaock, you might, as you suggest, simply wait a few days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Is there anyway to get the names of the files you deleted. Usually, I get them from notifications posted to user talk pages, but in this case I'm not sure where to find. Would there be a record of the deletions somewhere in a log somewhere that I can link to in a DR for reference? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone but Admins can see the deletion log, or a User's deleted contributions. Here's the list:

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that Jim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeff' Edit on Commons:Undeletion requests

Dear Jim, I am writing to ask you this question, it is about the fact that every time I try to ask the community for a discussion to discuss a file to be restored, suddenly the user jeff, who shoots sentences without even checking the information concerning the file, he knows that I had entered the original source of the painting license PD from where I had taken it, and this was not enough, I think only that this in my opinion is a behavior of aggression and rude, against a recovery request (including the discussion), why the user jeff behaves in this way, in short every time I try to contact an administrator on this page to submit a question of file recovery, check this jeff that shoots the usual question of the user in ebasione a3cb1, knowing also that among its various deleted files only one file is restored by User: Guanaco. I would like to request to restore the various deleted files, but as I do that there is always that jeff, and I can not hope that someone else fccia, because no one will ever unfortunately, I would just like to repeat my requests for commons undeletion, you and also the User talk: Clindberg you were wondering why he was doing it once at least you two were taking into consideration my request to restore files, of which I thank you fully -- 10:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded a video from chaharrah and I want to upload all the videos from this website to commons and make a template like this. Would you please take a look at it and tell me if it's Ok. Best, SlowManifesto (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't read Persian, so I am not a good person to ask. I see the CC-BY-SA at the bottom, but it is not clear whether all the photos on the site or in the video are actually free licensed. I also can't tell whether the video is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

9 images

Dear Admin Woodward,

If you can, please mark these uploads by me from mushroom Observer.

Thank You for your time, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

File:אצת הספירולינה.jpg

Dear Jim,

Does Commons accept images from like the source site above? --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:אצת הספירולינה.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Jim. I believe that there is the indication of a community consensus to undelete, at least for a low-res version. I understand that this may not prevent high-res. We now have a user wishing to reproduce that article at enWS (publicity!) and that will include images, so knowledge of where these should uploaded is now pertinent. If you are in a position where you do not feel able to undelete, then please let me know whether I can involve other admins, or whether you wish for the conversation to be moved to commons undelete pages. In the end, admins are appointed by community consensus, to implement community consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

billinghurst, thank you for your rational involvement in this. For the reasons I have stated repeatedly, I am uncomfortable with undeleting the image. However, since the community does not see the problem as I do, I would appreciate it if you would undelete it. I know that there is little difference between my doing it and my asking you to do it, but for me it would be good way to conclude this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fully understood where you are coming from, and fortunately we have a community of admins to share the workload, and the decisions wherever the community takes us. Shitty when it is made personal, and I try not to have that occasional failing, and apologise when I approach it. Thanks for the work that you do around the place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

6 images for review

Dear Jim,

I would be honoured if you could review or mark these 3 images below.

Commons has No images of a Russula basifurcata mushroom and its collection of Chorioactis geaster images are generally low resolution. The one I chose is hign resolution and is rated a great image on Mushroom Observer. There is no Commons image of the fourth image which is a lichen. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank You for your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Olexiy Poroshenko.jpg

Hi Jim. I'm a great photographer. You had no right to remove my picture. This photo is my own work. All copyrights are protected by law. In addition, the photo was not previously published. To return job back. --Gal777 (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that you are a very new user here. It would be wise to ask for help, rather than to respond to a routine action by making accusations and telling us (incorrectly) what your rights are. It is clear that you have not bothered to look at Commons rules.

First, get your facts straight before making accusations. As noted in the deletion comment, the file I deleted was empty -- there was no image there because it had been previously deleted in response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olexiy Poroshenko.jpg. So, I did not delete your image -- all I did was housekeeping.

As for the DR, it clearly and correctly states that the image had been previously published at with a clear copyright notice, "© 2018 ЧАО "Сегодня Мультимедиа"". Your statement above is wrong. As noted at the DR, policy requires that when an image has been previously published without a free license, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi Jim , I understand you wish to delete all of my images of commemorative plaques taken recently Affected:

I believe your reasoning for this is incorrect . Commemorative plaque images have been on the site for many many years and they have never ever been the subject of any deletion request However if you wish to do so may I insist that you go through all of the other UK plaque images informing their authors of this change in the sites stance; providing me and all others with a specific link to the exact part of the U.K.copyright regulations that you believe cover this and also inform the associated site Openplaques that you are taking this course of action.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madcat (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

The appropriate place for any discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Madcat, not here. While the plaques may have been in place for "many many years", copyright lasts for more years than that -- they are all clearly too recent to have been created more than 70 years ago, which would be the minimum time for their copyrights to have expired. As for other similar images, Commons has tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of images that ought to be deleted. We take them one at a time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo Werbebüro Dr Schwarz.jpg

Hello Jim, I think I need help. Maybe I chose an inappropriate license for the logo. This was only the second file uploaded by me.

The logo was first published on March 12, 1934 (over 70 years).

The artist, Herbert Wackernagel, died on May 14, 1936 (over 70 years).

I think the logo was last used in this form in a booklet dated August 22, 1947 (over 70 years old).

So far, I thought it would be in the public domain. Can you help me? .     Andreas . . . (Gabulan) (talk to me) 15:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Although you did refer to a non-existent Template:Herbert Wackernagel, you did not say that you knew when he died. Take a look at my fix File:Logo Werbebüro Dr Schwarz.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jim, I would like to thank you for the friendly help. I will try not to repeat the mistake. .     Andreas . . . (Gabulan) (talk to me) 20:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Andreas, there is a lot to learn here. We all make mistakes, so feel free to come back anytime if you have a question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeff' Edit on Commons:Undeletion requests

Dear Jim, I am writing to ask you this question, it is about the fact that every time I try to ask the community for a discussion to discuss a file to be restored, suddenly the user jeff, who shoots sentences without even checking the information concerning the file, he knows that I had entered the original source of the painting license PD from where I had taken it, and this was not enough, I think only that this in my opinion is a behavior of aggression and rude, against a recovery request (including the discussion), why the user jeff behaves in this way, in short every time I try to contact an administrator on this page to submit a question of file recovery, check this jeff that shoots the usual question of the user in ebasione a3cb1, knowing also that among its various deleted files only one file is restored by User: Guanaco. I would like to request to restore the various deleted files, but as I do that there is always that jeff, and I can not hope that someone else fccia, because no one will ever unfortunately, I would just like to repeat my requests for commons undeletion, you and also the User talk: Clindberg you were wondering why he was doing it once at least you two were taking into consideration my request to restore files, of which I thank you fully --Karoly Gyzman (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This Comment

Dear Jim,

Is there a problem with Hamed Malekpour's images on Commons since he is apparently a freelance photographer and not a Tasnim agency reporter as someone mentioned? The current tasnim license template does Not cover freelance photographers. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The footer on the page where several of his images appear is clear, "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." I assume that means what it says, "All Content" -- whether that is by employees or free-lancers working for the agency. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the clarification Jim. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It help for a keep vote in the DR. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Young Mahasi in studio 2018.jpg

It shall be removed immediately then

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Plane (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Certificate scan file (license status clarified)

Dear Jim! Greetings from Russia! Let me ask you to restore the File:ProfessorRASCertificate.jpg that you deleted in May 2017. As followed from our short communication just after deletion, the license status of this file required clarification. Unfortunately, I could not react rapidly, but now the situation seems to be clear. This file 100% falls into the category "PD-RU-exempt", such an image is not an object of copyright and there arises no question on authorship. This certificate was issued by the Russian Academy of Sciences, a Russian government-established organization. In the file description, there should be: |Permission="PD-RU-exempt|type=documents"; sorry, when uploading I inserted incorrect statements, due to a nearly-zero experience. Thank you in advance. --Mikisavex (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Russian Academy of Sciences is chartered by the Russian government, but it is not an arm of the Russian government. Many organizations -- corporations, associations, academies, etc. rely on a government charter for their existence, but that does not mean that somehow their works become government works. I see no reason to believe that this document does not have a copyright..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jim! Since you decided that the certificate is not eligible for “PD-RU-exempt”, I rely on your words and abandon an idea to place its image on Commons. As a non-jurist, I dare not dispute. Informally it seems to me strange, at least because this certificate bears the Coat of arms of Russia both in the middle part and in the official seal. Anyway, thank you for responding so quickly. --Mikisavex (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am by no means the final word. Although I believe that my assessment is correct, it is based on the description of the Russian Academy of Sciences at WP:EN which may be incorrect. You are certainly free to take it to Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Information in WP:EN is correct although some regulating details are omitted (moreover, certain changes are awaited in this year, maybe even a new Charter). To avoid any risk I preferred to include the image of the certificate in the article just as “external media”. A question on undeleting it on Commons may be re-raised later. Thanks again. --Mikisavex (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

10 images for review

Manual of Bird Study license

Thanks for finding the right license for that! :) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Crapper.jpg

Hi Jim Did you delete this image because: No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Crapper died in 1910. Aged 73. Is this the photo I'm guessing it dates aro. the 1890's. Does this not mean its valid for commons? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", which your guess doesn't meet. An 1890 image could easily still be under copyright. Crapper was a UK citizen, so the image is likely a UK image for our purposes. A twenty year old photographer in 1890 would have to live to age 78 for this to still be under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)


Hello again. The image was deleted per DR discussion for FOP. However, I contacted the sculptor of the statue and is willing to send permission to the OTRS. Can you undelete it please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It will be restored AUTOMATICALLY when and if an appropriate free license is received at OTRS, waits its turn in the queue and is approved by an OTRS volunteer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

image deletion

Thank you for deleting the image of that toy. I wanted to let you know that there are five other images,

same toys, all uploaded from the same Flikr account. Do I need to post additional deletion requests for those as well? Or can you deal with them all together? Thanks Thewolfchild (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As you will see, I started a mass DR for the five this morning. Anyone can use Visual File Change to start a mass DR -- VFC makes it easy for the nominator and also much easier for the closing Admin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Thewolfchild (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Hello Jim! I didn't realize that the Korean War Veteran's Memorial was protected under copyright law; are there any other images I posted that are also protected? Just wondering Ranged Ranger (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I think you are good. You might read the Commons guidelines on freedom of panorama. As a general rule, exteriors of buildings in the US are OK, but all other created works are not OK until their copyright expires. Both Lincoln and Liberty would not be OK if they were still under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

5 images

Dear Jim,

Could you please kindly license review these 5 images please?

Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway map 1959.png

Hi, thanks for the advice. I made a version by myself and replaced the copyrighted map. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, nice job with the new version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union 1989.svg

Hello, you correctly decided to keep this file because the deletion request was made when it was still in use. Now that I orphanized it, what should be done in order to obtain the deletion?--Antenor81 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What did you replace it with and where? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

deleted page Raspberry Pi learning resources

Jameslwoodward deleted page Raspberry Pi learning resources ‎(Empty or single image gallery; please see Commons:Galleries: content was: " Category:Raspberry Pi", and the only contributor was "Jasc PL"

Hi @Jameslwoodward:, at this moment I create galleries and descriptions for this page from files I have uploaded to the Category:Raspberry Pi learning resources so, could you undelete it? --Jasc PL (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasc PL (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done -- Sorry. About once a month it happens that I will delete an empty gallery while the creator is about to add images. That's one among a hundred or so that were appropriate deletions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:, OK, sure, no problem, thanks - BTW, probably I should make all in my sandbox and don't create new page until I can paste ready content in it? :)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasc PL (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Jasc PL, either use the sandbox, just add a line at the top such as "Don't delete -- I'm working on it" or use the {{Under construction}} tag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: - Great, MANY thanks and greetings! :) --Jasc PL (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Gallery Horst J.Meuter

God morning Jim, sorry for reloading the gallery, I am a new User and I did not know how to go about it. I hope next time I will do it correctly. Thank you for your corrections and advice.

---horst70 (Diskussion) 12:38 1.03.2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Horst J. Meuter (talk • contribs) 11:41, 1 March 2018‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Horst, that's not a problem. There is much to learn when you start using Commons. Please feel free to ask questions here anytime. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Architecture in Iran

Hi Jim, Do you agree to restore the files on discussion in UDR? The arguments by Mhhossein and Carl Lindberg seem pretty convincing to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yann, I still think they're wrong, for the reasons I stated -- if an architect's copyright goes to the client, then he can't use details over again without a license from the client. Since architects everywhere else do that all the time, I don't see how Iran can be different. However it is clear that the community doesn't agree, so, while I don't like it much, the community should do what it thinks is right. Thank you for asking. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


Hello Jim, I started with building something about a planet trial around Radis. But the beginning of the article was scratched before I was able to complete it. I will try it again. Ulf.johannes (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ulf.johannes, sorry, as I said above "About once a month it happens that I will delete an empty gallery while the creator is about to add images. That's one among a hundred or so that were appropriate deletions." This time it was twice in less than a week.

Best thing is to use sandbox, just add a line at the top such as "Don't delete -- I'm working on it", or use the {{Under construction}} tag. I see that you rebuilt it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)



I analyzed WMF ToU carefully and I see nothing except "Paid contributions without disclosure" that is even similiar to WP:COI. And it is not the same. While wife is making a photo to her husband, we can talk about COI, but not about paid contribution. And in some Wikipedias COI edits are discouraged, but not strictly forbidden (unless paid and without payment disclosure).

But I have another doubt here. We have a lot of cases where the photographer was paid for making a photo. And then when the subject wishes the photo to be used in Wikimedia he is told "we need a permission from the photographer". And the photographer agrees to send us a permission. Is it not a "paid contribution"? Who should disclosure this? The OTRS agent? Ankry (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Just another example: if I create a Wikipedia article about my boss (he is notable), it is a clear COI. But if I do it outside of my work (he may even not know that the article was created by me) why would it be against ToU? Ankry (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if your boss doesn't know that you wrote the article, as someone who works for him, you almost certainly have your own axe to grind. I hope that would be that you like him or her and would want the article to reflect well upon him or her, but it might be the opposite. Biographies should be written by people who are at arms length, unless the relationship is disclosed.
The same is true of a wife writing of her husband -- in the case at hand, he is dead, so he won't care, but presumably the wife wants the article to put him in the best possible light and she probably has a financial interest in the world thinking well of him because she probably receives royalties when his work is used.
As far as the photographer goes, it is obvious that the photographer has a relationship with the subject, whether paid or not, so the required disclosure is inherent in the photo. That's true even if the photographer is anonymous. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this article will likely be POV, but I see nothing in ToU that forbids that. This is a Wikipedia rule. (BTW, I do not intend to write any Wikipedia article, so the case is strictly hypothetical). But let's go back to Commons.
I think that "probably financial interest" is too weak assumption that we can base a rule on this. Also, I think that many people here have "probably financial interest": photographers who agree for a free license may think of some kind of autopromotion; writers who agree to publish their book covers hope that they or their books will become more popular, etc. I think we (and WMF) should accept that unless some clear border is crossed. Otherwise we lose a lot of useful content.
Back to the initial case:
  • wife writing an article about her notable husband: a red light appears; maybe I am far from banning her to do this, but the result should be analyzed carefully
  • wife making a photo of her notable husband: if we already have another photo - anybody is free to choose; if we have none: I see nothing wrong with having one this way.
And again I see no single sentence in ToU that prevents that. As well as no established Commons rule that prevents that. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi james,

you deleted a page I created for a campaign for photos, what was wrong with it? I could not find a reason. I might be new to creating pages on commons but I am a Wikipedian for 5 years. Kindly advise. --May Hachem93 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@May Hachem93: Main namespace in Commons is intended for image galleries only. I think, you intended to create the page in Commons: namespace. Restored and moved there. Hopefully, Jim would not oppose. Ankry (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not at all certain what the rules are for creation of new pages in the Commons: space, but, as Ankry says, Commons mainspace pages -- galleries -- may not be used for anything but galleries of media files with very limited text. See Commons:Galleries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nenntmichruhigip

Hello Jim,

you deleted most of the files covered by this DR, but omitted two. Did something go wrong? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As you probably know, sometimes DelReqHandler hiccups and doesn't delete a file. Feel free to delete them yourself if you see that among my closures. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Railfreight sub sectors.svg

So, last year, May 2017, this file was deleted from the commons, and to be fair, per Commons rules it likely didn't belong here, since it's likely a non-free logo.

I have a copy of the file that I saved a while back before its deletion, I wanted to know if I could resubmit it to Wikipedia as a non-free logo, and make a few revisions to correct possible color discrepancies and split it into 6 files (1 per logo) for suitable use in articles.

Is this allowed if I give credit to the original poster of the file, assuming they created the SVG, and correctly put it under the correct license. I also don't actually know who originally created it, is there a way to check that information? Also, what did you mean when you said "Clearly above the very low UK ToO." Thanks. --The Navigators (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In order for a work to be copyrighted, the work must be original and creative. The amount of creativity required for a copyright varies widely from country to country. The threshold of originality is the measure of the amount of creativity required in any particular country. The ToO in the UK is low, significantly lower than that in the USA, so that a work that did not have a copyright in the USA might well have one in the UK. I doubt if these could have a copyright in the USA, but, as I said, they probably do in the UK.

As for whether you can use these in an article in WP::EN (I assume WP:EN -- you didn't say), I am not at all expert in the rules there, so all I can say is "I think so". The svg was created by User:Goose, but his or her last contribution to Commons was in 2009 and to WP:EN in 2016 (and that only one edit -- the next latest was 2014). He or she does not have e-mail enabled, so I doubt you can reach him. The license tag on the file is {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help. Given the effort sorting the premissions, and the effort fixing imperfections in the old file that I found when I examined it closer; I ended up pulling the British Rail information sheets with the logos and redrawing them. Sorry for the pointless disruption.--The Navigators (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


About this archived thread: I didn't replace it, the fact is that it is an image containing wrong data, so it should be not available. No need to replace it, it simply should disappear because it is wrong.--Antenor81 (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brochure MeCoaching Voorkant.jpg

Please, revert your arbitrary deletion which disrespected the process and apologize for the copyvio bollocks. The image has a properly specified source which you ignored. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This photo may need more research link. Highest resolution I could find is noncommercial use. -- (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Good catch. What is the earliest publication? i.e. CC0 on Pixabay. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
AFK, so I'm not setup to look properly. -- (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@: no problem, nominate File:Pretty-woman-1509956.jpg for deletion or start an inquiry on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. But my message stays the same: deletion—with the explicit “copyvio” comment—of a file having the source link bearing {{Pixabay}} (i.e. CC0) by community consensus, lack of apologies for it, is incompetence. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The pixabay source looks okay, with many similar style photographs by the same person. It was uploaded to Commons 2 days ago, so presumably in response to other issues. The license can be taken in good faith unless someone finds predating versions that cast fresh doubt. -- (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said at the UnDR, I thought that the photo was not a problem -- it is, as Incnis Mrsi says so colorfully above, on Commons as CC0. Per , it may, in fact, not be CC0, but that is irrelevant. The version in the subject file has additional cropping and material which gives rise to a second copyright. There is no free license on the source site for the subject file, so it was clearly a {{Speedy}}. If there is an apology here, it should come from Incnis Mrsi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I missed that comment, frankly speaking, but do not agree with it anyway. No evidence that existed before March 9. Contrary, some—albeit circumstantial—evidence that the first uploading to Commons happened earlier, and the copy is practically of the same age as the first Commons deletion. Two unscrupulousfaulty Commons volunteers wrongfully deleted an image. A frustrated author put the image to his Web site, only to be accused of copyvio by another Commons admin – who should respect Wikimedia after all? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi, please be respectful of experienced admins here. This may not be a copyvio, but speedy deletion is OK for blatant advertising. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: look at the deletion log please – where do you see such words as “ADVERT”, “spam”, “promo”, or similar? Let Jim strike “copyvio” out and I will shut up. “Copyvio” is an offense here that is stronger than “sock” and comparable only to “vandalism”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks, Yann. Again, where is there any free license for the additions to File:Pretty-woman-1509956.jpg which appear at If you are correct that the upload to Commons happened before the image appeared at, then I missed that -- we don't usually research the age of pages on the Web on which our uploads appear. That would mean that my calling it a copyvio was a mistake, tsk tsk, but it was still eligible for {{Speedy}} as a blatant violation of COM:ADVERT. I think you are out of line calling me "unscrupulous" and "disrespectful" for failing to research the order of the upload here and the appearance on the Web. Even "careless" would be too strong, because, as I said, we very rarely look at how long recently uploaded Commons images have been on the Web. If you really think I'm unscrupulous, then you should move to have me removed from Administrator, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser because we clearly don't want an unscrupulous person in those jobs. If you aren't prepared to do that, then shut up, stop using inflammatory words, and perhaps even apologize. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
“Unscrupulous” referred specifically to a faulty collective mind of 4nn1l2 and Túrelio where the latter failed in his expected rôle of a peer reviewer for the former. Please, don’t bring a personal conflict innuendo, I am happy with your work as a check-user. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Although your English is very good, I suspect that you don't have a full understanding of the meaning of "unscrupulous". The word implies active dishonesty, perhaps even criminality -- it goes far beyond "faulty". It is possible that mistakes were made here and that actions were "faulty", but your use of the word "unscrupulous" calls out dishonesty, a deliberate choice to act against policy, not just error. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for informing, I strike this unfortunately used adjective. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: “Copyvio” is not an offense, it is a fact. And uploading blatant advertising is much worse than a copyright violation, which still could be in good faith. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad closure

You made a faulty call here; there absolutely WAS valid reason for deletion when it provided no source to confirm authenticity regardless of copyrights. Whether any pages are using that or not is completely meaningless and doesn't excuse poor licensing. We also should not give the problematic block-evading uploader the satisfaction of maintaining his/her improper uploads. SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

May it be the same (already deleted in the past) File:Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858).jpg but photoedited? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it, but at least the one you've linked provided a source URL. We shouldn't have user's edited versions unless they're cropping an image and/or adjusting its brightness. Turning it into gold doesn't fall under either category. SNUGGUMS (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, I suggest that before you write notes such as the one above, that you learn a little more about Commons policy. An image that is in use may not be deleted except for copyvio. We get far too many "experts" claiming that an image is not accurate for some reason to act on their complaints. If a WP editor has chosen to use an image, then we cannot delete it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not pretending to be an expert or anything, but am shocked you find use within a page a justifiable reason to not delete dubious uploads, especially from uploaders with poor reputations. SNUGGUMS (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Jim IMHO tries to apply some systemic approach. Do we see copyvio? No. Then remaining reasons to delete anything are “poor quality” and “incorrect” which largely overlaps. The quality is tolerable and “incorrectness” needs substantiation whereas the picture’s use in another wiki is a strong counter-indication. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you IM. The problem often arises with maps -- one editor will claim that the map is wrong and another will say, "no, it's good". We have the same problem here. SNUGGUMS says it is bad, but the editors who decided to use it think otherwise. Since Commons editors almost always know less about a subject than editors at the various WPs, it is well established policy for us to defer to their judgement.
SNUGGUMS, I see that you have more than 78,000 edits on WP:EN, but you have very few here on Commons. Again I'll suggest that you make an effort to understand that some rules and policies are very different. Some of the central rules of WP, WP:NOR and WP:COI, for example, are absent here and we do not accept Fair Use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Jim, if you mentioned original researching, then may I ask you to finish this mishap off? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


You wrote:

“While there is a CC-BY-SA license at the source site, it is defective in that it does not give the name of the photographer, so it is impossible to comply with the "BY" part of the license.”

However, that's not what CC-BY-SA 4.0 says. From section 3 a about attribution:

“1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);”

You seem to have overlooked the words if it is supplied. If the copyright holder keeps the photographer's identity secret, then nothing is supplied and so attribution isn't mandatory. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Stefan2. Why didn't you add this at the UnDR rather than here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Because the undeletion request already had been closed when I read your comment. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, although you're certainly experienced enough to reopen it when you see that one of the comments is very wrong. Thanks again for adding to my education. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi. Is vanity a sin? --E4024 (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It is (as "pride") the first of the seven deadly sins. However that is not particularly relevant to Commons. We don't worry about sins (witness our large collection of porn). However, uploading 27 personal images without any other contributions is, as you certainly know, a violation of the rules. Why didn't you open Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Khan sahab azeem? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid of thumbs. :) --E4024 (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lina von Schauroth

Hi Jim, All the art work you want to delete are in public places, made for the public and are publicly accessible any time. The artist is deceased. I am in touch with her grand sons. He never objected making his granny's work public or take photos of them. Hundreds of visitors of the Nikolai Church are doing so every day. How should I write about the artist in Wikipedia when I have to ask her heirs for their permission of publishing their public art which is property of the city of Frankfurt now? Best regards

Christoph Muellerleile

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophMuellerleile (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

For a full explanation, please see Commons:FOP. Briefly, as I hope you know, almost all art work is copyrighted for a period. In Germany, copyright lasts for 70 years, so these works will be under copyright until January 1, 2041 and therefore anyone making and selling copies of the work is infringing on the creator's rights. In about half of the 120 countries that we have information for, there is an exception for works permanently installed in public. In the other half, there is no exception at all. The scope of the exception varies from country to country. In Germany the variety of works covered is the broadest possible, but the location is limited to outdoor works, where the photographer is in an outdoor public place. See User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 for my personal summary. There is substantial German case law on the subject and it is completely clear that indoor works are not covered by the exception.

The fact that the art is owned by the city of Frankfort is irrelevant. Commissioning a work or buying one does not give the owner of the work any right to the copyright. That is almost always held by the creator or her heirs.

People taking photographs for their personal use are infringing, but in many countries that is permitted as "fair use" and in any case, since no money changes hands, it is unlikely to be prosecuted.

WP:EN permits "fair use" of copyrighted materials, see, for example Guernica (Picasso). I do not know about other WPs. Commons cannot allow fair use, because, since it is a repository, it is impossible to construct a legitimate rationale for any image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Mimetes chrysanthus03.jpg

[the following is copied from an UnDR closed by Jameslwoodward on March 14]

Permission to use file was inadvertently omitted - it is hereby given - {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}}
Kathryn Cooley (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what happened here. File seems to have had correct permission. @Didym: Could you have a look, since you tagged this file (and the one below) with "no permission". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was copied from Facebook. Please upload the original unmodified image, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Facebook is copyrighted. This requires a free license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[end of copied text]

Don't get this - if I post my images on Facebook I certainly don't relinquish my copyright - Facebook consequently has no authority to claim copyright on any image which was not theirs from the outset .....Kathryn Cooley (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathryn Cooley (talk • contribs) 08:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
You are correct, but you miss the point. We do not know who the actual author of the image was. We do not know who User:Kathryn Cooley actually is. Ordinarily, we Assume Good Faith -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume that our editors are acting honestly and in good faith. However, when we see that an image has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, as this seems to have done at Facebook, we turn that assumption off and require that the actual copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. Therefore I turned down the Undeletion request with instructions to do just that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


I apologize for asking you directly, but if you have some time then could you please start a check here? Urgency is because one of involved users edited Commons before this investigation on December 19 the last time, and IP and User-Agent logs for these edits are going to expire soon. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I understood results as that—with possible exception for geography of IP addresses—no technical evidence was found linking Moonrivers to the recent IP attacks on Commons. Good, it would be sad to suspect Wikimedians. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps expressed my thought poorly – some reaction to the statement above is expected. I received off-wiki tips 20 hours ago; check your Email please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Illustrations of Medical Botany, 1847

I made that gallery so that it would be ready for my uploads. Can you please put it back?

I installed it at wikidata also. There is a lot that can be done to make a gallery before the uploading which requires a lot of bandwidth if the uploader is sharing.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done About once a month, a knowledgeable user creates a gallery and then does not populate it. I usually give them until the next day rather than deleting it on sight. On the other hand, in an average month I probably delete 100 similar pages that were either mistakes or created by users that don't understand the concept of a gallery.

When you create a new gallery, if you leave it before adding at least two images, please add the {{Under construction}} tag or at least a short message that will alert Admins to give it a few days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. I had thought about it and came up with several other good reasons to delete it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy weekend

Hi. Normally I don't upload anything on weekends but I made a couple of -very short- videos on some cuisine (my passion :) items and made an effort to find a calm place (Internet café, kids are playing video games, it sounds like WW III... :) to try to upload them, but the system says we don't accept "mp4". Well, if I knew what mp4 means I could try to solve it but alas. I will have to ask one of my nieces or nephews again! Please tell me, to which system should they convert it so that Commons do not reject a royal - rpt loyal server? Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't do video, so I don't know why we don't accept MP4, but see Commons:File_types#Video -- we take only OGG and WebM. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Use --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Steinsplitter, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments here. I had thought that a photographer who was commissioned by a Prince to take a photograph might now not own the copyright. But I agree the copyright would rest the photographer in almost all cases. There was no evidence of permission anywhere. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nesnad

I agree with you on these points. Take a look at "en:Composition (visual arts)#Compositional techniques", what the photographer wants to express depends compositional techniques in photography. "File:TRA Tainan Station front (36894577216).jpg" looks like they took a family photo while traveling; but another picture "File:我的家人.jpg" is not, because there are no tourist attractions in the background. This is why I would think "out of range". But Nesnad still "blindly" refuting my point and did not tell me where these photos for the educationally useful was. His attitude is very much like "COM:POINT"--Kai3952 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was tagged in this one, so was summoned here. I'm not trying to "stalk" you guys and want to make it clear I have no bad feelings towards either of you personally. I still strongly disagree with the actions though, even if silly power structures means I will be ignored. In the example picture you gave, you said there are no tourist attractions in it, what? Do you put dinosaurs around your house? That's clearly a dino amusement park. Why are they better than the ones I uploaded? And based on the file name, it is clearly a personal picture (that file name translates to "my family" in Chinese) which you also said was out of scope. You are playing favorites or something. So weird. For the record, I am NOT against having the file example you gave. I think having some more Asian families on Commons is great. But why were mine bad? So weird. Unfair application of rules. Nesnad (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Please remember that we have more than 25,000 active editors, and 200 Admins, all volunteers, working on our 40+ million images. It is inevitable that there are inconsistencies in the application of rules, but, in this case three editors, two of whom are Admins, felt that the images violated our rule against personal, family, images. Only you spoke in their favor. So, it is incorrect to claim repeatedly that you were not heard -- we all heard you, but three to one is a convincing reason not to follow your opinion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nesnad: This shows that you have a wrong understanding for "out of scope". Obviously this is not my problem. Because you can't judge whether it's out of range based on the composition of a photo. This is why you don't understand what I'm saying. Two photos are family photos, why I would nominate "File:TRA Tainan Station front (36894577216).jpg" to delete rather than "File:我的家人.jpg"? If you can't understand this problem and avoid it happening in the future, then your uploaded photos may inadvertently violate "out of scope" policies. Perhaps you can ask someone else who can to explan it for you, they should be able to answer more clearly than I.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thanks for the help of the administrator.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Jim. There was hardly a discussion. I'm used to things being up for awhile so people can discuss a bit before just deleting so quickly, it wasn't a speedy delete tag. And once deleted it's rare for anyone to speak up in defense of a deleted image. Just look at that undelete page, but you should know that. It was NOT A PERSONAL image. It was a picture of a family, and there is no policy against that. We currently only have ONE image that represents a modern Taiwanese family. ONE picture out of a population of 23.4 million. There would be no harm in a few more family photos in scenic places. You are going to be stubborn and stick to your guns, it's a thing here on Wiki. Those with power hardly ever back down. They quote some policy cloak or etc in a way to coat unfair actions instead of facing what they did. Look at what you said. No personal photos and yet when your buddy Kai3952 posted an example image here that is CLEARLY a personal family photo, you had no problem with it. Selective unbalanced enforcing. By the way, Kai3952 if you are now saying you requested the images to be deleted because of the composition of the photos, you said nothing about that in the original deletion request. What? This is madness. Sigh. This is the kind of times when Wiki gets frustrating. Let me say again, I am not mad at either of you guys, I'm just disappointed. Nesnad (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nesnad: So what do you want me to do?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
1) Stop nominating useful images that for some reason you have a secret dislike for because of aesthethics or something? 2) Be honest about why you are nominating on the delete discussion page. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I can't do that. Because you said "useful images" means no harm, doesn't meet the requirements of the out of scope policy. The key here is that "not educationally useful". But the problem is that you cannot explain the educational use of these four photos. Also, I have told you, what I saw in the file was they took a family photo while traveling. This is the reason for being nominated for deletion. You can ask Jameslwoodward, I think he knows more about the policy than I do. As for "Category:Group photographs of families", I have seen every photo, but did not find any problem. This shows that this problem only exists in you upload these four photos. Therefore, you should stop uploading such photos.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Jim,

In this DR, I am not sure that Commons can keep this image. Please feel free to close this DR as a keep or delete. Its entirely your call. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Percy Arms quartered with Lucy.svg [5]

Dear Jim,

I want to understand for the future. With respect, as I understand the license this file is distributed under,, it should be ok to use it as,

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
File was attributed to the original author and the license was, I think, linked.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Wikipedia is non-commercial. Unless the categorization of the company has changed?
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
File was posted with the same license.

So where is the violation in copyright?

Thanks, JMvanDijk (talk)

I'm not Jim, but I'm here so I thought I would lend a hand. Wikimedia does not allow "NonCommercial" images because they want to be more openly sharable than that. So Any NonCom licenses are not acceptable here. That's the way it's done and has been done for quite awhile. Hope that helps! Nesnad (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Nesnad has it right. Read the lead line on the Main Page -- you might also read Commons:Licensing. Finally, note that Commons actually does not qualify for Non-Commercial. There are very few uses that do qualify:
Personal web sites that do not carry advertising, do not promote the owner's business, and do not solicit contributions,
Non-profit organization web sites that never solicit contributions (Wikipedia asks for money, so fails this)
Use in schools that do not charge tuition or fees
Use in printed materials that are given away free and do not carry advertising.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

5 images

Dear Jim,

Could you review these 5 images from Mushroom Observer?

I hope that you can help. Its Five..and no more. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Can you review them Jim please? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done That's probably the most interesting batch you have given me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank You so much for your help and your time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Categorization by month, year, and French department

Hi Jim- I just discovered someone is making a lot of what look to me to be quite unnecessary categories. Do we want cats like this?: Category:April_2007_in_Saône-et-Loire. Eric talk 00:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello sorry to intervene, this widely extend the actions of "someone", there is likely hundred of hundreds of similar categories made by dozen or hundred of different users since several years, and that concern all countries. With luck Commons:Structured data will be the end of this kind of intersection categories. Meanwhile it's a ranking system like any other. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I might support categories similar to this of two general sorts:

  1. April in Saone-et-Loire. -- (without the year) usable for people who are making calendars or who want to know what kind of weather to expect.
  2. April_2007_in_Saône-et-Loire -- as a subcat of the first, but only if something notable happened. I don't think the fact that any of the photos in this category were made in 2007 is important -- in April, maybe, but not in April 2007.

Note that the subject cat is a subcat of both Category:2009 in Saône-et-Loire and Category:July 2009 in France, both of which are wrong as it is neither July nor 2009. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for taking a look at this. I try not to pay too much attention to what I see as overcategorization in the Wikiverse, and I'm aware that this set of categories is just a drop in the bucket. But when I come across a campaign in progress, especially one that appears to be prioritizing edit count over edit utility, I like to bring it to the attention of others so that it can be nipped in the bud if appropriate. While I'm not convinced that the time-in-geoname scheme is useful in general, I agree with the month being more significant than the year. The structured data project looks promising. Eric talk 13:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korea Presbyterian Theological Seminary Extension Lectures with Prof. Ha, Seung-Moo(2015).jpg

  • Hi! Jameslwoodward. I am Korean poet & Pastor Seung-Moo Ha(ransah1963). My official site is All files are my own. Please visit and confirm that it is my file.Ransah1963 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ransah1963, you may comment at the deletion request. A comment here does little good. Also please note that removing a {{Delete}} tag from a file is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete it?

(John M Brady)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Brady (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

As noted, because it came from a web site with an explicit copyright notice. Please remember that we cannot assume that you are actually the John M Brady who owns the web site -- identity theft is common here, so policy requires that when an image comes from a copyrighted site, the actual copyright owner must send a free license using OTRS.

However, there are two other issues with the image. First, it is illegible, so it is out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose. Second, it appears to be largely advertising for the John Brady Web site, so it probably violates Commons policy on promotional material.

The same comments apply to all of your uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks re 'why delete cognitive bias codex etc)

Thanks for this. I understand and will remedy and repost. Keep up the good work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Brady (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

John. regarding "will remedy and repost". I think you understand the rules here, but let me be very clear to avoid any misunderstanding. It might be OK if you post new versions of one or more of the images at much higher resolution -- or a smaller field -- so that it is legible. That's providing you avoid looking like you are advertising your site.

On the other hand, it is never OK to reload the same image that has been deleted. You may appeal deletions at Commons:Undeletion requests, but reloading images is both against the rules and pointless, since we never actually delete anything, but simply hide it from sight of all but Administrators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

220 cognitive bias poster / guide

Understood. This is most helpful. Thanks again for the guidance, Jim.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Brady (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi Jim. You warned this editor about recreating deleted content at User talk:Remitache#Please do not recreate deleted content. I'm wondering if they went and did it again per User talk:Remitache#File:Logo Olympique Gaulois.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but Yann has deleted it. He's not very active,so I'm going to ignore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Understand and thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Sidney Reilly.jpg

Hi again Jim. Can you tell if this file is the same one which was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sidneyolder.gif? The extension is different, but it might the same based on en:File:Sidney Reilly.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same photo. I deleted the subject file because the source was a Stanford site which has © Stanford University. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

8 final images

Dear Jim,

Could you please license review these 8 final images by me please? Most are quality images and/or photos of species which don't exist on Commons.

I appreciate your help here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  Done Another fun bunch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank You Jim. These are my last uploads from M.O. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


Hey Jim, whats with deleting my personal commons wiki? :(

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Robert McCallum (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 April 2018‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

I deleted the gallery page Cameron Robert McCallum which was out of scope both because it was a single image gallery and because user pages are not permitted in main space -- that is, you may have (as you do) User:Cameron Robert McCallum, but not a gallery without the User: prefix. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay Jim, thank you very much.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Robert McCallum (talk • contribs)

Undeletion requests

dear Jameslwoodward I am writing to ask you if I can restore files concerning unknown artist paintings, which have been deleted, unfortunately I am not allowed to make a request on the page concerning the recovery topic :(--Franco Beltrame (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Augochlora pura (36581766763).jpg & File:Augochlorella persimilis (23508828068).jpg

Dear Jim,

Can these images be passed without an OTRS ticket since the license is PD-Mark? I am doubtful....but the images are said to be PD. This is just an inquiry. There is also a request not to crop the image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello, regarding the "no" crop request, it is fine, the template said "If you crop it, please save the new image separately, and do not overwrite this one.", if I miss nothing that is exactly the meaning of what is said in our policy. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help Christian. I have passed the images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
To answer completely Leoboudv, I think your review is fine, there is no much doubt that the author(s) of Insects Unlocked put their images in PD. It is written at several place (user page: "we produce insect imagery for the public domain"; watermark, ect..). Maybe that the PD mark at source of those files (at first view almost others are CC0) is a kind of little mistake (or lack of knowledge). On Flickr you can chose "Public Domain Work" or "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)". The option "Public Domain Work", when you chose it, is not very clear that you put "only" a PD Mark, so if they are several users on the project it's very possible that one of them has make a little mistake by clicking the first option. But IMO there is no doubt that the account owners has dedicated the works to the public domain, what is the definition of this tag. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Глеб Самойлоff & The MatriXX 10.10.2015 (2).jpg

Dear Jim,

Do you see any permission or license here for this image? I don't see it or know where it is. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Secondly would you pass or fail this image below? South Carolina can hold copyright over the images of their counties but the former governor's office licensed it as PD-Mark.
  • File:Governor Haley and Christy Hall.jpg

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

a) No. "VK © 2018"
b) As you know, we do not accept the PDM without other evidence that the work is free. South Carolina works are not generally free, see Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  • That is what I thought but when it was from the Office of South Carolina, I wasn't sure. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This Suggestion

Dear Jim,

Do you know how to place all this uploader's PDM images in this Category in a mass deletion using a bot. He has hundreds if not a thousand such images here. Just curious since this uploader's secondary account was blocked too.. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response -- I've been away. Perhaps you could do this with VFC, but I don;t know. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Drone panguan mapping.jpg

Dear Jim,

Would you know how to mark this image? I don't know its precise license but maybe you do. Its either CC BY SA or Copyright free if... Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drone panguan mapping.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You Jim for your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Undelete request - File:Bhadrakali Mishra.jpg

Dear Jim, Requesting an undelete as the photo is actually under my ownership, as written in the photograph, and is allowed to free use for non profit and non business means. Grateful if you could undelete. Thank you. --Himalayanbullet (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

At the Undeletion Request which you made for this image, I said:

" First, "It can be freely used for non profit purposes" is not acceptable on Commons or WP. Images here must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Second, unless you are the actual photographer or have a formal written license from the actual photographer, a "photo ... from my own archives" is not yours to license. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photo does not give the owner the right to license it."

That pretty well covers the situation. First, the permission you give is not sufficient for Commons. Second, you apparently don't understand that, as I said, owning a paper or digital photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the photographer or his heirs.

Or, put in different words, you don't have the right to freely license the photograph and, even if you did, the license you offer is unacceptable for Commons..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Jim, for your answer. I appreciate you taking time. The photographer released all rights to the photo to me for any usage. I take note of the incorrect categorization: I shall have the photo cleared for all usage. At this point, should I reupload with the correct category? --Himalayanbullet (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not upload the image again. Since we never actually delete anything, but merely remove it from public view, uploading the image again wastes human and computer resources. In order for the image to be restored, either the photographer must himself send a free license using OTRS or you must send a free license together with evidence satisfactory to the OTRS volunteer who reviews the case that the photographer has given you a formal written license or transfer of the copyright which allows you to license the image for use anywhere by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. The e-mail will reach the head of the OTRS queue in about 175 days. Then, if the license meets Commons requirements and is approved, the image will be automatically restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim. I will follow your suggestion and write to OTRS with the details. I appreciate your help and advice. Many thanks, --Himalayanbullet (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Your views

a) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carlos Bernardez.jpg
b) With respect to what? The image looks like it is in scope. It's probably not US Gov, but Ottoman Empire might apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • With respect to everything. (I was basically compl... asking your intervention in rename; as I'm sure the pic will be kept. I understand that is your vote also. :) --E4024 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • User:E4024, see COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? #4. Files should not be renamed as long as there's an open deletion request. Also: Whenever someone renames a file during a deletion discussion, the closing admin very often ends up keeping or deleting the redirect instead of the file, and the file is left with the {{delete}} tag present. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Hey Stefan, it's so good to learn these things! Of course I'm not a filemower, therefore ignore these details. Would you mind lecturing one of the admins also on this issue? Indeed only after seeing that rename I dared ask one for a clear typing mistake. Of course I don't know if we have one standard for me and another for, say, some other users... Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

These pictures

Dear Jim,

The link for these old pictures below terminated long ago and an internet archive search does not exactly show this image--if anything at all but since it is claimed that the author died in 1905, aren't they OK to pass in a review?

There are a few more such images in the license review page but its the same situation as described above. What do you think? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Eadweard Muybridge died in 1904 and they were published in the USA in 1887. Therefore they are PD everywhere in the world, I think. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • That's what I needed to hear. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook permission pictures and a wikia images

Dear Jim,

The first 4 images are facebook permission pages but I don't see a permission statement. Do you have access to facebook? The last is from wikia and there is a license at the bottom of the webpage but I don't know if the image can be passed. Do you?

Uploader Stemoc just retired from Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As a rule, images taken from Facebook require a free license from the copyright holder via OTRS. The last image, however, is OK -- there's a CC-BY-SA license at the bottom of the source page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You Jim. I'll pass the last one and tag the rest as no permission. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually the last image was released under CC-by-SA version 3.0 [6], so I changed and re-reviewed the licence tag. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Euro coins

Is it okey to upload 2€ commemorative coins as per today? Commons:Deletion requests/Euro coin uploads of User:Pacosa is it possible to recover those files? I'm trying to improve our List of commemorative coins in Spanish. Triplecaña (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

While the common side of Euro coins is PD, there is no reason to believe that the national side is freely licensed in any of the member countries. Therefore, their images cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I am reading all I can about this topic. But COM:EURO is too vague depending on the country. For example Latvian euro coins are allowed thanks to {{Latvian coins}}. In Spain (my country) our central bank states the following: "To reproduce any euro coin [for advertising purposes], authorisation must be requested from the General Secretariat of the Treasury and Financial Policy. As a general rule, reproductions must conform to the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of Law 10/1975 of 12 March 1975 on the Regulation of Coinage." That's what I could find. I think there should be a warning like {{NoUploads}} or similar in those countries that is not possible to upload coins. Triplecaña (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
{{Latvian coins}} is restricted to currency that is out of use since 2004, so it does not allow uploads of Euro images either. De728631 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed UDR

About this clossure.
The discussion is not over. I want to add the following comment:

The issue of copyright in Romania after 1989 was dealt with in Law 8/1996.
The current version of the text of Article 149 (3) is:
"The duration of exploitation rights on works created by deceased authors before the entry into force of this law and for which the terms of protection have not expired shall be prolonged until the protection period provided for in this law. The prolongation shall take effect only from the from the moment when this law enters into force."
The initial form, the one in 1996, is without a "not" particle, but this is not relevant. Relevant is the last sentence.

If the law retroactively restored architect's copyrights to published derivative images, we would have witnessed numerous processes in which they would have requested compensation. Lawyers would have had their interest in supporting them. Such trials did not happen in Romania; the judicial practice did not reconstruct the copyright of the architects on the derivative works before the law came into force (practically 1996 - 5 years = 1991). I believe that the judicial practice in Romania should say what to do, not other considerations. This can be done simply by respecting the Decree 321/1956 without any additions.

The discussion here does not intend to lead to a correct decision about DR, but to establish a way of action in accordance with Romanian legislation, which differs from the general routine here.

Freedom of panorama in Romania is another subject, which we can discuss if we establish where we can do it.

What is the procedure to continue the discussion? --Turbojet (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no procedure for continuing the discussion. I think you need to accept the fact that the community consensus disagrees with you. In fact, no one has supported your position.

The architect died in 1964. At the time of his death the copyright term was 50 years pma. Therefore, his copyright for the building was still in force in 1996 when it was extended from 50 years pma to 70 years pma. It will expire on 1/1/2035. Note that there was no "retroactive restoration" which you mention. The copyright for the building was in force at the time it was extended under the 1996 law.

Therefore, while the image itself may or may not still be under copyright, the image infringes on the architect's copyright for the building and may not be kept on Commons without a free license from the architect's heir.

As for your comments about " Lawyers would have had their interest in supporting them," the absence of court cases proves little or nothing. Lawsuits are expensive. Except for flagrant violations that produced considerable profits for the violater, damages from a copyright infringement action are likely to be minimal and are very unlikely to be enough to pay for the cost and time of the lawsuit.

You say, "reconstruct the copyright of the architects on the derivative works". This is a misunderstanding of the law. The architect never had a copyright in the derivative works, so there was no reconstruction. The architect's sole right, now held by his heirs, is to prevent publication of derivative works without a license from him or his heirs. The heirs have that right until the copyright expires and it applies to all derivative works, past, present, and future. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The community here is accustomed to other laws and rules, different from those which were in force in Romania. That's why they did not support me. The consensus of a community can not act against the law of a country simply because they believe that these laws work like those of theirs.
Yes, architects did not have copyrights on derivative works, and this right was created in 1996. It has been clearly stated that the law is not retroactive, which you do not want to accept. Initially, the law was meant to be retroactive, but that could not. The images that were not protected before 1991 remained unprotected. You think you are right, but you do not. By suddenly closing the discussion you have shown your nervousness, which is a defect for an administrator. I understand now that the world is afraid of you here, but you can not be allowed to make your law. We'll talk again. --Turbojet (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Turbojet: At Wikimedia projects, it is the community of editors that decide which content can be restored and which should be left deleted. If there was no support for an undeletion of this file then it shows two things: first that nobody except you objected to the deletion, and second that there was no interest in restoring this particular file even if it were legally correct. Jim did not make his own law by closing your request but he interpreted your arguments as well as the general disinterest of others. Calling this nervousness and a defect could be interpreted as a personal attack at Jim, so please be careful about your wording. People here didn't care for the image to be restored, so you should just drop the argument and go on editing or uploading. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, we'll see what the WMF says about the right of the community to decide here against laws. --Turbojet (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Turbojet: If there are additional arguments that were not considered, those would be grounds for another undeletion request. I would agree this discussion was still ongoing, so I would have preferred it was not closed it at the time. We could also have a discussion on the talk page of Commons:Freedom of panorama if there is a particular quirk for Romania.
However -- you mention Article 149(3). That specifically talks about the duration of rights, not the scope. Whether or not architects would have derivative rights over photographs would be a question of scope. Article 149(3) would mean that the photographic copyright did not get renewed, since it was expired by then, but since the architectural copyright was 50pma in the earlier law, it still existed and was thus extended by Article 149(3) (even when allowing for the missing "not"). As I mentioned in the undeletion request though, article 146 explicitly applies the scope of the 1996 law to works of architecture. The 2006 law changed the wording (at least the English translation), but it's there as well. Article 154 repeals the old law, so that any exploitation acts which happen 1996 or later are covered by the rights in the new law. If the old copyright expired, fine, but if it was prolonged, it would seem the scope would be according to the new law. And if the *current* law means that photos are derivative works of the architectural copyright, then the photo's status may have changed in 1996 and any new exploitations would seem to be a problem. It's entirely possible that we are missing something, but you did not address that question.
As to the lack of copyright cases, yes that is true for most countries -- there are only a couple that seem to confirm the existence of a problem in the EU, but since those do exist and seem to confirm our interpretation, we would assume Romania is the same.
I suppose the big question would be article 149(1): Legal acts concluded under the former legislation shall produce all their effects according to that legislation, with the exception of clauses that provide for the transfer of the utilization rights in any future works that the author might yet create. That seems to say that any existing exploitations would continue under the old law. But the thorny question would be if the architect's copyright only covers photos made since 1996, or does it cover any *new exploitations* of old photos as well. Uploading here would be a new exploitation. But if that means that any photos before 1996 are not covered by the new architectural rights, that would be more interesting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You have several misunderstandings. First, you seem to think I don't want to restore this image, "by suddenly closing the discussion you have shown your nervousness, which is a defect for an administrator". Nothing could be further from the truth. Commons is enriched by good images and I sincerely regret every good image that is deleted. I would have been very pleased if someone had come along with a good reason why the image was PD, but that didn't happen.

Second, you say "suddenly closed". Again, that's not the case. The community has decided that we will keep UnDRs open for 24 hours. This one was open for more than two weeks and there had not been a new comment in 24 hours.

As for the question itself, your argument is not clear. I really don't understand why you want to make this simple case complicated. The building had a copyright from the moment it was designed. That copyright was in force in 1996, was extended by the 1996 law, and expires in 2035. The copyright gives the architect and his heirs the right to prevent the publication of derivative works. Again, that right existed under the old law and the 1996 law. The postcard infringed that copyright, but, as I noted above, that kind of thing is common because it is expensive to sue and, perhaps, the heirs either didn't see the postcard or decided to ignore it.

You say "Yes, architects did not have copyrights on derivative works, and this right was created in 1996." No. The creator of a work has no copyright on derivative works. As far as I know that is true everywhere, including Romania. The 1996 law did not change that. You say, "It has been clearly stated that the law is not retroactive" which is correct but irrelevant. There is nothing here that requires the law to be retroactive. The only relevant part of the the 1996 law to this case is that it extended copyright from 50 years to 70 for copyrights that were still in force in 1996, which this one was. It did not extend copyrights which were more than 50 years old and less than 70, but that doesn't matter to this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

upload that will probably be questioned

I have sent an email to the current Museum's library asking for permission for this file to be here: File:To_accompany_A_manual_of_bird_study.djvu

I was hoping that perhaps you could let me know what to do to prevent it's deletion until such time that the librarian(s) get back to me. I would like to avoid taking a dive into the discussion of it (aka FunkyTown where they talk about it talk about it talk about it, hmm hmm) if and whenever possible.

To me, the only truly copyrightable part of the pamphlets are the images which were drawn long before Mickey Mouse and before the glint in the eye of Sonny Bono's father and the whole thing is not a problem. But, I claim no expertise on this.

Advice? Methods?

Thanks. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First, The AMNH cannot help you as it is very unlikely that it owns the copyright to the pamphlet published by the Comstock Publishing Company. Second, you seem to forget that the first copyrights were not for illustrations, but for text -- see Copyright Clause. The date of the illustrations is irrelevant if the text is post 1923, which it is.

However, you are lucky. I searched the USCO renewal records for 1954, 1955, and 1956 and did not find this. Therefore it is {{PD-US-no renewal}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Getting lucky in Funky Town! Truly, I understand that the copyright rules are not based on my feelings; I just don't know where to look and verify. Gutenberg is probably going to publish the main document of this series within the week. Thank you so much for your time and attention to this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tammie Jo Shults photo

Hey: I reached out to the office at MidAmerica Nazarene University via email and asked for permission to use the photograph under a CC-BY-SA license. The email I received back from Carol Best states,

"Mr. Patrick,

I’m responding on behalf of the university. Attached is the original photo we have used both like this and cropped. It may be higher resolution than what you have. I am confirming permission for a CC-BY-SA license. This was taken at a university luncheon at which Capt. Shults spoke to a group of alumni. Please credit Kevin Garber, MidAmerica Nazarene University.

If you have other questions please let me know.

Carol Best Public Relations Manager"

I am the former General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. In my experience, some folks are happy to share photographs with the projects once they understand why it is difficult for us to use whatever happens to be laying around in the interwebs. In this case, Ms. Best understood the ask, forwarded me the photo, I cropped it and uploaded it. I think you will agree with me that it is not a copyright violation, and I would appreciate you letting the photo stand. Thanks.--BradPatrick (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort here, Brad. Having left us some time ago, you may not know that the current rules require that the copyright holder must send the license directly to OTRS and that OTRS does not accept forwarded licenses. In view of your relationship to the organization, I'm willing to waive that, but I think we need the e-mail in OTRS. Please send it there and come back here with the ticket number. I will then promptly restore the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2017 Bible in Tongan - Cropped.jpg

Dear Jim,

This is a simple question. Is this 2017 bookcover design too complicated not to be copyrighted...or is it generic? The uploader does not make anything thing up in his description. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Bible in Tongan - Cropped.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help on these image. I have replied in the DR. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Summons file deleted from Guildford School of Art wiki page for wholly spurious motives

Please note that if as claimed a summons were copyrightable then Wikipedia is already in breach.

I have submitted a copy of a summons which is my private property and which someone claims (based on no cited legislation) to be copyright.

Conclusion. Please have the person claiming this file to be copyrightable cite the relevant English legislation. He or she cannot since none exists. Then please ensure the file be repositioned on the page as it was.


Peter Farrell-Vinay

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterFV (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.


First, the fact that other pages exist on Commons which should be deleted is irrelevant. We have 46+ million images here and my best guess is that at least 1% of them, perhaps half a million, should be deleted. We are all volunteers and do the best we can. Feel free to tag the one you cite for deletion.

Second, although you may own a paper copy of the summons, owning it does not give you the right to freely license it. You surely understand that you cannot make and sell copies of a book that you happen to own -- that right belongs to the author of the book. The same is true of the summons -- the right to freely license it belongs to the author, which, in this case, is the Crown.

UK Crown Copyright lasts for fifty years, so the document is under copyright and will continue to be until January 1, 2019. You may request its restoration at Commons:Undeletion requests next year. However, I doubt that either of the two PDFs will be restored even when they are free of copyright because they appear to be out of scope.

Finally, I don't understand or like the tone of your message. It has been three years since the page was deleted, yet now you come here out of the blue and falsely accuse me of "wholly spurious motives". My motives are simple -- to help Commons be a great collection of media files that are freely usable for any purpose. The subject image does not now meet that standard. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying to understand your action

Hey! Jim, you recently deleted a page Gaurav Sharma (author) that I created on commons. I did not get why that page was deleted. And please let me know if it is possible to restore it. Thanks Dial911 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As I noted in the deletion comment, all of the images are tagged for deletion as probable copyright violations. The page can be restored if at least two of them are kept when the DR is closed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks Jim for explaining. Dial911 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hon Kathleen Wynne MPP Premier of Ontario.jpg

Dear Jim,

Th2 image her originates from the source and there is a clear declaration that it is PD and "may be copied, cropped and distributed." But there is no mention of Commercial use. Is the PD declaration good enough to pass it? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I, too, thought about that when I saw it. I think that the declaration on the source page covers it, " Images are public domain and may be copied, cropped and distributed." That seems to me to amount to a CC-0 license -- once you have declared that a work is PD, you cannot revoke it and it may be used for any purpose without attribution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You Jim. I will pass the image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:A forest in the south-east of poland in july 2017 photo 1.jpg

Dear Jim,

Before you leave can I ask you if we can trust 'free images' from this site? I only asked because I have been admonished for passing other images from other sites such as this DR where I passed the image that I assumed was free but evidently is not. I'm not paranoid but I'm being more cautious. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If we Assume Good Faith, the watermark in the lower right seems to give us a PD image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank You Jim for your comments. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Jim

I would thank you for your hit on my talkpage about uploaded images having derivative copyright (i.e. the model owner must via ORTS to give the rights before CC). I note that you are in the beautiful States, but I am in Singapore and the model is a Singapore model. It must be noted that Singapore copyright laws msut then be placed into consideration.

After reading Copyright Act, Current version as at 28 Apr 2018, Singapore,

Buildings and models of buildings 64. The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. [Aust. 1968, s. 66]

read in conjunction with

Publication (3) For the purposes of this Act — (a) the performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work; (b) the supplying (whether by sale or otherwise) to the public of records of a literary, dramatic or musical work; (c) the exhibition of an artistic work; (d) the construction of a building or of a model of a building; or (e) the supplying (whether by sale or otherwise) to the public of photographs or engravings of a building, of a model of a building or of a sculpture, shall not constitute publication of the work.

( COPYRIGHT ACT (CHAPTER 63) (Original Enactment: Act 2 of 1987)

REVISED EDITION 2006 (31st January 2006)

Conclusion: The derivative rights seems not to be applicable. I'm not a lawyer but these seems to be reasonable grounds for it to be kept.

Hope you can take action and may God bless us

--Quek157 (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Quek157. Although I have close to a half million actions on Commons, I learn something new almost every day. Singapore's exception for architectural models is, as far as I know, unique. Other countries treat models as sculpture. To the extent that other countries allow photographs of them, it is under freedom of panorama, which requires permanent installation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

welcomed. Do take note that Singaporeans are usually photofrenzy, which many people will take many pictures of models. And we are a country that construction is a great part of manufacturing in turn GDP so there are way too many models and projects. The development of Singapore never ends. So the provision will give some relief to us who tend to take pictures of models. I also learned this aspect of our laws via this incident and opened my eyes. Phew, another deletion saved. (My first is one CSD attempt on wikipedia). Have a good day. --Quek157 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gordon

I wonder when you delete these things if you edit wikidata also?

The page was intended to be a pointer to the publications. Is it only galleries here?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Galleries. As you will see, Commons galleries are reserved for collections of images. Lists of works belong in WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I read Commons:Galleries and it did not answer my question. A rephrasing of my question would be "Are there only galleries and categories here?"--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I will read this, what about wikidata? I ask because, I can check it -- however, this is (supposedly) a collaborative effort and at the commons, the needs of all of the wiki's must be considered. So, I ask politely and I assume the later.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Commons is a repository for media files -- images, audio files, audio-video (movie) files. There is no place on Commons for catalogs of works such as the subject file. That belongs in an article on WWP:EN. Since there is no such article at the moment, I suggest that rather than worry about the subject page, that you write and post at least a stub article there.
I do not understand your question about Wikidata. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
With the exception that I really dislike wikipedia-stubs, that is probably good advice. With a reminder or prod from you, I could have easily gotten back to the gallery and added some title pages, but I confess, I have not looked at the definition of collaboration in a while.
About wikidata: I pointed the wikidata entry about Gordon to the gallery (and I called it a gallery, so my bad for where I was heading this exchange to yesterday). That link showed up at the Author page at wikisource. When I used to delete and move things, it seemed to me that part of the responsibility was to look to the other wiki's. That is not something I know from the dictates here, however.
The works have more images than words. More images than historical or territorial import. More images than credibility or accomplishment. Arguably the images, in a matched set because they do go together very nicely, have more of a future than the words. This is just my mindset on the matter; having worked on the maintenance and presentation of the collection on and off for a decade or so and also coming here, as a user of the collection -- the graphic artist and media-sorter wants ease at finding the materials.
Without knowing the definition of collaboration, I try to collaborate the way I would like to be collaborated with. I keep going back to that idea, because it would be nice if we could find a middle ground which is not about enforcement and victimization and doesn't require me to spend so much effort attempting not to be sarcastic and mean-spirited with the inuendo and comparisons.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Look at what wikidata can do [7]. It is beautiful and it seems like magic to me. One little template and all of the worlds common names for okra show up. Good magic.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, Commons is for media files. Two of her books have galleries here, see Category:Elizabeth Gordon. That is an appropriate use of Commons galleries. WP, and other projects, are for catalogs of works.

Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new pages every day. Around 2,000 of them are deleted for one reason or another. A dozen Admins do most of that work. We tend to work very fast because there is a growing backlog. A bot takes care of removing deleted pages from other projects (or is supposed to -- if you have found that it doesn't, please report it at bugzilla.) .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will go delete the wikidata link myself. Or perhaps remake the gallery with the obligatory title pages, if that is not offensive to you. The bug report would be for a reasonable time, ie, more than a few hours, to see if the wrong-minded gallery becomes not wrong-minded, before the software will delete. Or a polite instead of rude bot that gives notice and a time span for repairs. And all you will have to do is to mindlessly delete. Thanks for your time.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

RaboKarbakian, the major reason that Commons Admins cannot give the sort of personal service that you would like is that there are nowhere near enough of us. Every few months we lose one and then another of our most active Admins because they get tired of taking gratuitous complaints from users. If you don't want to be part of the solution, at least don't be part of the problem -- stop using "mindlessly delete" and other similar remarks and give some credit for doing the best we can with limited resources. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. A misunderstanding, I think. When I write software, it is to allow me to mindlessly accomplish tasks. (It is taking a while to determine the software cmds for the journal I am working on right now, for instance.) It is a goal for software. I appreciate the help you gave me finding a license, previously.
SO. It appears that this means you will indeed take it personally if I re-create the gallery in question then. I have refrained and restrained and will continue to do so.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. As I noted above, two of her books already have proper galleries here. I would be happy to see a gallery for Elizabeth Gordon, but it must be a proper gallery -- a collection of images with very limited text. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

DR categories

Back in February you posted this and I just happened to review it. So when I look at the first chunk of archived deletion requests in this category they seem to be affected by the categorising I used that you scolded me for. So do I need to wait until the individual deletions are closed before adding the category, or do I have to add the "noinclude" tags each time, meaning I can't avail the HotCat system? TIA Ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion query File:Mime.jpg

Hi Jim.

I learned from this page that you deleted this file from Wiki (also plesee see below). I am seeking to purchase the copyright for this picture. Do you by chance know who is the author?


Sorry, no. I know nothing beyond what is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mime.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Jim. Welcome back. The title is not for you, needless to say. I was going to write it in English to show how it sounds when one is addressed like that, but I thought better to leave it in Azeri. According to the Ekşi Sözlük: son of a bxxxx. (Ask Google about the Turkish text "Azericede orospu çocuğu anlamına gelen küfür"; the second definition at that TR dictionary. The first definition is -somehow- even worse.) That's only how I'm greeted, kind of like "hey you, there", to begin a civilized discussion. Later comes the "qehbe" ("kahpe" in TR), the vulgar w-word for prostitute in TR and Azeri; then we have a burning skewer that the "user" wishes that they introduce into my body -from behind. Enough? All is because I created a DR. No Turkish or Azeri speaking admin available to read and understand this ... by themselves. My "censured" translation was not accepted. (What if I wrote everything openly? Do we need to see if the prepositions or adverbial clauses are used correctly?) Indeed, it was full of orthographic mistakes, worse than my English, to be able to provide a directly sourced translation. (Have you ever heard that Google sucks? Even translating between Spanish and English, forget Azerbaijani.) As an established user, it hurt me as deeply as those words not to be trusted by colleagues. In Spanish they say "la duda ofende"; sorry I don't know what the English equivalent is. That is where we are. Ah, and the offender -sorry- "fucking" us with false translations. (I'm surprised they did not say "whore means assume good faith", "son of a bitch stands for let's discuss this in a civilized manner", "the burning skewer was meant to invite you to a shish kebab".) Look, Jim, I have complained formally about a user for the first time in Commons, not because I give a damn to what they say about me, but my recently passed away mother is sacrosanct. If this is let to go like this I may feel obliged to leave Commons, a place where I love to cooperate. Regards. --E4024 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. While I was considering to send or not this message, a minute ago I received a "f" message on my TP.

About Nakagita Yoshiaki's works

This is Jotzmann, and as a real name Nakagita Yoshiaki. For some reason I did not want to show that Jotzmann is equal to Nakagita Yoshiaki. But to let everyone understand those 2 are a same person, not for deletion the files I have uploaded, I edited those files' author again. But there are problems that how I can prove Jotzmann is Nakagita Yoshiaki, and Nakagita Yoshiaki is me. (Jotzmann)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotzmann (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You must send a message using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong file deleted?

I am confused about the history of File:My father and me.jpg. I wonder if it was deleted by accident. For me as non-admin it seems the file discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandoji.Dawood khan was moved to a new name 22 December 2017 at 19:59 (and now requested for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Memories of my life - being my personal, professional, and social recollections as woman and artist (1907)) while the one you deleted seems to be the one discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sandlapper1709, where it was decided to be kept.

I have not been following my watchlist lately, so did not get any notice at the time of deletion. It is very frustrating to try to reconstruct what has happened without access to the history of deleted file. It is also very frustrating to notice a file I probably found worth keeping having been deleted as "personal files", with little possibility to see what file this is about.

I think those who argued for not deleting a file should be notified when it is nominated for deletion a second time, or about to be deleted without a new nomination.

(Please ping me, as I do not follow my Commons watchlist regularly for the time being.)

--LPfi (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The file is both an unused personal file and a probable copyvio, as the uploader is the subject of the image and there is no evidence of a license from the photographer. The file description says that the author was the uploader's father, but since the father is also in the image, that is unlikely. Even if the father is the author (self-timer?), we still require a license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Indian army photos

Hi Jim. You deleted a number of files per Commons:Deletion requests/Indian army photos because the licesing of the source website was not compatible with COM:L. A number of these have, however, just been restored under a {{GODL-India}} license. I'm OK with that if that license is correct, but that GODL license does seem to be in conflict with the information given on the actual source website. If the GODL is OK, then perhaps the remaining Indian military photos which were deleted per the aforementioned DR and other DR for the same reason. It seems that these files were restored per COM:UDR#Files deleted by Jameslwoodward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

pretty british book

I uploaded File:The story of hedgerow and pond.djvu before I read the warning in the category because it was such a pretty book. Maybe it will still be here for you to delete when you get back.

Lake Superior is very cold, even in August....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Railfreight sub sectors.svg

Hi Jim. Could you take a look at en:WP:MCQ#Trainload Freight logos and clarify whether the files being discussed there are the same as the ones you deleted per this DR? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scupcinarii - ilustratii de S.Mutzner.jpg

Hi, can you please undelete this image temporarily? It is needed for a deletion discussion at rowiki. Gikü (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of my commons image

Hi, Jim. I am afraid I simply cannot understand the complexities of why you apparently deleted the image I posted to Commons, or how to fix the problem. My fluency on Wikipedia is limited. The history of this issue can be found here:

The only copyright that may exist regarding the text on this marker would be common-law copyright, in which case I am the owner. Please help me figure out how to follow the proper process to un-delete the image.

Thank you kindly.

--Bmankin1 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bmankin1: This was restored nearly 5 years ago, so I don't understand what you want. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Sorry. For some reason I viewed a page where it was absent. Apologies and thanks for your quick response. --Bmankin1 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding the "vector version available" when it won't match.

So, I've been doing some work over on the English Wikipedia Hazchem page. So the article's header image is an old JPEG diagram of a sign from 2006. It was tagged at some point for upgrade to vector for somewhat obvious reasons.
However, there's a dilemma, the original image is only sort of what a Hazchem placard should look like. The format is correct of the boxes is correct, but the color, text proportions/size, the radioactive placard are wrong. I made an more accurate version that I intend to replace the current image with, but I don't know that I can call my new one a 'new vector version' of the old file.
--The Navigators (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken this to the help desk, since it seems you are still intermittently active. I hope your trip went well.--The Navigators (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete my photo?

I took the photo myself when Ted came by our TV station to be interviewed. It was not a screen shot, but a photo I personally took. It was also deleted from Commons. I was on the road for 18 months with limited internet access during the time it was deleted. I just noticed it today. Phil Konstantin

File:SanDiegoChickenByPhilKonstantin.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to navigationJump to search This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:22, 2 December 2016 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) deleted page File:SanDiegoChickenByPhilKonstantin.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/Mascotts in de.wp) (thank) (global usage; delinker log) No file by this name exists, but you can upload it.

How are you?

Hi, how are you doing? You are being missed. Kind regards, Jcb (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg

Hello, James.

Sometime in 2016, you closed the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg saying that we need proof that this file is {{PD-USGov}}. Well, the image appears on a site, saying "State Department photo". Isn't it enough to conclude that it is a work of a State Department employee? Razvan Socol (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jameslwoodward/Archive 2018".