User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2022

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Request to associate category page and WIKIDATA

Hi Jim, You very helpful the other day. Thank you very much.

A new problem has arisen. Unable to associate category page with WIKIDATA.

• Category:Taken with Vivitar ViviCam 55

wikidata:Q110321846

• Category:Taken with Vivitar ViviCam 7122

wikidata:Q110321848

I think there was a problem with the operation at the time of creation. Can you fix it? I'm sorry to have troubled you many times.--SetoMonamer (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry -- I have never done this and don't know anything about doing it. Try the Village Pump. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand it well, so I'll remove the infobox tag for now.

Thank you very much.--SetoMonamer (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the Bot has fixed the problem.

Thank you very much.--SetoMonamer (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Akureyri Cathedral windows

Through email correspondence with J. Wippell company, I have confirmed that the author of the stained glass windows discussed during the recent UDR was James A. Crombie (1913-2000) http://stainedglass.llgc.org.uk/person/640 2070s for restoration aligns with the URAA date. So should I put 2071 as the undeletion date on Commons:Deletion requests/Akureyri Cathedral windows?

Kinda humbling to consider that this is something that only future generations will see the benefit of. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I like the fact that Commons take a very long view of things -- one of my kids might possibly live until 2071, but my grandkids could see it. Yes, 2071 seems like the right date -- PMA 70 in the UK and Iceland, while the URAA date would be 2069 assuming the 1973 date is correct. I'll reopen one of the files and add your information for the benefit of the person restoring it in 2071. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Arnold Schönberg Variationen für Orchester op. 31 excerpt.mp3

Jim, you closed the undeletion request for File:Arnold Schönberg Variationen für Orchester op. 31 excerpt.mp3 as "Not done" but the file is still live. Is this an oversight and you intend to delete the file, or by "not done" do you mean you decided that the evidence that the US copyright to both the musical composition and the sound recording has not expired to be inadequate? —RP88 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. Oversight on my part -- usually, when an UnDR is closed as "not done" there is nothing further to do. so I didn't delete the file again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg

It has been reuploaded again after you deleted it. Bidgee (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Aerial of The Hill School Quad.jpg

File:Aerial of The Hill School Quad.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Clear Copyvio from the website) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : MySmallPP.

And also:

• File:CT Scan of Dale Mahalko's brain -- in Second Life.jpg ( Nominator : MySmallPP | Reason : Clear Copyvio )

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Formula in Astrophysics'

Hallo!: sorry, I don't know how to write this as a mathematical formula, but I had someone making an slide of it, in the end, is same. You seem sharing the hebrew insanity of considering the best good they can do is attacking offenders, the worse they think offense is, and the harder the punishment they apply, the more saint they feel. Formula comes from the book by JJ Benítez, Spanish writer, specialist in UFO, published in his 1970s book '100.000 km tras los OVNI', '100 thousand km after UFO', and was reportedly being a communication from an alien, explaining the way they could make interstellar travel. For sure is intresting, and I have no other way to dd this. Please revert your hard decision. Blessings + — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caula (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 February 2022‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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, I suggest you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Formula in astrophysics.jpg as the formula is not correct in any case -- it has unbalanced parentheses. Second, if you don't know how to to something, ask for help at the Village Pump -- don't simply do something that is against the rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Gallery page

Hi. I am sorry for creating gallery page for documents, I thought that it was routine because I saw Cheops (poem). HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm -- I think the difference is that the Poem is not simply plain type on a page -- it is elaborate typesetting and illumination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of the file or image File:Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo.jpg and the gallery as Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo

Hi @Jameslwoodward, I would like to request that you consider restoring the image that has been deleted. The image is registered in Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 by the same author and can be verified at the following link: https://www.safecreative.org/work/2103157180996-interior-exterior. Image link to restore https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jorge_Luis_Diaz_Granados_Lugo.jpg

It is not a copyright violation, no law is being violated and it is not taken from any social network as you indicate (Facebook). Therefore, cordially consider the restoration of the image, The image has been registered by the same author, however, it can be used freely under the terms of Creative Commons, therefore, the removal of the image has been a mistake. On the other hand I also ask you to consider the restoration of gallery wkimedia commos https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Diaz_Granados_Lugo Since it was not finished and another image was going to be added under the same rights as the previous image.

Greetings and kisses 😘 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichellDasilva (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@MichellDasilva: Hello. Please note that Wikimedia Commons does not accept licenses with non-commercial and no-derivatives limitations. All uploads here need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial exploitation and modifying of the original work. That is why your image was deleted although it came with a Creative Commons licence. Please see also our licensing rules. That said, it does not make sense to restore the empty gallery. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @De728631@Jameslwoodward, the image rights have been updated in the registry database, you can already use the image and restore, it has no restrictions of any kind, it can be remixed, transformed and built on top of the material for any purpose, including commercially.

MichellDasilva (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Request or permission to create or re-upload File:Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo.jpg as well as its category

Hello @Jameslwoodward, he cordially sent you this message to request to create or restore () that has been deleted by his person. The image and its registration of rights has been updated to be of free and commercial use without any restriction, and I request your permission if you do not have time to restore it, to re-upload the content again as to create its respective category. Of course, this time there will be at least two or three photos so that the notice of (GA1) is not placed again or it is wrongly indicated that it was taken from a Facebook social network (F1).

Links: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Diaz_Granados_Lugo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jorge_Luis_Diaz_Granados_Lugo.jpg

Registration link and commons rights for public and commercial use and attribution: https://www.safecreative.org/work/2103157180996-interior-exterior

And I ask your permission in advance to avoid possible sanctions, blockages or misunderstandings. My apologies for the inconvenient. 😘 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichellDasilva (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

Apparently you are not aware that when an image is placed on Facebook, the EXIF has a distinctive Facebook ID number added, so that my statement that the image was taken from Facebook was entirely correct and easily proven. Since that is clearly the case, policy requires that either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT, or a person who has the right to freely license the image send a similar message. In the latter case, that must be accompanied by a copy of the written license agreement from the photographer giving the sender the right to freely license it.

I am sorry that we must be so difficult about this, but we get many fans and others who make false claims in order to put photos on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Jameslwoodward, Reading about image rights and VRT, I must say to clarify that my person has the exclusive right and authorized by the author himself to use said deleted image. I already told the author to contact the wikimedia permission email to verify the use of the image and to verify my exclusive permission, by the author himself. On the other hand when it is possible to verify the authorization of my person. By what means do I again request the restoration of the deleted image? Will I reopen a topic or contact you by discussion or mail? And thus restore the image definitively, correctly. MichellDasilva (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI: A related ticket exists: ticket:2022020910015235. But as of now this is not sufficient to restore the photo. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have contacted the author again, I suggested as commented by him to do it well this time so that they accepted his photos, he tells me that this time he did it correctly the ticket is 2022021010005814 MichellDasilva (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It is recorded here on wikimedia that the real author of the photos had all the necessary means to contribute by providing their images for public use, updated the records of their works so that they are Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, provided metadata and EXIF ​​information, submitted a version of the final image with the same computer data, He contacted the people of VRT. but Wikimedia decided to reject the contribution of the author in question. It is worth mentioning that the same image was deleted by the administrator Jameslwoodward indicating in his first template that the photo was taken from a social network, in this case Facebook, Likewise, also indicated in his clarification that this photo did not have the right of public use. However, now that the photo has full public use rights the administrator AF Borchert - who has been in continuous contact with the real author of the images, Rejects the author's contribution because it is still not enough. It is confirmed here in wikimedia, the effort of the person who wants to contribute by contributing their works for public use, but Wikimedia does not agree to receive or restore in any way the deleted image in question De728631. MichellDasilva (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no access to the email conversations between the author and AFBorchert. The latter being a trusted administrator and member of the Volunteer Email Team with years of experience, I have no doubt that he is able to handle this situation as is required to provide legal safety for both the author and subsequent users of the image. These email permission processes often several days to weeks, so it is no unusual for the image not being restored immediately after the licence was changed at the source website. Also per our rules for the volunteer email handler, AFBorchert may not disclose too many intricate details of the ongoing process. So all we can do is wait. De728631 (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Shared ticket by the author Ticket#2022021110010208, the last contact I had with the author of the images provided me with said ticket and informed me of the following. The author of the images got tired of trying in vain to want to provide his works to Wikimedia, due to lack of competition from wikimedia (conflict of interest of the VRT itself). The continuous objections, obstacles and setbacks exaggerated and exposed by the same VRT staff, have led the author of the works to decline his offer. He pointed out that he shared sensitive information to verify his identity, his identification number from his country, including a Screenshot of the Id of his verified account in safecreative, and the same administrator AFBorchert after receiving said information only responded by saying that it is not enough either and has left the benefit of doubt if the identity of the author is the real one or some impostor pretending to be him.

It is important to point out at this point that the author or any other person who has an account in safecreative, has the option to verify their real identity and to complete this process they will need their Personal Data such as identification data or passport from their country. This lack of competence and veracity of the Wikimedia itself has led the author to decline to contribute his works to it. The lousy management and the bad treatment received continuously towards his person have led him to make this decision. He specifically reported that they demanded one thing, then another, then another, and when there were no more objections, he was eventually denied his contribution to Wikimedia. To reaffirm the above, I provide screenshots or images of the author's safecreative account id, where it is clearly indicated that his identity is real, that is, that it is verified. And I also share the responses of the administrator AF Borchert who responded by refusing to accept the works despite all the effort Jameslwoodward De728631 Ontzak VRT.

Link to images https://1drv.ms/u/s!AszSNJVCO497cy8Do7Q7ORx_VWo?e=jG3OSM 😘 MichellDasilva (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don;t see what more I can do here. I am not a VRT agent. AF Borchert is a highly experienced Administrator and VRT agent. If he says that the artist has not properly identified, then there is nothing I can do. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Jameslwoodward, before starting I greatly appreciate your response for showing interest in this particular case.

Unfortunately, due to the inconsistency of the same or the matter itself, this case (Censorship) will be presented to the main headquarters of wikimedia with headquarters in San Francisco, California, by a deep intervention of the parties and resolve the rough edges or reach a mutual understanding.. What happens from then on will be the decision and rule of wikimedia itself from its main center. Thanks a lot. @AFBorchert @De728631 MichellDasilva (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Bandeira Demirromantica.jpg

Haven't you deleted this flag before? --Trade (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no record of a deletion under this file name and I certainly don't remember deleting it -- although that's not surprising since I've made 165,000 deletions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion

You seem to be the only one with a problem with this Journey896 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

As others are ok Journey896 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Question With what? -- I have no idea what you are referring to. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The busts but you've cleared things up with that now Journey896 (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper clippings The undeletion discussion [Ticket#2022031510008499]

I declared as authorized person mentioning all detail about those images of paper cutting and the artist’s photographs. As am Hasan Munawar son of Artist Qamrul Hasan Qalon (1949-2003) working at Qaswabdgallery for representing Artist Hasan Morshed who is my biological brother, all documents are all right received by me. I need your advice to go farther. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaswabdgallery (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

Some of these are clippings from a copyrighted newspaper from the 1990s. All are therefore under copyright, no matter where they are from. You claimed that you were the creator when you uploaded them. While that is plainly silly, it makes it hard to be sure that anything you say is accurate. In order for them to be restored to Commons, an authorized representative of the newspaper, which would usually be the publisher, must send a free license using VRT. I see that the first VRT ticket, 2022031510008499, has been rejected by the VRT agent. I also note that you have not described them or told us why they are notable clippings. If you do not do so, they will not be restored.

The last of them appears to be a poster. It's restoration will require a free license from its creator, also using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

File:MIkhail Benette Ranedo Ucat.jpg

Hi there! As the admin who closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:MIkhail Benette Ranedo Ucat.jpg, I'm wondering what your opinion would be on re-nominating it for deletion. The situation has changed since the last nomination: the uploader has been blocked for sockpuppetry here on Commons, and has been globally locked for disruption (I requested the lock). Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mikbenu90. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem; thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you accidentally deleted a royalty free image

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prinz_Ernst_August_und_seine_Braut,_Prinzessin_Victoria_Luise.jpg

The author is "http://www.zeno.org - Contumax GmbH & Co. KG" (see GEMEINFREI [Public domain] LINK)

The source: [1]

Colorization: me.

Please re-upload the picture. With Regards. --Jagdrevier.566 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Zeno is not the author -- it is the source. The author is the photographer. Since the image is clearly from around 1930, it is almost certainly not PD. It is certainly not CC-0 which you claimed when you uploaded it -- an image with an unknown author cannot be CC-0. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeking advice...

...on a deletion I requested and which you carried out. Back then the file page said that it was "courtesy of Ian Wright" but at some point a Public domain dedication was added to the website, akin to Template:Cc-zero . Now I am not sure if this is the website copyright tag sloppiness often seen, or if it may indicate that somewhere between 2020 and 2022 they got a copyright licence agreement with Ian Wright and the New Zealand organizations to release the files as CC-0. Where would the ideal place be for such a discussion?

There is also a similar image here that might have the same problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The license now shown is not CC-0, but simply the Public Domain Mark, which is essentially meaningless and not acceptable on Commons. All it says is that someone has decided that the image is PD, but that person explicitly does not warrant the correctness of the information. A PDM can be revoked or changed at any time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So, should this item be sent to a deletion request? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, although there may be some pushback. We don;t have a problem with the PDM if the author applies it, but that's not clear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the request is open now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to expand at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Rudy Atencio.jpg. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Foto Artística e Publicitária da Cantora e compositora Brasileira - Lanna Rodrigues.jpg

The work was not taken from the social network Facebook. On the contrary, this photograph has an authorial origin and, later, through a photography process with free and unequivocal authorization, its publication and dissemination was allowed, in any network, services and free sharing on networks. It has no commercial connection. It is used for free publicity of the Brazilian artist. That is, the images found “are in the sources”, but were not taken from these sources. They are on the networks or in any environment, after the free and public submission of our authorial origin, on behalf of Lanna Rodrigues (artistic name of Elane Martins Rodrigues), Brazilian singer and songwriter, of The Voice Brasil. Sorry for my english, I'm from another country.

MCF11 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

MCF11, when you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say that it came from somewhere else. If that is the case, then we need to be told the actual source so that we can see that it is freely licensed.

As for Facebook, the image ID in the EXIF is from Facebook, so at some point it was posted there. And, please note, that claiming you were the photographer when you were not is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward) - Sorry, you didn't understand, I wanted to say, I don't speak the English language for me to write at a high quality level. From another place, I was trying to say that, I'm in Brazil. The photo is from Brazil. Do you understand? I am responsible for the photo. I'll take another photo, new! Thank you for your support.

-

Desculpe, não compreendeu, eu queria dizer, não domino a língua inglesa para eu escrever no nível alto de qualidade. De outro lugar, eu estava tentando dizer que, eu estou no Brasil. A foto é do Brasil. Compreende? Eu sou o responsável pela foto. Eu vou fazer outra foto, nova! Obrigado por seu apoio.

MCF11 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Friends, preventing me from continuing to build my work, prevents me from being able to build the notoriety needed to be reviewed by you. I am learning, and making an effort to put the categories together. Not always fast enough, because alone I am building the tree, the algorithms, the data, the art, the writing, the independent research in Brazil, etc. In the coming days, I will build on top of the American Wikipedia, to maintain the necessary links, as it happens in the Brazilian Wikipedia. I ask for patience and support so that I can present more data, correct my mistakes and maintain the integrity of the information and the expected quality. Please help me understand what I am doing wrong?

You cannot inform and state and publicly disclose facts that offend the reputation of (someone), in this case this is called "Defamation" in my Country. The message that "Uploader made false claims of "own work" on other images" is wrong. ( Please review this information against my personal reputation. A misinterpretation occurred, in the facts I wrote as a reply in another image, due to the translation from Portuguese to English.

--

Amigos, impedindo-me de continuar a construir o meu trabalho, impede-me de poder construir a notoriedade necessária para ser revisto por vós. Estou a aprender, e a fazer um esforço para juntar as categorias. Nem sempre suficientemente rápido, porque sozinho estou a construir a árvore, os algoritmos, os dados, a arte, a escrita, a pesquisa independente no Brasil, etc. Nos próximos dias, vou construir em cima da Wikipédia americana, para manter as ligações necessárias, tal como acontece na Wikipédia brasileira. Peço paciência e apoio para que possa apresentar mais dados, corrigir os meus erros e manter a integridade da informação e a qualidade esperada. Por favor, ajude-me a compreender o que estou a fazer mal?

Não pode informar e declarar e divulgar publicamente factos que ofendem a reputação de (alguém), neste caso, isto chama-se "Difamação" no meu País. A mensagem de que "Uploader fez falsas alegações de "trabalho próprio" em outras imagens" está errada. ( Por favor, reveja esta informação contra a minha reputação pessoal. Ocorreu uma interpretação errada, nos factos que escrevi como resposta noutra imagem, devido à tradução do português para o inglês.

MCF11 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward)

Sir, I promise I will improve. I will start a new project with another photo, for your review and permission. Please do not distrust my reputation and my work. There is no reason to expose myself publicly, without good faith and honesty on my side. I thank you for your understanding, I apologize in advance for the misinterpretation on my part in this linguistic confusion.

Senhor, prometo que irei melhorar. Iniciarei um novo projecto com outra fotografia, para a vossa revisão e autorização. Por favor, não desconfie da minha reputação e do meu trabalho. Não há razão para me expor publicamente, sem boa fé e honestidade do meu lado. Agradeço-vos pela vossa compreensão, peço antecipadamente desculpa pela interpretação errada da minha parte nesta confusão linguística. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF11 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mehdi_Tehrani

Hi sir. About my pictures I do uploaded it's very clearly of copyright. You wrong. Before that this pictures in yesterday fixed and accepted by an one administrator. All pics have in public domain. Below the source Cleary in Persian language write this item.Plz back those pics. Thanks پاتريشيا67 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, as I noted in my deletions, they all appear on pages with a clear and explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text length and copyright

I can provide you some examples of non-copyrighted texts from Poland:

• official speaches by The President of Poland to the nation
• an official congratulation letter send by a major of a city to anybody (eg. on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of birth)
• a transcript from an official meeting in a city council (it may be protected as official secret, but not copyrighted)

etc. They are excluded in Polish copyright law from being "a work". Regardless of their length and artistic expression. I think, it is similar in US. In Iran, however, we may fall under PCP, if no futrther information. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ankry, we're talking about different aspects of the law. The discussion at UnDR revolves around the question of whether a letter can have a copyright -- any letter, not a letter from a government official. It seems to me that the answer to that question is a clear "of course". That's well established. I completely agree that letters from government officials are PD in some countries, including the USA. We don;t know about Iran. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Small pox pix

Dear Jim: I don't even remember why they happened. Probably in error. I don't make a lot of mistakes but I am super grateful when people catch them. I have been on a couple weeks of antibiotics which is why I haven't been as active recently. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ellin -- we all make mistakes -- as you say, not many, hopefully. No sweat.

I hope whatever you have goes away easily.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Jesus_Adib_Abi_Chedid.png

Essa foto NÃO pertence ao site do g1, ela é de domínio público da prefeitura de Bragança Paulista. Basta ler a descrição na matéria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raposa Bragantina (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 June 2022‎ (Raposa Bragantina) (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a general rule, when an image has appeared on the Web with an explicit copyright notice, as in this case, we require that the actual copyright holder send a free license via VRT. The file description says that the source and author of the image is "Prefeitura de Bragança Paulista", but does not give the source web site or any evidence that it is CC-BY-SA as claimed there, or PD as claimed above. In Spain only a very limited set of laws, regulations, judicial decisions, and the like are Public Domain, see

Public domain	This work is in the public domain according to Spanish Royal Act 1/1996, on April 12, about Intellectual Property, article 13, Legal or regulatory provisions and the drafts thereof, judgements of jurisdictional bodies and acts, resolutions, discussions and rulings of public bodies, and official translations of all such texts, shall not be subject of "intellectual property" That means that laws, resolutions and so, from the governments, parliaments and other public and official administrations of Spain, its autonomous communities and other public entities, are not eligible for copyright protection. As an edict of a government, it is also in the public domain in the United States.	Spain

. Photos such as this one are copyrighted. In order for this to be restored, you must prove that it is freely licensed by the photographer. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record: we are in Brasil, not Spain. (Raposa Bragantina) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raposa Bragantina (talk • contribs) 12:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

User:Raposa Bragantina, yes, my mistake, but the law in Brazil is much the same. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Taymur Streng

Hi Jim,

thanks for involving into a page for Taymur Streng, who was a fellow of mine. We both actually wrote the article on Wikipedia together. It was a purpose for Taymur to be represented as good and far as possible on the internet, including Wikipedia and Commons page. I can send you original mails from Taymur, who sent the shown works to me in february, when I asked for some files to be embedded in the Wiki-article. Here's an excerpt copied from our mail exchange, maybe that will be enough. All of the works are attached in the mail exchange for that reason, and if you send a mail to my address mimmimess@t-online.de, I can forward the relevant mails to you (or maybe screenshots from the original exchange, but I wouldn't know where to upload them ...):

" Fleißig );, ja mittlerweile entstehen fast täglich mehrere Takte, wenn ich zum bzw. vom Dienst fahre.. Zwischendurch kümmere ich mich um die Gestaltung von neuen Stücken, u.a. mit eigener Videokunst; stimmt Jitter sollte man evtl. einbeziehen PS: ich benötige Hinweise zur inneren Struktur des mxf-Formats, verwendet z.B. in Max8

VG TSt

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3wH1hnbxtN0TTT0xNtAq7MHkqW7AgB0T uploaded pieces via youtube.com (Taymur Streng)

last release: "digits & tentacles" www.taymurstreng.bandcamp.com

www.taymurstreng.de www.mixcloud.com/xaez_2 www.youtube.com/search?q=taymur+streng vimeo.com/search?q=taymur+streng

www.facebook.com/your.tstreng Am Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2022, 19:23:05 MEZ hat Mitzi Mess <mimmimess@t-online.de> Folgendes geschrieben:

hab mir jetzt um die 5 stunden oder so el ac reingezogen und jetzt reichts mal für heute. morgen gibts den rest. die ohren brauchen auch mal pause. hab den link noch an diverse andere weitergeschickt.

ne, hör ich zum erstenmal und fummel mich grad in den wikiartikel rein. vielleicht leg ich mir das mal zu ...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAPER

---

Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: AW: WG: Taymur Streng

Datum: 2022-02-16T19:17:29+0100

Von: "Taymur Streng" <xaez2000@yahoo.de>

An: "Mitzi Mess" <MimmiMess@t-online.de>

Kennst du cockos Reaper nicht? );

https://audioz.download/software/win/205086-download_cockos-reaper-v647-portable.html

VG TSt

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3wH1hnbxtN0TTT0xNtAq7MHkqW7AgB0T

uploaded pieces via youtube.com (Taymur Streng)

last release: "digits & tentacles" www.taymurstreng.bandcamp.com

www.taymurstreng.de www.mixcloud.com/xaez_2 www.youtube.com/search?q=taymur+streng vimeo.com/search?q=taymur+streng www.facebook.com/your.tstreng Am Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2022, 19:08:09 MEZ hat Mitzi Mess <mimmimess@t-online.de> Folgendes geschrieben:

53 takken, krass. brauch ich dafür ein cubase?

---

Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: AW: WG: Taymur Streng Datum: 2022-02-16T19:05:56+0100 Von: "Taymur Streng" <xaez2000@yahoo.de> An: "Mitzi Mess" <MimmiMess@t-online.de>

Aktuell verwende ich reaper, dort kann man sich eigene video plugins erstellen..

VG TSt

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3wH1hnbxtN0TTT0xNtAq7MHkqW7AgB0T

uploaded pieces via youtube.com (Taymur Streng)

last release: "digits & tentacles" www.taymurstreng.bandcamp.com www.taymurstreng.de www.mixcloud.com/xaez_2 www.youtube.com/search?q=taymur+streng vimeo.com/search?q=taymur+streng www.facebook.com/your.tstreng

Am Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2022, 18:57:25 MEZ hat Mitzi Mess <mimmimess@t-online.de> Folgendes geschrieben:

ist das max oder was ist das? gibts das jpg in einer höheren auflösung?

---

Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: WG: Taymur Streng

Datum: 2022-02-16T16:54:03+0100

Von: "Taymur Streng" <xaez2000@yahoo.de>

An: "Mitzi Mess" <mimmimess@t-online.de>

zu treuen Hdn, von einem früheren Stück

VG TSt"

many greetings --༄U-ji (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't read German, so I used Google translate above. I don't see anything that even remotely resembles a free license for Streng's works. As I said at the UnDR, we will need a free license from his heir via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The excerpt was to show that there indeed was an intense mail contact between Taymur and me for writing the article de:Taymur Streng. I couldn't manage to copy the attachments, so I thought, this could be enough and added the possibility to personally send you the relevant mails above. When he sent the files, it was clear that they were for embedding them creative commons in the article. This should be enough as a license, for he cannot be asked anymore. I'm just contacting the Volunteer Response Team in this behave. In addition we maybe can reduce the uploads by some items, if you have the feeling that there are too many of them. --༄U-ji (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please remember that both WP and Commons require that images be freely licensed for any use by anybody anywhere. While the interchanges above might -- probably not -- be acceptable to show he had an interest in having his work in WP, they don;t get anywhere near a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please undelete

• Category:Rendered name of Austria

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Assistance request

Hi Jim, I saw your perceptive analysis of copyright issues on another photo and was hoping to get your assistance on something I noticed.

This photo

The photo to the right was obviously taken by the federal government, but I don't see that it was ever released by the government. She ultimately was not installed in this government position. It was put into public circulation via a twitter post by the subject of the photo. Does this still count as public domain under the federal use policy? Thank you Nweil (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Nweil, I strenuously disagree with "obviously taken by the federal government". It certainly may have been taken by a Federal employee, but I know that many people in public service use private portrait photographers for their portraits -- after all, they want to look their very best and a government photographer is not at the top of the profession. However, to answer your question, if it were taken by a Federal photographer, then it is PD, regardless of the subject's employment. If it were taken by anyone else, then it is under copyright, again regardless of her employment status or where it was published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion requests for photos uploaded by User:Dendermonde vroeger & nu

Hi Jim, I apologize for bothering you. I'm writing concerning the uploads of User:Dendermonde vroeger & nu. I've seen the deletion requests regarding (a number of) his contributions.

I think this new contributor possibly has not realized how strict Commons is (and has to be) about permissions for uploading photos not taken by the uploader. On his talk page, I have suggested that he contact you directly (in English) to see what can be done. (See section "Ik vrees dat hier iets niet goed gaat..." on his talk page.) My impression is that this contributor is acting in good faith. It seems that he has a Facebook page with the same contributions, but that he feels that Wikimedia Commons is a better way of preserving this bit of local history. Which, probably, it is.

On his user page, he has recently (June 14) added a list of people who have given permission to use photos. I think we can conclude from this that he has understood the problem and certainly does try to follow the rules. Also, the photos themselves are evidently taken several decades ago, so probably not by these people themselves. I think they have found them in their family archives and have donated them to this user for his Facebook project.

I'm not asking you to ingnore or bend the rules. But I would think that from what I know we can conclude that the risk of trouble arising from the use of these photos is fairly remote. I can't imagine that any of the persons who have donated their photos would onbject to seeing them on Commons. I think we might see this as a variant of GLAM: there is a body of images that first resided in many archives (i.e. private collections, to be precise somebody's cupboard), now is accessible on Rudy's Facebook page, and would, I think, not be out of scope on Wikimedia Commons.

I think it would be a pity if this "project" would come to an untimely end. So, could I ask you to keep these deletion requests "pending" for some time while we try to sort out the permissions business? If I can be of assistance (if only for translation) I would be pleased to do so. With kind regards, MartinD (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no mechanism by which I can keep DRs pending -- we have 200 Admins, any one of which could close them. The best thing is for a Dutch speaker to tell him in no uncertain terms that the only way that photos taken by others can be on Commons is if each of the photographers sends a free license using VRT. That's not very complicated. And, BTW, your argument that the photographers won't care may well be correct, but it is explicitly against the rules to make that assumption, see Precautionary Principle #3. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'll inform the uploader. The problem I foresee is that the original photographers may well have passed away many years ago... What is the procedure in such a situation? Suppose I have a photo, taken by my father, who passed away in 2001. I've inherited the photo. Can I say "I'm not the original photographer, but as his heir I own the property rights, including the intellectual property rights"? MartinD (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. If the photographer has died, then the license must come from an heir. It is up to the VRT volunteer to determine whether the person claiming the inheritance is in fact an heir. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

File:MortezaShokri.jpg

hello jim,

I am Morteza Shokri, the owner of this page (Mortezashokriofficial ) and the owner of file:MortezaShokri.jpg

This is the first time I shared this photo on Facebook.

My file, which I own, was deleted a few days ago due to copyright. I personally uploaded the photo to Facebook. I deleted it from Facebook. I now request to cancel the deletion of my photo. My photo name: MortezaShokri.jpg

How can I solve this problem? Mortezashokriofficial (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As you were told at UnDeletion Requests, there is no solution. It was deleted for copyright reasons, but we think it is also out of scope -- that is, a photo that has no educational value for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not a good person to ask about technical issues such as this. The only thing that occurs to me is that you might have the entries e-mailed to a person who could then post them under that person's name, thus keeping the creators anonymous. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Algeria - 1952 - Colnect 211521 - 10 ans de la Bataille de Bir Hakeim Battle of Bir Hakeim.jpeg

Hi, In this DR, I mentioned that the decision should also apply to File:Stamp of Algeria - 1952 - Colnect 916156 - 10e anniversaire de la bataille de Bir Hakeim.jpeg. However you didn't delete this file. Is this intentional? Also at which date, will they be PD in USA? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Pure oversight. Thanks for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atatürk plakát.JPG

Hi. The poster contained an already public domain photo, there was nothing else individual on it. If I put a home-printed Mona Lisa poster on my balcony, that cannot be photographed? Xia (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this. First, you say the photo is PD. Ataturk died in 1938 and the Turkish rule is 70 years pma. In order for a photo whose country of origin is Turkey to be PD in the USA, the photographer would have had to die before 1926. That is possible in this case, but it seems unlikely.

Second, I think that the arrangement of the photo on the flag probably has a copyright, so even if the photo is PD, the combination is a problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:JesMacallan.jpg

Hello Jim, You denied the deletion request. Can you please tell me what I need to do get the file deleted? I work for the Jes Macallan, this is her personal photo, taken by her. She never uploaded it here. The person that uploaded it said that they were Jes (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JesMacallan.jpg&oldid=241424035) in the description, which is untrue. I can provide proof that I work for her if needed. She would just like to get this photo deleted here. Any help/guidance that you can provide would be appreciated. Imayfan (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Imayfan, apologies for the long delay in responding -- I was on vacation. As a general rule we do not delete images at the request of the subject and never do so at the request of a third party. If the subject herself sends a request to VRT, it is possible that it might be deleted. That would usually require that she supply a replacement image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ThomasPusch

Hello Jim,

I just now, eight years after the discussion, clearly read your offended note from then, and, no: I didn't want to attack you personally by choosing as an example one of your works. I just needed an example, and had entirely good intentions. Probably deleting files that others faithfully uploaded leads to many unpleasant remarks of frustrated users, but I really wasn't upset and wasn't in fight mood, just wanted clearness if it's really necessary to delete those files because of some parts pictured. Sincerely speaking, for years I didn't go to another book fair in motivation of helping to wikipedia and didn't illustrate or contribute to texts about publishing companies any more. That is completely OK, every hour of life can be spent only once. But being myself an admin of one of the wikipedia branches, who has to make unpopular decisions from time to time and is attacked because of that, I would never have thought about attacking you. Have a lucky summer! ThomasPusch (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2D Murals in Dublin‎

Hi Jim,

I observe your reasoning at images in Commons:Deletion requests/2D Murals in Dublin‎ and your good faith deletion. Given that Ww2censor had argued for !keep and that I had withdrawn my nomination this is not a result I would have expected without further discussion. I am more familiar with the en:AFD process on the English Wikipedia where a closer seemingly overriding a discussion their own reason, however valid, during a close, might be regarded as a !supervote. However this is Commons. this is in copyright violation territory, and Commons procedures and processes are different. I still would have thought it would have been better practice to make your reason and !vote adding to the discussion and leaving an independent to close. Given this is also a precedent for other images that I and others have loaded to commons it is almost inevitable that I might feel the need to use a request for a Commons:Deletion review, but per the information here I would respectfully ask for a detailed explanation first. The situation with regards to mosaics and murals under Category:Bray Daly Station is of particular interest to me at the moment, as is the study of their history. Please note especially as you are an Administrator and checkuser I would like to be fully open and disclose I am currently indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for CIR and BATTLEGROUND and that I also use an alternative account Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga for some articles related to Ireland. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC) User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not consider further discussion necessary as paintings are clearly not included in Irish FoP. The assertion that they are works of artistic craftsmanship is simply wrong and doesn't require any further discussion. I also note that the DR had been open for more than a month and was unlikely to draw any further discussion.

You mention "mosaics". Perhaps I missed something in the DR -- mosaics are works of artistic craftsmanship and are also arguably 3D works, so are covered by Irish FoP. Please list here any mosaics in the DR and I will restore them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you read my rationale?

What do you mean "no reason" in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cybersex pic.JPG? I provided numerous reasons: "Used to illustrate "cybersex" on many Wikipedias, seems like someone's idea of a joke. This is a low quality picture of a laptop, with mostly unreadable white screen, and someone's shoulder. Not useful to illustrate anything. Out of project's scope, and the sooner it is despammed (removed) from Wikipedia the better." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

{Temp talk page watcher): @Piotrus: Unfortunately I regard Jim's rationale as correct as (thankfully) there is no better quality image immediately obvious from categories on commons, so it would seem it is the best there is. I couldn't really make this up if I tried, but two other options are to touch up the current image and add Template:Retouch, or to create a better image and I'm not proposing to set up a zoom session with you - the mind boggles. Thinking in a hurry - and there will be a sermon against that on the park today: you've removed it from the English Wikipedia, I'm not sure that is correct but an option is to remove it from the other Wikipedia's using the same rationale and if that was unchallenged there might be a better case to press for deletion - but it might simply end up being replaced with a better but more troublesome image. Thankyou. User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 06:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our rules are very simple -- if an image is in use on any Wiki project, it cannot be deleted from Commons for any reason other than copyright violation. It is not up to me or you to judge whether an image is useful on other projects, it is up to the editors on those projects. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Pyotr_Vtorov

Could you please restore my photos listed on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Pyotr_Vtorov Ivan Vtorov (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No. I doubt very much that you were the actual photographer as you claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jim, please also check File:1977-VtorovPP-Tbilisi.jpg that has same deletion template, but had not mentioned in request. --Drakosh (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• How can you delete my own work (without even discussion) only is somebody wrote: "unlikely the uploader's own work..." Could you please restore it? See my photos on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ivtorov --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You may be a competent photographer today, but I am not alone in believing that you did not take the images when you were age 8. You may take your request to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. Please do not continue to harass me here. If you do so, you may be blocked from editing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Norwich

How dare you delete that file against the judgment of others. You clearly do not know anything of copyright law. Reinstate it now.

Leave it as it is Bully. --Irate (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Bully

You seems to be a very nasty bully.Irate (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Irate. User:Irate, the card was from 1939, which means that it cannot have been PD in the UK before 1/1/2010. That is 14 years after the COM:URAA date. It will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2035.

I suggest that before you make any more wild statements about other people's knowledge of copyright law, you read up on the URAA yourself. This was a very clear case of a violation of the USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That is your opinion, You didn't even bother taking into account concessions, you didn't engage in dialogue I suggest you look up the word bully and stop acting like one. --Irate (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And Oh let's delete this Category because only Irate uses it.--Irate (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong

You are wrong. Dot. Turbojet (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Cuore - front matter illustration.png

You recently deleted File:Cuore - front matter.jpg in response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cuore - front matter.jpg, but did not delete the derivative file File:Cuore - front matter illustration.png, which I had included in the deletion request. Was this an oversight? Should I now nominate that file for deletion? Verbcatcher (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oversight. Thanks for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

File:พลเอก อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg

All information requested for the File:พลเอก อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg have been provided but the image is still in doubt for the license. Now the photo has been removed. The person in the photo is the person who is taking care of the Kongsompong Foundation (https://kongsompong.or.th). He had a professional photographer took his photo and allowed to have it to be used on Wikipedia. Can you tell me what to do to proof the right on this photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by White Bangkaew (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Answered at Commons:Undeletion_requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Jim, I think you inadvertently also restored an older, different file previously uploaded under the same name. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Happy Birthday - Paulo Leão.jpg

I am the producer and director of this movie! I am Paulo Leão (Paulo César Leão Ribeiro)! Nick name Ribeiro César! Why you don't accept my license for this file by Creative Commons? Whats wrong? Thanks. Ribeiro César (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Answered at UnDR. Please do not waste my time and yours by posting the same comment in two places. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

File:HarmonyOS Home Preview.jpg

hello, thanks for requesting the usage page, but really as I said, it is a theme design, and the theme is in .hwt format, I can send you the download link, they are just previews of the themes, not the theme. It's a style anyone can use, That's why I asked because it's very complicated, even so, he asked me if the problem could be that I put the description wrong or selected something wrong Here is an example download link for a theme: https://www.huaweicentral.com/download-huawei-harmonyos-theme-link/

There are pages dedicated to themes and that have that style, like emuitheme . Com

Also in the Chinese HarmonyOS Wikipedia they have the same image, with more things. It is not possible that they do not allow it here, there are also iOS and Android. I'm not getting it. Ezequiel 449 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have responded at the UnDR. Please don't waste your time and mine by trying to have a discussion in two places. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

hello, Huawei central is nothing linked to Huawei, it is a news community page, related to Huawei, they upload topics from time to time. hence the copyright. sorry you don't know. I only shared a link to download an example of a theme, I also mentioned that there are many pages that share themes. Free or paid, from Huawei or users, And I'm sorry I can't write on the right side, but it doesn't give me an option, I do it here because I don't see a way to write on the other side. Ezequiel 449 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You edit an Undeletion Request in exactly the same way you edit here, except that there you can click on |edit| at the top of the page or, more conveniently, [edit] which appears immediately after the name of the file at your UnDR request. Please continue the discussion there. Anything you say here (including everything above) will probably not be seen by the Admin who decides to close the request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Commons:Deletion requests/2D Murals in Dublin

Hi Jim, I note your good faith closure of Commons:Deletion requests/2D Murals in Dublin and you seem to have failed to note my nomination was withdrawn and the only other !vote was keep consensus was the other way. On the English Wikipedia this might have been arguably entering !en:WP:Supervote territory but I appreciate rules/processes on commons are different, copyright violations may need to be removed immediately. However consistent application of rules are important and it is very important for consensus to see where we are. I am minded you may give a more detailed explanation, though my brain is not in a good state to study and absorb any such explanation, but I remain in good faith minded I should be challenging this decision, and precedents are being set and retention decisions being made, at least in this at one level, seemingly at random. Overall while your decision here may be "right" I am at this point minded it likely needs to be confirmed by uninvolved persons due to ramifications and an increasing trend artwork to be applied to 3D buildings. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 09:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to file an UnDR for the subject images.

When you do so, please keep in mind two things. First, a DR is not a vote, despite the unfortunate naming of {{Vk}} and {{Vd}}. The closing Admin is required to take into account anything that he learns from the various comments, but is not required to follow any consensus there might be. At Commons:Deletion requests this is put forth clearly:

"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy."

Also note that while it is clear that Irish law allows FoP for "works of artistic craftsmanship" to wit:

Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000), Section 93,

• "This section applies to the copyright in (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.[28/2000 Sec.93(1)]"

it is equally clear that it does not apply to paintings or other 2D works. Thus a tapestry would be covered by FoP but a painted mural is not. The question of a tile mural, a mosaic, is not clear and therefore we are required to assume the worst case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou Jim for your response. I always find it a matter of concern when people need to use the pluralis majestatis in the argument, I've all too often seen it used incorrectly across the Wikipedia project. Excuse me but I'm not in the greatest of moods at the moment, and elements of your is disturbing me and I think I am seeing inconsistent application of policy, so a wider platform is needed. I need to review the situation before bringing this further as there are certain other points you bring to bear. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 19:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

My only use of "we" above is in "therefore we are required to assume the worst case". Since I was speaking of the community as a whole, it seems to me entirely appropriate. I suppose I could have said, "therefore I and the rest of the Commons community are required to assume the worst case", but I don't see that anything is gained and brevity is lost. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Sebastiao Mazarelo monochrome.jpg

You recently deleted File:Sebastiao Mazarelo.jpg, following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sebastiao Mazarelo.jpg. You have not deleted the derivative file File:Sebastiao Mazarelo monochrome.jpg, which I mentioned in the deletion request. Should I now nominate that file for deletion? Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

{{done} Thanks for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dendermonde vroeger & nu

Hi Jim, I closed this DR which you created by deleting all images. The uploader is still continuing uploading this kind of material. It is impossible to check everything, but what I looked at was all lacking information, permission, and I am convinced most of the material is still copyrighted. I gave a warning with explanation on the talk page of the uploader (in Dutch) and suggestion to create an own website for the material. It is a tremendous job to proceed. I would be in favour to delete all uploads. Currently 7,245 uploads. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely a waste of time of the uploader. But thanks. Ellywa (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Lorenzo 2019-09-29-1339Z.png

I am sending you this message because it says that I should contact you before re-nominating it for deletion since it was kept by you. I am requesting that the photo linked on subject should be deleted. I am the original uploader. The other photo is better made. Like the discussion said, it is of low quality, and unlikely to be used. JCMLuis (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

While the one you prefer has many more pixels, it doesn't show anywhere near as much of the storm, so if I had to delete one or the other I would delete the one you prefer. Fortunately it costs nothing to keep them both which is what we should do. Please inform me if, despite that, you post a DR on the file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Emmanuel Macron and Kira Rudyk.jpg

Hi Jim. Pls clarify me what means print use in your objection to undeleting the above mentioned file. And what are correct steps the images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International be placed in the Commons? Slovolyub (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the image is not actually licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International because the additional requirement of a link to the source voids the license. Images must be free for any use anywhere. The notice at www.kirarudik.com says:

"....The use of any materials posted on the website is permitted provided you link to https://www.kirarudik.com regardless of full or partial use of materials."

While a link is easy if the use is on the Web, it is impossible if the use is in print -- a periodical, poster, or book and, therefore, the image cannot be used in anything printed.

In order for the image to be restored on Commons, the web site must remove the sentence I quoted. Note that it is entirely OK for the site to specify that the required attribution is "www.kirarudik.com" or anything else, but it cannot require a link since a link from a book or magazine is impossible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Lanier County Courthouse.jpg deleted

This file was deleted today. Can you tell me why (or point me to the discussion)? Thank you. Bubba73 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It is included in Category:Murals in Georgia which was the subject of a DR. However, I think that the mural here is de minimis, so I have restored the file. Thank you for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

What is a "DR" - Deletion Request? As it happens, I'm planing to be in that town next Thursday, and I will get a better photo. Bubba73 (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

So don't bother restoring that file in Wikipedia articles - I expect to have a better photo in 6 days and I'll use it. Bubba73 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Bubba73 -- be careful. Any image that shows the mural as more than a tiny part of the courthouse will infringe on the mural's copyright and be deleted. The only reason we can keep this image is that the mural is de minimis (insignificant). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can skip that part or blur it out. Bubba73 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I got a new photo. Bubba73 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you upload it with a new name, perhaps File:Lanier County Courthouse (1).jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is File:Lanier County Courthouse, Lakeland, GA, US.jpg. Bubba73 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Anthem of Mauritania

The anthem of Mauritania has been deleted from Wikipedia due to copyright claims about the Egyptian author. Mauritania's copyright regulation says on its article 9 that "State works made lawfully accessible to the public may be freely used for non-profit purposes, subject to respect for the integrity of the work and indication of the source. It is understood by works of the State, within the meaning of this article, the works produced and published by the various organs of the State, local authorities and public establishments of an administrative nature" (liberal translation from French).

There's a version of the National Anthem uploaded at the page of the Prime Minister, together with a sheet and lyrics in Arabic and French. Would that count as a good enough reason to still have the anthem up in Wikipedia? I will try to further research on this topic but if I'm not wrong the anthem was obtained through a competition so I assume all rights went to the Mauritanian state, will see if I can back up that.

Thanks for your time! Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"...[M]ay be freely used for non-profit purposes..." is not satisfactory for Commons. Images on Commons must be free for any use by anybody anywhere, see COM:L. So, whether or not the author transferred the copyright, the work is under copyright with or without an NC license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

COM:UDR#File:Demon Slayer English logo.png

The UDR was about a lack of transparency at the DR; this comment is about a lack of transparency at the UDR. Can we at least have a link to the source? Brianjd (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @GreatLakesShips Brianjd (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You can find the logo easily by Googling "Demon Slayer". The source for the deleted upload is

https://occ-0-1722-1723.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/LmEnxtiAuzezXBjYXPuDgfZ4zZQ/AAAABbji72lu56wHcP0oY5ibreCdbxHxLKmghB71Me88xEwqPmDHevLJJx6b--5azjLgN584p_7uVXXBD8hXA5kTQPkmLXpRG7s8_CHBw8naFcV-.png?r=f48

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Viktor Medvedchuk (12-04-2022) 2.png

I'm sorry for submitting a delation request (this one) unsupported by valid reasons. This is not a complaint, but a request of clarification so as not to repeat the same mistake in the future. In your closure you said "in use, cannot be deleted except for copyvio". I based my request on COM:DIGNITY, where I was directed from Commons:Deletion_policy#Photographs_of_identifiable_people. If I understand what you said correctly, this reason for deletion does not apply when the image is used in some wikiproject; if the image is in use, copyvio is the only possible reason for delation. Is that correct? Thank you, Gitz6666 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, as a general rule images that are in use cannot be deleted except for copyvio. Like all general rules, that has exceptions -- child pornography to take a clear and obvious one. Privacy issues are another possible one, but not so obvious. In this case, the subject is clearly a prominent public figure. The fact that he was in handcuffs at one point is legitimate news. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 You did nothing wrong! The general rule stated by Jim is correct, but opinions on what is a valid exception vary (and COM:DIGNITY is hopelessly vague). Sometimes files are redacted or deleted even though they are in use and the subject consented (examples: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#User:Yungelita, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts.jpg#File:Breasts.jpg 3). If you see something that needs discussing, don’t be afraid to open a discussion.

If you believe your concerns have not been adequately addressed, you may open a new DR or start a discussion at, for example, Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. Brianjd (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your parting shot in this edit

You wrote:

Merely commisioning a photograph of oneself does not give rise to a work for hire situation and most professional photographers do not sign away their rights

Because you ignored:

"you'd have to examine the contract or purchase agreement to understand the precise licensing"

The original logic failure is:

da es sich zweifellos nicht um ein Selfie handelt, muss jemand anders Urheber sein ("since it is undoubtedly not a selfie, someone else must be the author")

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

While that sentence is true, it is irrelevant. It is very rare for a professional portrait photographer to license an image to a subject in such a way as to permit the subject to freely license it as required here. When a professional portrait photographer license an image to a subject, it is almost always a limited license, allowing the subject to use the image for their own publicity purposes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Grey659

Hello. It seems that the last file of the nomination wasn’t deleted. I haven’t deleted it myself just in case there was some additional idea there rubin16 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As you probably know, DelReqHandler sometimes hiccups and fails to do what it said it did. And sometimes the Admin just misses one. Take your pick. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jameslwoodward

Same issue with this one : Commons:Deletion requests/File:92400 Courbevoie, France - panoramio.jpg. The file have not been deleted.

Thx. --Poudou99 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg

Hi. I believe that your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg was incorrect. You said that it is "analogous to a montage". But it was NOT a montage in one important way - Hiemann's broadcast was not a previously-published work, nor even a separate work at all. (Copyright only exists when something is fixed in a tangible medium. Hans was not fixing anything in a tangible medium and so there is no separate copyrightable work.)

If I grab pictures (or video feeds or whatever) from other sources and I cobble them together - without the permission of the original authors to do so - then I cannot properly grant a Creative Commons license to my final work. That's obvious and not a subject of dispute.

But in the case of this video, it was not a published work that was being incorporated into the larger video. Rather, the only creative work is the combined video. There is one joint work and copyright is shared by Hans Niemann, the PRO Chess League, and anyone else who participated in the creation of this work.

I feel that if you wanted to make the argument that this was a montage, you should have made it in the discussion and allowed other editors to opine on the merits of it - not simply exercised an "admin supervote". --B (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you open an Undeletion Requesr. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I will. I left you a message because the instructions imply that you should do that first. Thanks. --B (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Abdo2905

Your closing line is confusing, as you did in fact delete one file with a reference to this DR. Could you update it? Brianjd (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Monumental sculpture - ToO

Could you clarify the rationale the behind the deletion here? I am of the view that this work is in fact copyright-able, but I can't find references to protections for monumental sculpture anywhere in copyright literature. There's another image of this work up for deletion, but another editor thinks it doesn't pass ToO/copyright standards. Thanks for the clarification! 19h00s (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I based that comment on the fact that the work of Richard Serra has registered copyrights in the USA. His work is very simple and monumental. See, for example, Tilted Arc which is USCO VAu000096606 / 1986-04-21. Note that the image there is on WP as Fair Use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pokémon types icons

Hello. I am writing to you because I have a question regarding this deletion request. The images in the deletion request did not comply with COM:TOO and they were deleted. The problem is that the rest of the images in the category also violate COM:TOO for the same argument of the user who requested the deletion of the other images. My question is: is it necessary to open a new deletion request or could you delete those images directly? Greetings. ZebaX2010 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose You need to open a new DR -- the contributors of the other images are entitled to notification so they can respond to the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2022/2023!

		* Happy Holidays 2022/2023, Jim! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Alice Lolita Muth (1887-1952).jpg

Hi, According to the log, you undeleted this file "per request at UnDR". Then it was deleted again by Krd. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"I would like for this to be temporarily undeleted so I can see if I can get more information on the painting. The uploader appears to be from this site: https://hawthornefineart.com/inventory/historic-women-artists and the artist was an American. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)"

Seemed like a reasonable request to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)