User talk:Jameslwoodward: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
tirshatha
Line 18: Line 18:




<center>This is a '''Wikimedia Commons''' user talk page.</center>
<center>This is a '''talk:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel''' user talk page.</center>


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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than '''Commons''' itself.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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than '''Commons''' itself.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

Revision as of 20:39, 26 February 2011

Archive
Jameslwoodward's
Archives

Archive 1 (oldest)
Archive 2
Archive 3


This is a talk:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


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

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

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

Need your help

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan_Ramadani

(91.187.103.1 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

New signature

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

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

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

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

TannekenTielt.jpg

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

The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available as ticket #2011020510009798 for users with an OTRS account. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2011020510009798

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rockhopper image

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for removal of potentially libelous statement by User:Jameslwoodward

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

I said only two things in the nomination:

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

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

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

Let's examine the two things I did say:

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

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

  • this is a DW of the poster in the center.

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

I should add that my talk page is not a very good place to complain about my behavior -- if you really want to pursue this, it should be at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems which is the public forum that can discipline Administrators if warranted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Megumi Satsu picture removal on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megumi_Satsu

Hi James

You've removed a picture of Megumi I uploaded last week on her wiki page. Megumi passed away in October and she gave me explicitly with a handwritten document all the rights to use any picture of her and all the rights to use and sell her music by all means. The photo I uploaded is free of rights and belonged to Megumi eventhough it was taken by a friend of hers called "Jacques Lecorre" who passed away in August 2011. I had mentioned his name under the picture. So, what do I have to do to upload a picture without infringing anybody's rights? Or what kind of evidence should I mention in order to keep the picture online ? Thank you so much Matt www.megumisatsu.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattkinska (talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

False?

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

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

Obama/Hitler sign

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

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

Deletion request inconsistencies

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

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

As for your questions:

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

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

Rothschild illustrations

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

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

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

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

HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.svg

Hi, it was decided to let here this drawing. It has only one mistake. Although its author - Hapesoft alias W.Rebel makes obstructions with the mention of his work source. It seems to be clear that the source is this: [1]. Have you some idea what do do? Please also delete the File:HPS Bissel Krauss Helmholtz.jpg - it is without valid license and I uploaded it only for W.Rebel´s drawing assessment. --PetrS. (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]