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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward


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.


Contents

De-adminship warning (Feb 2019)

This talk page in other languages:

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

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

UDR

Hi Jim, It is nice that you are back. ;o) There are several old undeletion requests which would benefit from some inputs. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann. I looked over all the UnDRs and decided that I could not be useful on some of the older ones. However, since you ask, I will look again. Best, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Friedrich Distelbarth, Briefkonkordanz.pdf

Hi Jim. The file was/is actually in use (see de:Spezial:Linkliste/Datei:Friedrich Distelbarth, Briefkonkordanz.pdf). --Leyo 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

PDFs should never be in use on WP. Policy requires that text from them be set in Wikimarkup and images appear as images and not part of a PDF. The reason fro deletion stands -- it is essentially unusable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Jim, I think you are wrong. Your postulation that PDF content has to be converted into wiki text is actually an argument against deletion, because the PDF is then needed as reference source, also, if the PDF were converted into a JPEG or PNG. Also, I am interested what policy you refer to. Next, a quick search showed me that there are over 2000 embeddings of PDF in dewiki and over 3000 in enwiki, all wrong? Also, why is there the page parameter for file embeddings? For PDF and DJVu files! In other words embedding of them is not at all forbidden. — Speravir – 19:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats where one of the types of PDFs that is not permitted is those where:
"The content is essentially raw text; such files are not considered media files. Note that scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance are not excluded on this ground, even if they contain no images."
This fits that prohibition exactly, as it is simply a short paragraph of description and a table, all of which should be set in Wiki Markup.
As for the existence of other PDF embeddings, I suggest you read Other stuff exists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the policy link. I had the impression your answer was very general, so my reaction was it, too. I cannot refer to the image because I cannot check this. And in general your “PDFs should never be in use on WP” is not correct. But let’s close it here. — Speravir – 00:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Mozaïekwand stukje voor stukje verwijderd.webm

Can you please verify in the DR that it was published under a cc-by license Vera (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The YouTube license for the video was indeed CC-BY, but that is irrelevant. The reason for deletion is that the video is a derivative work of the copyrighted tile and there was no evidence of permission from the tile's creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mercedes-Benz Vision Tokyo, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A1904).jpg

Hello Jim, glad to see you. I think that the car shown in the photo deleted has an engine. See this article, section "Drivetrain". Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That article also discusses the holographic projectors 80.90.193.161 11:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The press release included in the article (from which the drivetrain comment is made states: "The bodyshell of the Vision Tokyo has been designed to allow the crash-protected integration of a fuel cell-powered electric drive system. This is based on the trailblazing F-CELL PLUG-IN HYBRID of the F 015 Luxury in Motion and combines the on-board generation of electricity with a particularly powerful and compact high-voltage battery that can be charged contactlessly via induction. The use of pressure tanks made from CFRP is envisaged for the storage of hydrogen in the concept car" (my emphasis) I suggest that this concept car does not actually have an engine (or fuel tanks) 80.90.193.161 11:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Although there is some ambiguity in the article and press release, we have:

" Like other concepts such as the Nissan IDS Concept and Nissan Leaf Autonomous Concept, the Mercedes Vision Tokyo Concept is moved by electric motors and is capable of fully autonomous driving."

in the present tense. I think we can safely keep the image. Christian, what do you think? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, though the sentence is indeed a bit ambigous, the general meaning tends rather to let us believe that there is this engine, rather that there is not yet an engine, in my opinion. And this "ambigus way" is even maybe a chosen communication technique from Mercedes-Benz, who know? not to reveal too much can be a commercial strategy.
The fact that they have specifically designed the car to be able to use an already existing teknology, does not mean that there is not yet a propulsion system inside it. This may be an information that mean exactly of what is written, not more not less, namely the vehicule "has been designed to allow".....
The F-CELL PLUG-IN HYBRID, which is supposed to be used on this car, is indeed using hydrogen. A concept car, like all other vehicles, can be modified and improved, and in some sense this is maybe even more true for a concept car. I guess they have the right to envisage alternative and better solutions to store the hydrogen. And I guess too that Mercedes-Benz envisage also to make improvements and changes to their entire range of vehicles, it's logic. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Images took down

The licences for each of the photographs has been changed to creative commons so can now be re-instated.Moylesy98 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:TN Governor BillLee.jpg

Hi. You recently deleted this file. The claim was that TN doesn't release their photos into the Public Domain. I couldn't find any mention of copyright on the tn.gov website and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States doesn't mention TN. Could you tell me where I can find confirmation that this file wasn't PD, so I don't make the same mistake again? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

With your experience here, I'm surprised at your question, Gbawden. Fundamentally, everything is copyrighted from the moment of creation until the copyright expires. There are exceptions, particularly for certain government works, but in order for an image to stay on Commons, the uploader must prove that the copyright has expired, there is a valid exception, or that the copyright holder has freely licensed the file. Therefore, as a general rule, nothing modern that you find on the Web can be uploaded unless the site has a license on it or a specific exception applies.

It is true that the Federal Government and several states, notably California and Florida, do not claim copyright in any of their works. Even in those cases you must be careful with portrait images -- many portraits appearing on government Web sites were taken by private photographers who hold the copyright.

Note that the USA had different rules before the 1976 Copyright Act came into effect -- notice was required and copyright did not begin until publication -- but none of that can affect anything created post 1989.

Commons firm statement of all this is at COM:NETCOPYRIGHT:

"The vast majority of images found on the internet are copyright-protected and may   not be uploaded. The fact that an image has been posted to a publicly-available website does not give you implied permission to re-use it nor to upload it here. Many websites are silent on copyright issues, but images on those sites are just as off-limits as those on sites which explicitly say "Copyright, all rights reserved". Works are copyrighted by default; a copyright notice or a © sign is not needed."

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is File:Nordica lend Varssav- Riia.png really not a copyright violation?

You recently closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nordica lend Varssav- Riia.png Kept claiming "no valid reason for deletion". Would you mind expanding on that, given that the picture consists mostly of imagery from Google Maps, with a photo and an advert that have no indication of being freely licensed? I would simply have renominated it, but the "Nominate for deletion" link says I should contact you first. --bjh21 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: The same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tallinna lennujaama tõestus Helsingi- Malmi lennujaam.png. --bjh21 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I went a little too fast through the 35+ DRs posted by the user who wanted all of his work deleted. As you say, these should have been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

en:File:Installationcasparini.JPG

Hallo Jim, I wanted to transfer en:File:Installationcasparaini.JPG to Wikimedia Commons. Could you help me? I' m first trying this and I don't no how to do this exactly. Many thanks --Passauer Andreas (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I know there is a one step way to do this, but I do it so rarely that I have always downloaded the file to my computer and then uploaded it from there, using the Upload Wizard. If you want to learn the one step way, ask at Commons:Help desk .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnqyu's image

Hi Jim, you delete my picture(Ydzhu.jpg). Why? please advise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnqyu (talk • contribs) 2019-02-19T19:01:13‎ (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 claim that the image is "own work", that is to say that you were the photographer in 1931. While that is certainly not impossible, that was 87 years ago. Are you really over 100 years old? If not, then please do not make incorrect claims of "own work".
More likely someone else was the photographer and he, or his heirs, owns the copyright. It is also possible that the copyright has expired, but in order to determine that we would have to know where the photograph was taken and if and when it was first published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Because this is my grandfather's picture. He was my mother's father. It was taken by my mother's oldest brother. So please undelete it. Thanks. Johnqyu (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnqyu (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This was handled at Undeletion Requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with copyright issues

There was a picture File:Aethelthryth-Head.jpg that was deleted, and you said that in order for an image to be kept on Commons, it must be free for any use, anywhere, by anyone, including commercial use. When someone publishes his photo of himself, he has the copyright of the picture. But what if he want it to be published in some blog or page or Wikipedia page? How his own copyright interfere with his wish to be in some Wikipedia page for example. What I have to do to publish a photograph of a man that is published on his own Facebook profile, which is in the public space and nobody except than him holds the copyright of that picture, and I have the permission to publish his pictures. What I have to do to make this happen? Thank you, have a great day! -BeckMega (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

First, please understand that in almost every case, the subject of the image does not hold the copyright or the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer. This is true even if the subject paid the photographer for the image. It is also usually true even in the case when the subject is a public figure and has paid the photographer for a written license to use the image for his own marketing -- such a license does not usually allow the subject to freely license the image as required by Commons.
Second, please understand that many images on the Web are published without any regard for the rights of the photographer. Many Facebook images are photos taken by friends or even professionals, and posted by the subject without permission of the photographer. Commons, though, has a strict standard. We try to ensure that all images here are, as you quoted above, free for any use, anywhere, by anyone, including commercial use.
Therefore, in every case where the image is under copyright and the uploader is not the photographer, as I said at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Graffiti

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banksy 28 October installment from "Better Out Than In" New York City residency.jpg: First off, Banksy is not known. He/she is infamously pseudonymous. By your logic, most everything in Category:Better Out Than In, Category:Banksy in New York City, Category:Banksy in New Orleans, etc., should be deleted too, no? I'm not going to throw a fit or anything, I'm just frustrated that I keep being told that these are okay, and then others say they're not, and meanwhile the policy pages leave it all very vague. I won't be uploading graffiti anymore, that's for sure :) Thanks for helping me understand. I'm trying to do the right thing. Kind regards, MusikAnimal talk 05:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Including File:Banksy Corner Grey Ghost B Clio.jpg which was uploaded by an admin. Sorry if I seem upset; I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are, as it seems there aren't any that I can rely on. MusikAnimal talk 05:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright law is complex and varies from country to country and the humans who administer it here have different understandings of the law. Much of the time there is no case law, so we are doing our best to figure out what would happen if the case did come to trial. None of this should be surprising -- how many US Supreme Court decisions are unanimous?
There are several areas where our most experienced editors often disagree -- FOP is one of them and the question of whether a copyrighted object is de minimis in a particular image is another. Graffiti is a third.
I am uneasy with the rationale at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Graffiti (RSM). It seems to directly violate our Precautionary Principal (PRP):
PRP (1) "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to."
RSM:"the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright"
PRP(4) "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."
RSM:"in many cases the artist is unknown"
It also assumes that an illegal work does not have a copyright. That is not my understanding of the copyright law -- none of the lists of copyrightable works in any of the laws that I have read mention illegality as a disqualifying feature.
Note also that both RSM and {{Non-free graffiti}} reflect this unease. Neither of them say that graffiti is clearly free for upload.
So, the bottom line for me is that I am just barely OK with keeping anonymous works of graffiti, but in cases like Banksy where the artist is well known and whose works are valued highly, I will move for deletion. Note that I fully understand that "Banksy" is a pseudonym. There is a long history of pseudonymous works having copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough reply. My apologies, "pseudonymous" is probably the wrong word. Banksy is anonymous, they just have a pseudonym they go by, as their real identity is intentionally kept secret. It would be an alarming twist of events for them to come out and seek legal action, in any regard, as their entire career revolves around an illegal act.

I do not mean to give you a hard time, but what about the hundreds of other imagery of Banksy's works in the United States here on Commons (see categories I linked to above)? Do they need to be nominated for deletion one by one in order to come to the same conclusion you did with my upload? This doesn't seem to be analogous to nominating articles for deletion on content wikis, where the text and subject matter varies greatly. Here it is the same scenario -- high-resolution documentation of Banksy's work where there is no FOP. Surely you understand the frustration... especially since the image you deleted was explicitly kept by another admin at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Better Out Than In.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sticker art in New York City. These images (or at least mine) were of a completely unknown artist who doesn't even have a nickname. The subject was w:Toynbee tiles, and every image you see in that article also lives here on Commons, along with entire categories of similar images.

Everyone has a different opinion. The question is... what do I do? I've already committed to no longer uploading graffiti, so I am asking hypothetically. What would be your recommendation? And what would you expect me to do if other admins tell me it's okay (which they have, repeatedly)? Who am I supposed to trust? I have no interest in nominating the other images for deletion, nor do I have any animosity against you or your beliefs, nor am I pleading for you to restore the image you deleted. It just seems to me that if we, as a project, can't agree on graffiti where there is no FOP, then I think we should err on the side of caution and disallow it entirely. Right? At the very least, be consistent. Thank you again, and apologies for my tone. MusikAnimal talk 23:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No apology at all is needed -- you are perfectly polite, even though frustrated. I can offer you little more in the way of help. Note the ambiguity of the two pages I cited above. Neither says that it is OK, simply that if you upload a graffiti file, you should put the ambiguous template on it and see what happens. I don't go hunting for FOP or graffiti files to delete, although I will use my judgement if they come across my screen. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg

Sorry my doubt, but i dont understand your rationale. If, as you write, "Commons follows Bridgeman and therefore there is no reason to delete this", and this is image of a 2d painting with almost 500 years, then why did you deleted this image? Tm (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Working too fast and pushed the wrong button -- thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Ok, no problem. We all make mistakes from time to time. Thanks for your undeletion and quick answer. Tm (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Dalbergia cultrata

Why did you delete the category Dalbergia cultrata? It's an important IUCN near-threatened species over-exploited for its wood, subject to CITES import/export regulations: https://www.cites.org/eng/new_CITES_trade_rules_come_into_effect_as_2017_starts_02012017 I uploaded this file to start the category, but you deleted the category before it could be recognized: File:Dalbergia_Cultrata_Seeds_and_Seed_Pods.jpg. This category is exactly analogous to Category:Dalbergia_nigra , which also has only one image but is important in the fight against over-exploitation of tropical hardwoods.

I intend to upload further photos of Dalbergia cultrata as they become available.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JJLudemann (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (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 didn't. I deleted the single image gallery page titled Dalbergia cultrata. You forgot the prefix "Category:". Since I now know that you intended to create a category rather than a gallery page, I have restored your work and moved it to Category:Dalbergia cultrata. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

NOAA technical report

Hello Jim, is a NOAA technical report, whose author is not a goverment employee, in Public Domain? The report is there, and the author is John H. Day, a South African scientist. I ask because the article countains scientific drawings about species of which we have no or few illustrations. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say not. He starts the report by saying that he did the research while working for Duke University and is, as you say, named as RSA scientist, so, despite the NOAA imprint, I don't think it's PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok thank you very much for your observation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

New Version

Hello Mr. Jameslwoodward, I am writing to ask you for a favor of overloading a new version of an 18th century portrait. look at the current uploaded file, it's too small. I had found this old file deleted in the past, and I was thinking about asking you if you could kindly take this old file and override it on what exists now???--87.14.89.224 20:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Although that might be a good idea, I was not the Admin who deleted the image, so I cannot restore it by myself. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

could you ask then to restore it?

and if you compare the two source links the news describing the portrait is identical.--87.14.89.224 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


Reaction to the deletion of Files_uploaded_by_Juudjethailand

Dear Jim, This feels like unfairnessː someone asked for deletion of some Files uploaded by Juudjetailand for reason A, on which I responded, and after a while they are deleted for reason B. If I would have known that a lack of categories would have been a deletion reason (there are many thousands of files needing categories), I would have added categories to all of these files. And I know for sure that at least one of them did have them (File:Overlevingskansen geslacht leeftijd 31102018 103619.png), because I did so. Would it be possible to undelete them and give them categories yet? JopkeB (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that my closing comment was "Per nomination" and the lack of description and categories. I note that you added Category:Demographics of the Netherlands to one of them, but even that is perhaps too general a category to be useful. As a general rule, I and most administrators, will look at the entirety of a file and keep or delete based on that. Certainly I do not propose going through and deleting all files that do not have useful categories, even though they are lost and useless among our 52+ million files, but when I see them for other reasons, I delete them. There is no reason why you or editors other than the uploader should be taking valuable time fixing mistakes in files that may or may not be useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The first part was enlightening. I am still learning about WMC, day by day. The second part, about files of other uploaders, puzzled me. The Welcome page of WMC invites people to participate, not only in donating files, but also to give time to categorizing files and thus fixing mistakes in files that may be useful. And in most cases I care about files that I have categorized because I find them worthwile. So in spite of your opinion I'll conintue spending my time to fixing mistakes in files of others that I think to be useful. I thought that was the whole idea of WMCː storing useful files and information about them, and everyone can contribute in one way or another. JopkeB (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. Certainly if you come across a file that would be valuable if it were properly categorized, by all means do it. What I would discourage is using time to categorize files of uploaders who have given us hundreds, or in some cases, thousands, of files with no cats and no description other than the file name. That simply encourages them to upload more and files without categories are useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Delation of Relaga.jpg

There is a misunderstanding .

I am French 82 old , and not so fluent in English. I am completely lost with your abbreviations.

I did not know that when you delete some graph you seem to have no knowledge of the written text where the graph refers .

I renounce ! Perhaps take a look at my discussion page in french wikipedia. Chessfan (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SO? I am 75 years old and not as fluent in French as you are in English, Chessfan, but what part of my closing comment:

"Hand drawn graph with no caption, no useful description, and no categories. Out of Scope".

don't you understand. We have more than 50 million images on Commons. Images without categories and descriptions cannot be found, so they are useless. Works such as this should be machine generated, not hand drawn. The page on Commons Scope, which I linked, is available in French. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This hand drawn graph is uniquely associated with my text "Relativité et algèbre géométrique". You deprive my very few readers of useful graph. That's all ... Chessfan (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no article with that title on WP:FR. As I said above, images without categories or descriptions are not useful and we do not generally keep crude, hand drawn graphs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
See : Discussion utilisateur:Chessfan Chessfan (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I see where the image was. That is not an article, it is a talk page. Using it for an article is inappropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I have the right to add a graph to my talk page ... ?! Chessfan (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC) That was part of a discussion I had concerning the article "la dilatation du temps". Chessfan (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the rules at WP:FR -- it would not be allowed on Commons or WP:EN. However, the question is moot -- Commons does not keep crude, hand drawn graphs with no categories and no useful description. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I feel "no hand drawn graphs" is too restrictive. Chessfan (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pizza+Pasta (Tübingen)

Hi Jim, sorry, I didn't upload the pictures for the new category immediately and I understand why you deleted it in the first place. Now they are there: Category:Pizza+Pasta (Tübingen). --Dktue (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dktue, I deleted Pizza+Pasta (Tübingen) because it was an empty Gallery, not a category. You forgot "Category:", twice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I didn't realize that! --Dktue (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of my uploaded files

Hi Jim,
I have asked for the undeletion of the following files owned and uploaded by me:

I contacted https://elliniko-greek-rock.blogspot.com where one of my files appeared without a free license, and they took it down.
Can you restore the deleted files now or I could upload them again with the proper license?
Thank you!

--Badelitsis (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, to both questions.
I cannot restore files deleted by another Admin. You could ask User:1989 if they will do it.
You may not upload files a second time. It is both a violation of rules and a waste of resources.
If 1989 is unwilling, as they probably will be, you should file a request at Commons:undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
They made a request already. It was declined with you advising to them to have the copyright holders email COM:OTRS. -- 1989 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. --Badelitsis (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Christian Science Monitor

As a followup (actually, I just forgot to copy a comment from VP to that DR) Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/01 has specific positive evidence of their renewing copyrights on that type of material in that era. Though as you say, we don't know the actual original that was used for the Maparium and it's pretty hard to search the records of that era. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

500px

Commons:500px licensing data, so this is an absurd comment Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "From81" and decision. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

First, let me suggest that you tone it down a bit. The fact that I am unfamiliar with the peculiar license situation at 500px is nowhere near "absurd". Such remarks are not helpful on Commons.

Second, I went to Commons:500px licensing data and tried the method described there on the first of the deleted images with no success. I then tried it on the example given there, File:Cereal Field At Sunrise (199200911).jpeg, searching in the 500px source code on "href="https://creativecommons". There were no results. Perhaps something has changed again at 500px or perhaps Commons:500px licensing data needs a clearer and correct explanation.

I also note that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses require that the license designator, either literal or icon, and the attribution, must appear on each use of the image. The fact that 500px buries it in their code makes their use of the images a copyvio and casts doubt on whether there is really a CC license in effect at all.

In any event, the principal reason that I deleted the images is that the modifications made to them make them artworks by an artist who is not notable, so they are our of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Children around

Hi. Can you please stop the IP playing with Category:Hamza? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:RogerChape02.jpg

Thanks for closing the discussion, but there was one more version of File:RogerChape02.jpg that needs to be deleted. this version is a copyvio, taken from https://www.lance.com.br/corinthians/corintiano-desde-crianca-roger-mira-estreia-com-brincadeira-carille.html.

Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I want to tell you that you shouldn't use “no valid reason” as a reason to kept those outdated/improved file. I had made some of the maps in svg format and I could not upload it in png format, thats why I wanted to delete them because the svg version of the map actually is a duplicate version, thank you. *angys* (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, we do not delete older maps when newer ones become available. That is particularly the case when the older map is a PNG and the newer one an SVG. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

is it possible to get a copy of this image

This image was previously deleted on 17th March, and I've been using it on my own website for the school at https://spsdarj.org.

I was not aware of the pending deletion as I would've saved a local copy of it myself. If possible, could I get the image via email or any other means?

Thank you,

Abhinav paulite (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I replied to your email. But I guess I can just post it here. [snipped for privacy]

thank you, Abhinav paulite (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Governour_DKI_Jakarta_Djarot_Saiful_Hidayat.jpg

@Jameslwoodward: Why did you erase the image after clearly there were 2 Keeps and no supports? Even the nominator did not response anymore after facing opposition. Please explain the reason and please return the image. Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it relying on the cite from Patrick Rogel which said that Article 43 applies only if there is no copyright notice. After you note above, I read Article 43 and see that the cite is wrong. The law does not say that there is no copyright, but that it does not infringe the copyright to use the image. This is similar to the situation with FOP where we honor foreign FOP even if it would apply in the USA. Thanks you for reopening the question.

Note, by the way, that DRs are not votes. Admins are required to use their own knowledge of the law and circumstances so the fact that several people wanted to keep the image is not relevant..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Utrecht klein2.png

Hi Jim; you deleted that file giving the reason "This appears without a free license at https://provincieutrecht.d66.nl/content/uploads/sites/209/2015/12/Utrecht_klein2.png " - however, as that URL ("...2015/12/...") suggests, the file was probably uploaded there in 2015. The Commons file was uploaded here in 2012. So it can't be taken from there, I think? Rather the other way round? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Strange. The map that I cited and you cited above is the same as the original map with this file name. However, on January 22, 2019, before the DR was filed, Mario Bronkhorst prvutr uploaded a new map. I'm not sure why I called out the old version in my closing comment. Am I missing something?

Anyway, take a look at the latest deleted version. It doesn't at all look like an amateur work and has a watermark in the lower right, "ESRI Nederland AHN". It appears at: https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/algemene-onderdelen/serviceblok/english/province-utrecht/ with a copyright notice on an accompanying page (https://www.provincie-utrecht.nl/algemene-onderdelen/serviceblok/contact/proclaimer/):

"De provincie Utrecht bezit het auteursrecht op de tekst, afbeeldingen en films van haar websites. Niets van deze informatie mag gepubliceerd, verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar worden gemaakt zonder schriftelijke toestemming van de Provincie Utrecht, behoudens wettelijke uitzonderingen."
The province of Utrecht owns the copyright to the text, images and films of its websites. None of this information may be published, reproduced and / or made public without written permission from the Province of Utrecht, subject to legal exceptions.
translator: Google

Dutch government works are free of copyright unless there is a copyright notice, which is clearly the case here. Your thoughts? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I feel a bit confused, too, because I think I haven't previously seen the file uploaded by Mario Bronkhorst prvutr on January 22 at all. I'm not sure how that's possible, as you correctly note that this new map was uploaded before the DR was filed, but I only remember seeing the completely different map that was previously there, uploaded by NeoRetro, and my comments were referring to that map. I completely agree with deleting the new map, but still think that the older versions can plausibly be the uploader's own work. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The DR was about the earlier version. Before I filed that DR, I removed the later version, for being both a violation of COM:OVERWRITE and a clear copyright violation. I hope this clears up the confusion. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Jcb. Jim, what's now your assessment? I think we all agree that the latest version was rightly deleted (by Jcb), but for the earlier, different files, your deletion reason doesn't really seem to apply (as the 2015 upload to a site outside of Commons was later than the 2012 Commons uploads). Gestumblindi (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Photo-barbarian

Crash and burn, but at least be correct.

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Canadian_Senator_Paula_Simons.jpg

In Canadian law, official photographs of Canadian officials published on their official websites do not hold copyright since they are paid for by public resources. So what gives you the right to demand my contribution be deleted?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canlawtictoc (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 March 2019 (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 don't know where you get your version of Canadian law, but our summary at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated_list C-D#Canada clearly states that government works are subject to a fifty year Crown Copyright. Further, as clearly stated in the DR you reference above, images from the source of this one are limited to Non-Commercial use, see https://sencanada.ca/en/important-notices/ about halfway down the page. So, either Crown Copyright, or free for non-commercial use, but no evidence that such images are free for any use.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that throwing out things like "Photo-barbarian" and "at least be correct" is counter-productive. Since it appears that you are the one who was incorrect here, it also reflects poorly on you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding file deletion request

File:Luukharleman-profiel-foto.png Small image, no EXIF -- all five other uploads by this new user are clear copyright violations . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the concern, yes I am new here. Questions regarding your deletion request:

What is meant with EXIF? What is small? Too small? And about the other 5, these business profile logos are uploaded on their behalf with explicit approval. I thought Id follow the right steps. Cheers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuukH87 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 April 2019 (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.

Thank you for the polite inquiry. I will try to answer your questions clearly, but if you do not understand, please ask again.

EXIF is information about the image that is embedded in the file. See for example today's featured picture, File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpg. At the bottom of the file page you will see "Metadata" and a table with various information about the image generated by the camera at the time it was taken. Not all images have EXIF -- scanned paper photos may or may not have EXIF from the scanner and older photo-editors do not save it. Since most images found on the Web do not have it, lack of it is an indication that the image is not actually the uploader's own work.

Small size is another indication that the image was lifted from the Web. Few images on the Web are posted at full camera resolution because for a modern camera that will be much larger than almost all screens. So any image that is less than perhaps 1,200 pixels on a side is certainly suspicious and anything less than full camera resolution raises a question. If you downsized the image before uploading it, please remember that Commons wants images at full size, whatever that may be. Our software sizes images as required as it loads pages.

Finally, there is the fact that your username resembles the name of the subject of the image. If you, User:LuukH87, are actually the subject of the photo, then, unless the image is a selfie, it is not "own work" as you claim. The copyright owner is the photographer and they must send a free license using OTRS.

As for the logos, since we do not know who User:LuukH87 actually is, or what authority he has over the logos, policy requires that an authorized official (or officials) of the organization(s) owning the copyright for the logos must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, and much faster, the organizations owning the logos could add a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to their web sites. This can be done for the whole site or just for the logo. For example, the bottom of https://www.vaneeks.nl/ could be changed to read "(c) copyright Van Eeks All Rights Reserved except for the logo at the page top which is CC-BY".

Put briefly, with a very few exceptions, in order to upload an image without using OTRS, it must be:

  • An image for which you were actually the photographer
  • An image that appears on the Web with a free license where it is obvious that the person posting the image had the right to freely license it.
  • An image for which the copyright has expired or there is no copyright in both the country of origin and the United States.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC) I see thanks for your response, I guess a bit more homework for me to do before I upload :) It seems clear though I need to do some research how the exact process goes. Thanks again, appreciate it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuukH87 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 April 2019‎ (UTC)


File:Perun and Veles create the land.jpg

Are you sure it is deleted, because it is out of scope? Being supported by citations from several literature sources? Based upon a request from some freak who couldn't give any reason? The Wikimedia Project definitely drifts in a wrong direction.

I always have seen this as an open project that severs to give people deeper understanding of some ideas - like here in case of the slavic mythology. Well, I was wrong. Sad.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pborys (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pborys (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perun and Veles create the land.jpg, Commons does not keep artwork from artists who are not themselves notable. As a general rule, "notable" means that they have an article on one or more WPs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

it said it could not save my edits last time I tried to save this. So I am resending it Slides for deletion.

John, I have moved your comment to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Jawiki_bsa where any discussion of the DR must take place. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emergency Resource List for Los Angeles, California.pdf

Hi Jim, happy Easter from here in Asia...I am the author of the Emergency Resource List for LA. I uploaded this emergency resource list and it's my link to academia.edu. PeabodyB is just my user name, not my legal name. This is a Wikicommons upload only with a page dedicated to emergency response. Best, Aron

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 April 2019‎ (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.

And Happy Easter to you , also, thank you. OK, that answers the copyright question, but not the scope question. I don't think it is something we should keep, hence the DR. As a newbie, you may not realize that we keep a very limited number of text files in PDF and those are almost all images of notable out-of-copyright books. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jameslwoodward/Archive 2019".