User talk:Jameslwoodward

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014
2nd half 2014

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

Permission from copyright holder[edit]

Jim, I'm sorry to disturb you, but I recently contacted a copyright holder of a photograph if I could upload his image to Wikipedia using a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and he agreed. I don't know what to do now, as I don't know if he has filled out the ticket form for the OTRS (Which I included in a link in the email). His works have been used on Wikipedia before, so I'm sure he is familiar with the procedure. You're a member of the OTRS permission thing, so how can I find the ticket, if it works like that? Thanks. StanMan87 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't ever worry about "disturbing" me -- or any other Admin, for that matter. We're here because we want to help the project along in whatever way is useful.
I can do a text search on OTRS for the message, but I'll need something to search on -- his name, the name of the image, or anything else that seems logical -- they come back with the most recent first, so even if his name is "John Smith", I should be able to find it, but give me whatever you have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks allot. The author is Hamid Mir, he is the same individual who allowed Wikipedia to use this file [1]. StanMan87 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, the only OTRS ticket with his name is the one authorizing the use of the image you cited, which dates from 2009. I'll check again in a few days. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume you sent the OTRS e-mail yesterday with Hamid Mir's permission. Normally we prefer to have the license come directly from the photographer, but I think we can accept this one. You may upload the image and add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2014110910015359}} to the bottom of the file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Photography File Names[edit]

Aloha Jim!

I frequently upload concert photos to Wikimedia Commons, you can check em' out on my user page. As I continue to learn more and more about contributing to Wikimedia, and Wikipedia, I learn what is what is considered bad practice, and good practice. Thanks for doing such great work. So here are my questions:

1. I noticed that certain file names of photos have been deleted off of Wikimedia Commons. From what I have observed, this happens most when someone doesn't upload original content. When given the correct oppurtunity, is it okay to upload a photo that I take with the same file name as previously deleted image?

2. I have copy and pasted the editing from my user page on Wikipedia, to my user page on Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that the infoboxes dont show up. Is there a way to fix this?

Mahalo for your time and your contributions! Peter Chiapperino (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK to reuse names of deleted files if they are appropriate. I wouldn't use one if it had been deleted recently -- in the last six months or so.
Commons templates are often different from those on WP:EN. We also use them differently. Because Commons is a multi-lingual project, the most used user page template is a babel box. Admins are required to have one (see, for example, User:Jameslwoodward) and most other active Commons users also have one.
See Category:User templates for other possibilities, and take a look at {{User info}} and {{Userboxtop}} / {{Userboxbottom}} which might meet your needs.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mozel W.[edit]

Hi Jim, thanks for the notice. I contacted Snježana Kordić using the email address ( on her website if I could upload diagrams from her books to Wikipedia and she agreed. I don't know what the next step is, probably someone should send her the ticket form for the OTRS, but I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.--Mozel W. (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask her to go to and follow the instructions there. Although I believe you that she consented, "to Wikipedia" is too limited a license, which is why we require a formal e-mail from the person giving the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you for your work with these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello James[edit]

Did you know polish? If not please don't finish my deletion request. Sorry for my english. --polar123 (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about:
When you put a message on a talk page, it is helpful to link the subject so that the recipient doesn't have to search for it.
Your English is fine. Google translate usually does a pretty good job, so we often use it. In this case, since there is no copyright problem and the images are of important cultural sites, there is no reason to delete them. I don't need to read Polish to understand that your DR had no basis in Commons policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
When you put a message on a talk page, it is helpful to link the subject so that the recipient doesn't have to search for it.

Thanks for advice. I'm new on wiki and commons. My DR have basis in Commons policy. I think that license CC-BY-SA-3.0PL was broken by Commons. BTW This monuments have other pic on commons.--polar123 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think Commons broke the license? That certainly should not happen. I will investigate if you tell me what you think is wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
On this page and others are my pictures. Where is Attribution ? Where is information that are transform? I know that they is link on miniatures but on "Terms of Use" is "Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself. When you contribute TEXT, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);(...)
TEXT not pictures. About pictures is: Non-text media: Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy, and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing. Also see the Wikimedia Commons Licensing Policy for more information on contributing non-text media to that Project. --polar123 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Your point of view would have it that all images on Commons that are used on Wikipedia and most other places do not have the correct attribution. That simply is not correct. Throughout all WMF projects, including Commons, attribution is by a click-through link -- if you click on any image, you go to the page which has, among other things, the required attribution. Click-through links are a perfectly acceptable mean of attribution under CC-BY licenses, which require "Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."
From the FAQ at
"Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Your point of view would have it that all images on Commons that are used on Wikipedia and most other places do not have the correct attribution.
That simply is not correct.
I don’t think so.

Throughout all WMF projects, including Commons, attribution is by a click-through link -- if you click on any image, you go to the page which has, among other things, the required attribution. No. In Terms of use is only about TEXT.

Click-through links are a perfectly acceptable mean of attribution under CC-BY licenses, which require "Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit." I don’t care about the image of other people but I would like to mine were labeled in accordance with the CC-BY-SA-3.0 PL. The license is a clear record that is to be marked with name or a pseudonym author. I do not think it is unreasonable. Just because someone did not tag all the images does not mean that no broken of the license.

From the FAQ at "Additionally, “ of course additionally. “you may satisfy” – I’m not satisfy

And look it :

"All CC licenses require users to attribute the creator of licensed material, unless the creator has waived that requirement, not supplied a name, or asked that her name be removed. Additionally, you must retain a copyright notice, a link to the license (or to the deed)'Tekst tłustą czcionką', a license notice, a notice about the disclaimer of warranties, and a URI if reasonable. For versions prior to 4.0, you must also provide the title of the work. (Though it is not a requirement in 4.0, it is still recommended if one is supplied.) You must also indicate if you have modified the work—for example, if you have taken an excerpt, or cropped a photo. (For versions prior to 4.0, this is only required if you have created an adaptation by contributing your own creative material, but it is recommended even when not required.) It is not necessary to note trivial alterations, such as correcting a typo or changing a font size. Finally, you must retain an indication of previous modifications to the work." Where is information that photos was modified? anywhere. If you want to help me delete all my photos. I think polish administrators like CLI Yarl or Polimerek will be very pleased.

Sorry, but I am not going to debate this any more with you. Commons and all of WMF attributes images with a click-through. Your images, and everybody else's are correctly attributed in accordance with the license. I am not going to delete your images and I will oppose any request that they be deleted.
I'd be very surprised if any WMF Admin disagreed with me, but I would be happy to discuss it with them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jim, just for your info, I blocked his account indef since he kept nominating files even after your explanation. He even renominated files which where kept and I doubt that we can expect any useful contributions from him in the foreseeable future. Natuur12 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention. I agree that he was a nuisance and didn't seem to be understanding that he was challenging every image on WMF, but perhaps an indef is too much? Maybe we could involve a Polish speaker? At least one of his images was probably useful, so I hate to just ban him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with that and when everything is solved he should be unblocked but indef isn't forever, just untill a solution has been reached. Otherwise we will cause us hours of adminwork. Natuur12 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Brittany Maynard[edit]

Hi. Could you please make a demand (or tell me a place where i could do this), for the authorization of this pic:

into the german article about her

as: this image will only be used on the "Brittany Maynard" page., as i am not sure if there is a possibility to do that..? Thx. --Gary Dee (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the rules on WP:DE -- the image is used on WP:EN as "fair use". If that is permitted on WP:DE, then you just need to follow the rules there. If not, then you cannot use it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Then i guess it will not be (able) being used, so far i know & guess. Do you know someone please, who is in a kind more familiar with copyrights (...and so) between diverse (international) WP-Projects, as i guess that the copyright holder (in particular someone of her Picture) could be handled inbetween the different Articles in all of the WP-Projects worldwide..? Thanks. --Gary Dee (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
For this specific problem, we have a lot of Admins who speak German -- see Commons:List_of_administrators_by_language. There are a lot of good people there, so it's hard to pick, but among the most active on Commons are Denniss, Elcobbola, Krd, and Túrelio.
For the more general problem you posed, almost any Admin or experienced user can answer questions -- fundamentally you will need images that are either PD or have one of the Commons permitted licenses, the most commons being CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh man, seems pretty much housekeeping for just one simple Picture ;) . I will transfer this on my disc-page, so in case i (will) would need it. Thanks :) --Gary Dee (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jim, there's job for you :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)



You deleted this file. The reasons exposed by Green Giant may be correct, but neither answered my comment about this orchested version of a derivated work of the XIX century (a National Anthem!) is already in the Public Domain or not. Almost all of these kind of works from the Government of Chile are licensed under the CC-BY-SA license (that allows commercial uses and therefore is allowed in Commons). Also, converting the file from MP3 to OGG don't break the works, because is a format change only, and CC-BY-SA CC-BY allows them. I think to remove an official symbol of a country (like a National Anthem) is a very disruptive action, because these are the official versions of them, regardless the non-official versions of them on the Web.

Anyway, I'll contact to the Government of Chile according to the Ley de Transparencia in order to get legal information about the official symbols like the National Anthem and its ussage on Websites like Commons. This my second time that I need to contact to the Government for issues with files from the Government of Chile, uploaded to Commons. Therefore, the answer given to me will prevail over the contents of the cited website. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

First, changing from MP3 to OGG is clearly making a derivative work -- similar to changing from color to B&W or vice versa, both of which are DWs. Although that would be allowed by the CC license, the privacy policy forbids DWs and the rules of construction require us to take the more specific -- the privacy policy written for this site -- over the more general CC license.
Second, the national anthem, as a work, may well be PD, but musical works have many copyrights and it is not clear that all of them are PD in this case. Orchestral works have separate copyrights for the music, for the lyrics (if any), for the arrangement (the composer of a national anthem usually writes it for one instrument -- an orchestra requires that it be arranged for all the orchestral instruments), and for the performance itself. Even if the government says that the work is PD, please make sure that you can prove that the government actually owns the copyright to the performance -- I don't know the Chilean law on the subject, but in the USA for that to be true, all of the orchestra would have to be employees of the Federal government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
changing from MP3 to OGG is clearly making a derivative work -- similar to changing from color to B&W or vice versa... Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF? You're right mentioning the interpretations of older works have different copyright holders, but mentioning the format change compared compared to color change is a huge mistake (different format gives the same output, in contrast to color changes, obviously); I expect I'm not wrong with them.
I agrere there is a problem with the interpretation of the ussage. The Políticas de privacidad (Supreme Decree N° 100 of 2006 ) forbids the commercial ussages, the main reason of the deletion of the file. But there is a newer, official document published in 2010 as part of a refference of the Law 19.032. The newer document don't explicitilly prevails over the older one, but the Laws prevails over the Supreme Decrees.
Anyway, as chilean, I just contacted to the Government of Chile. Once they answered my question, I'll contact to OTRS to clarify the ussage of these files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I know too little for expressing an informed opinion, Jim, but shouldn't be the spell of a legitimate Government authoritative enough on such matter? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, the specific trumps the general. Of course, if it turns out that the specific is an error or illegal, then it will go away, but for now we're stuck with the policy set forth on the site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion in the [[2]], I provided important information about the licensing of the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Jim, I just recived the answer from the Government of Chile. I sended a message to OTRS with the forwarded message, and also in the UD thread. As you as OTRS member, please take this case and please restore the file as soon as possible. Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It's ticket #2014111710019689. The OTRS e-mail refers me to an attachment which is an image of a document. I don't read Spanish, and Google translate can't deal with an image, so I'm not qualified to handle it -- we have many Spanish speaking Admins. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi FOP deletions[edit]

Hi Jameslwoodward, could you please explain your uncommented deletions at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Monument_to_the_unknown_soldier_(6966336236).jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bagdad_moschee01.jpg? I had also asked meta:User_talk:Slaporte (WMF)#WLM and iraqi FOP deletions but haven't got any responses or reasons. --Atlasowa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

About 25 Admins delete 1,500 images every day, so we work fast and do not comment on closures where the reason for deletion is both straightforward and set forth in the discussion.
As explained there, the monuments are copyrighted -- all such works are copyrighted in every country for a period which varies from country to country. Therefore, any image of them is a derivative work of the copyrighted monument and infringes on the creator's rights. In some countries, this is permitted for works that are permanently located in public places, but that is not the case in Iraq.
You seem to think that somehow this is a change, but copyright is universal -- every country has it and it has been in place in Iraq for many years -- at least since 1971 according to our summary at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iraq. Recent changes have extended the term of copyright somewhat, but these monuments would still be under copyright even under the 1971 law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Sexy Dolphin.jpg[edit]

Hi! You forgot to delete the file. --Juggler2005 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally DelReqHandler, the script that almost all Admins use to close DRs, hiccups and doesn't do what it is told. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israel Hernandez was allegedly Tasered to death by Miami Beach Police officers the 6th august 2013- 2013-08-07 23-37.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim,

Do you think {{PD-FLGov}} apply here? Thanks for your input. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No. As I just said at the DR, I think the image was taken in a high school classroom, probably by one of his classmates. There's no reason in the world why MBPD would have taken such an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gonzaga 28-08[edit]

hello MR. Jameslwoodward I am writing to tell you chelas following user she is not being blocked by a1cb3.. from what I saw, seeing the 'user,, is not any act of vandalism. seems to have been nominated for no reason by 'user Caarl 95

then,, I would like to ask you if he can unlock the 'user, because the 'user is not absolutely be a sockpuppet -- 19:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL thanks Jim, you saved me the hard job of blocking him :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Dear Admin Jim,

Can you consider marking (passing or failing) this image? It appears to come from a fickrwashing account but the design may be too simple to be copyrighted. I don't know here, Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I stuck a Flickrreview on it for the record. I don't read Arabic, but calligraphy in any language does not have a copyright in the USA and I don't think it is long enough to have a literary copyright. It is possible that calligraphy does have a copyright in its country of origin, but since I don't know where that is, I have no opinion. I think it's probably OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your analysis here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

London Treaty (1915)[edit]

Why was london treaty image with Croatian captions deleted, but the very identical one, but with captions in Slovenian, left standing? What happened? --Bojovnik (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy against Croation speakers here -- I have no opinion about such matters on either side. I wish that we could all just do our volunteer work here without implicit accusations of conspiracy. Such things are very rare among the very active Admins -- we have too much work to do to take sides in debates.
I deleted a file and all of the derivatives that were listed in it. The file you mention wasn't one of those listed, so I didn't know it existed. If it had been listed I would have deleted and I have done so now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, but what is the reason for deletion in general? By the way, I'm not trying to construct a conspiracy here, but when I asked a friend to make a Croatian version of the Slovenian map, someone tried endlessly to delete it. We are all volunteers and I appreciate your work, but I just wanted to know what the reason for deletion was. Cheers, --Bojovnik (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
To save you some time, I looked at it myself - so if file "lands for serbia.gif" was indeed a breach of violations, why are .svg maps drawn using "landsforserbia" just as a reference deleted as well? --Bojovnik (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Maps are almost always derivative works. The effort required to draw a map from scratch, without reference to a previous work, is enormous, so almost any map that does not have a freely licensed map as its basis will be deleted. Just as I cannot draw a picture of a famous person using a copyrighted photograph as a reference, so it is not legal to use a copyrighted map "just as a reference". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzannah Clark Analyzing Schubert.jpg[edit]

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzannah Clark Analyzing Schubert.jpg: the uploader's claim of "own work" is of course false, but I provided a link to the depicted work on the book's cover which proved that it is old enough to be PD (it's from 1818). I then added that the rest of the cover design is mere text and doesn't rise above COM:TOO. I wondered why that claim was disregarded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Right you are -- sorry for ignoring that. However, as my revised closing comment says, in the UK the publisher has a 25 year copyright in "the typographical arrangement of published editions". That applies to the cover as well as the inside of works published in the UK. Since typography has no copyright in the US, the cover is PD in the US, but not in the country of origin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jim,

Regarding your closure of [3], I was awaiting more opinions about a partial or complete restoration. Two people said that these files might be useful. I think it requires more attention. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

re Multiple Accounts -- Sockpuppets[edit]

Actually you don't have any evidence that to proved me that I have created at least two accounts in commons. If you are free, plz try to see this discussion post "請Tony_YKS尊重大家共識" before (sorry only for Chinese, but you can translate it) [4] Is it possible for me to discussion article conflict issue in these two account by myself and the signature time format is different too?

Your messages makes me feel very disappointed and angry. If you still try to attack me again. I will boycott commons and it is not good for Wikipedia development.--Wing1990hk (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As a Checkuser, it is my role to find and deal with sockpuppets. I have excellent evidence that you have used three different accounts here, two of which are now blocked. Please see my comments below for more details. Since you have used two sockpuppets here on Commons and have yourself uploaded a variety of copyright violations, I have to say that it probably would be a good thing if you boycotted Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please Unblock Tvb10data Immediately[edit]

Mr Woodward:

I am Tony YKS, a user of Wikipedia. I have just started editing Wikimedia Commons for 9 days only, due to a controversy about deleting the photo "Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg". I regret that I have to express anger to you, despite being a "newcomer" here. I am outraged that you accused Tvb10data as "sock puppets" and blocked Tvb10data permanently just because of the request of undeletion about the aforementioned file. I demand to unblock user Tvb10data immediately, because what you have done is causing severe threat to freedom of speech, and is enough to destroy the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation.

The file "Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg" was deleted 3 days ago despite that only 3 users supported deletion (including the one who made this request), while 7 users (including myself) opposed. It is unreasonable that the opposition of the majority was overridden, so Tvb10data requested for undeletion, stating that the removal of that photo is "river crabbing" (censoring) and "tyranny". You replied that it is not a vote, and "Fair Use" is not allowed on Commons. Before Tvb10data or I could reply, though, more outrageous things followed. You accused Tvb10data as a "sock puppet" of another user Wing1990hk, and issued a permanent User Block to Tvb10data immediately afterwards.

Blocking Tvb10data forever is extremely ridiculous, as Tvb10data is definitely NOT a "sock puppet" and there is no proof that this user has violated any other rules that can cause the issuance of User Block. User Contribution in Wikimedia Commons of Tvb10data cannot be used as verification, because both Tvb10data and I only started editing Commons when the controversy of deleting that photo occurred. In other words, we are both "newcomers" in Commons. The User Contributions of Tvb10data in Wikipedia (both in Chinese and English) can prove that Tvb10data is NOT the "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk. Furthermore, as pointed out by another user of Wikipedia, "Hong Kong is a city-state of highest population density in the world. Accusing puppet by the similarity of IP address should not apply on Hong Kong wiki users". Although Tvb10data requesting undeletion in Chinese or even Cantonese might be inappropriate in Commons, this is not a valid reason to issue a block as well.

User Block of Tvb10data is severely jeopardizing freedom of speech, which can completely destroy the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation, if this incident is leaked. The action of blocking Tvb10data is tyrannizing other users, forcing them not to oppose deletion or make undeleting requests. Freedom of speech is a core value in Wikimedia Foundation, because it is a kind of human rights. Blocking the aforementioned user, however, is against this value. It also does absolutely nothing to achieve consensus. The issue of that photo reflects the conflict between copyright, "Fair Use" and "self-censorship". I agree that copyright has to be protected and "Fair Use" might violate copyright, but possible copyright violation is not a reason for "self-censorship". We need the photos to provide facts for Umbrella Movement, and the controversy can involve photos of other contents. This should be solved by reviewing the policy of Commons, rather than dictatorial acts like ignoring oppositions by the majority and blocking users that request undeletion. I regret to say that, by blocking Tvb10data permanently without forceful reasons, you are putting the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation in peril.

Please unblock Tvb10data now, if you do respect freedom of speech, and if you do not want to put the fame of Wikimedia Foundation at risk. Even if the request for undeletion is not reasonable to you, there is no need to block that user eternally, especially the accuse of "sock puppet" is proven false. I suppose every user want to protect the repute of Wikimedia Foundation, but if Tvb10data is still blocked after 8:00AM today in HKT (which means midnight of 17/11/2014 in UTC), Tvb10data, other users and I may have to consider further actions.

Yours sincerely,
Tony YKS (talk)
Wikipedia User
1:05AM (HKT), 17/11/2014

@Jim, I blocked Tony YKS for 24 hours. Feel free to change the block if appropriate, e.g. based on CU data. Jcb (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Jcb. Tony YKS is not a sock, but it is very clear that Tvb10data is. I would not be surprised if Tony YKS is a meatpuppet. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tony YKS -- User:Tvb10data is a sockpuppet -- that is to say, he is the same person as User:Wing1990hk. I happen to be a Commons Checkuser and have the tools and skill to determine that with little doubt. We do not discuss those tools and methods in detail, but please understand that I am satisfied that Tvb10data is a sockpuppet. I would be happy to have that opinion reviewed by my colleague CheckUsers or anyone else who has the appropriate tools and skill.
Using a second (and third, in this case) account to edit on Commons is a very serious violation of our rules. It would have been within our rules for me to have blocked Wing1990hk also, but I chose not to do that in the hope that he can become a good contributor who obeys the rules. So, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because the human who is both Wing1990hk and Tvb10data can use the Wing1990hk account to express himself here.
As for the image which was discussed, first, you must understand that Commons DRs are not votes. If six people (two of the seven "keep" users are the same person), most of them very new to Commons, express the opinion that the image should be kept and four people (KTo288, STSC, Underbar dk, and INverCry) who are very experienced on Commons agree that the image is a copyright violation, then the DR must be closed as deleted. In this case, it is completely clear that the image violates the copyright belonging to the person who created the poster and cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the poster's creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Woodward:

Thank you for your reply, but I am disappointed with it. I cannot understand what do you mean by "satisfied that Tvb10data is a sockpuppet". There is no doubt that controlling "sock puppet" is a serious CRIME in all projects of Wikimedia Foundation, but that is why we need to be extra careful with this. If you charge Tvb10data as a "sock puppet" only because of the request for undeletion, you are pressurizing the others not to do so. The power of Checkuser and Administrator must not be misused. Being both Checkuser and Administrator, you have great responsibility to use the power your status provides with caution. I will put the argument of that photo aside for now, because that issue will involve the policy of Commons, and the permanent block of Tvb10data is urgent.

Wing1990hk, Tvb10data and I have enough evidence to prove that Tvb10data is absolutely NOT a "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk. From the User Contributions of Tvb10data and Wing1990hk on Wikipedia, there is no way that Tvb10data is controlled by Wing1990hk. I do not reckon that Tvb10data and I should be suspected respectively as "sock puppetry" and "meat puppetry", merely from the argument of that single photo. We both look like "single purpose accounts" only because we are "newcomers". As Tvb10data focuses on improving the Wikipedia like I do, we did not come here until the issue of that photo. That is why we are giving the evidences in Wikipedia rather than Commons. I do not suppose that Tvb10data is suspicious enough to be accused as "sock puppet" of another user.

It is also illogical that the 2 accounts are operated by different users in Wikipedia, but the same user in Wikimedia Commons. In English Wikipedia, Tvb10data was accused for "meat puppetry" and blocked for 2 weeks. I did not know that incident until this morning. User LungZeno was accused as "sock puppet" of user Instantnood and blocked permanently just because of LungZeno's opinion about whether Hong Kong should be listed as a country or not. Tvb10data came to express opinion and demand unblock, but was charged as "meat puppet". It would not be reasonable to make these prosecutions, especially when they gave enough elaboration to support their opinion, instead of leaving only a few sentences which were rubbish. Furthermore, Wing1990hk did NOT involve in this mess. This can verify that Tvb10data is NEVER a "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk.

You ignored the evidences we provided yesterday, however. It seems that you have done a "thorough" investigation with your tools, and those tools for Checkusers are much more "forceful" than our evidences, but due to "privacy reasons", I know that you are not going to provide what you have investigated via those tools. I will not expect you to change your mind even with my reply here. I am going to request other Checkusers to have another check, and if Tvb10data is proven not to be the "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk, Tvb10data must be unblocked instantly. Before that, I can only hope that I am not blocked again by reasons that are total nonsense. I do not even know why I was blocked without prior warning yesterday, as "calm down" is not a legitimate reason for a block without warning in the blocking policy.

Yours sincerely,
Tony YKS (talk)
12:35PM, 18/11/2014 (HKT)

Let us suppose for a moment that Tvb10data is not actually the same person as Wing1990hk. I don't believe that, but the possibility is worth discussing. The account TVB10data has been used in only two places -- similar cases here and on WP:EN. In both cases it was clear that he was either a sock or that he was recruited -- new users do not step into the middle of contentious DRs out of the blue. If he is not a sock, then he is a meatpuppet. We absolutely don't need meatpuppets who step onto the wrong side of DRs that are completely obvious to any experienced Commons editor. There was nothing to discuss there, because it was perfectly clear that the image infringes the rights of the creator of the poster. Wing1990hk and others, including you, made a zoo out of it, trying to invoke free speech, fair use, and other important but irrelevant issues. Whether Tvb10data is a sock or a meatpuppet really doesn't matter, because we don't need such people on Commons. The job of Admins on Commons is hard enough -- more than 10,000 new images every day, of which more than 1,500 must be deleted -- without having users with no experience on Commons fanning flames of controversy over perfectly routine deletions.
I should add that that comment also applies to you. I will not block you because I am too involved with you in this discussion, but if you continue being disruptive over a simple DR, one of my colleagues surely will..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to say that you are wrong. TVB10data focuses in Chinese Wikipedia, so your statement of "The account TVB10data has been used in only two places -- similar cases here and on WP:EN" is false. I do understand that job of Administrators is hard -- this is no exception in Wikipedia, but from the day you issued the infinite block on TVB10data, this is no longer an issue of "a simple DR". Another Checkuser is having a second check on TVB10data. If it is 100% sure that the photo infringes copyright, fine. I admit that "Fair Use" is controversial. -- Tony YKS (talk), 1:45AM, 19/11/2014 (HKT)
You are, of course, correct. I should have said that Tvb10data's only edits on WP:EN and Commons were disruptive. He has made many edits on WP:ZH and a few at JA, KO, and Wikidata.
Fair use is not at all controversial -- it is solid Commons policy that fair use has no place here. Before you step into the middle of another DR here, you should learn a little more about our rules. As I have said several times, this one was very cut and dried and should have had no controversy at all.
The further investigation you requested has led me to change my mind -- I will lift the block on Tvb10data. Please urge him to avoid stepping into controversy as a meatpuppet again, at least on Commons and WP:EN. Such disruptive editing is not permitted and will earn him a longer block next time..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comparing the contributions of Wing1990hk and Tvb10data, I am convinced they are not the same person. From Wing1990hk's contributions in Chinese Wiki, English Wiki and Commons, Wing1990hk started contributing in November 2005. Wing1990hk focuses on contributing in places and buildings in Hong Kong, made over 13000 edits. On the other hand, from Tvb10data's contributions in Chinese Wiki, English Wiki, and Commons, Tvb10data started contributing in November 2009. Tvb10data focuses on anime, made over 1000 edits. From the time difference of the first edits they made (2005 vs 2009), the differences of entries they contributed (places & buildings in HK vs anime) and the amount of edits they made (13000 vs 1000). There is no clue suggesting they are the same person.
Jim mentioned "new users do not step into the middle of contentious DRs out of the blue." From my point of view, especially because they are new users in Commons, they are not familiar with the rules so they will get themselves into trouble. It is unreasonable to accuse new comers are puppet just for they are arguing. It is like 'This is my first edit in Commons and I am arguing so I must be a puppet.'
New users invoking irrelevant issues is one thing, being a puppet is another. Banning new users for they are causing trouble is biting new users and Wiki doesn't supposed to like that. The ban also forbids Wing1990hk, a constant wiki contributor since 2005 who has uploaded over 500 photos since May 2013, from upload photos. This will no doubt cripple the quality of the entries Wing1990hk will edit in the future and the growth of entries of places & buildings in Hong Kong.--HKO2006 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment above that I wrote before seeing yours. Also note that I have not blocked Wing1990hk although it is completely clear that he did use at least one sock, User:Taifoklau, which I have blocked and which he has not denied.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I should add that "This is my first edit in Commons and I am arguing so I must be a puppet" is not far from the truth. Copyright is a very technical field. Seven people commented in favor of keeping the image. Of them, 3 had fewer than 10 edits on Commons and 3 more had fewer than 1,000. Only Wing1990hk has more than 1,000, and that is only 1,500. And you, by the way, have only 10. When people who have little or no experience on Commons come to comment on a DR that should have been completely routine, like almost all of the 1,500+ deletion we do every day, it is completely logical to assume that someone asked them to come. Meatpuppets are no more welcome here than sockpuppets, and while it turns out that Tvb10data may not be the same person as Wing1990hk, he is no less unwelcome for being a puppet of a different kind. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

When a DR that should be utterly routine because the issues involved are absolutely clear and the image is clearly not acceptable becomes contentious with several people who are new to Commons stepping in and offering opinions that have no basis in law or Commons policy, it is quite obvious that they were asked to come here and join the discussion. That makes them meatpuppets, which are not welcome here any more than socks.

Thank you for unblocking Tvb10data. I hope that the unblock can put an end to this incident. I promise to be careful about "Fair Use" and not to upload any files that involves "Fair Use" here in Commons (even though I have uploaded nothing in Commons). Copyright must be protected, that is for sure. Whether to review the policy or not, though, is up to you and other Administrators to decide. I apologize for not reading the policy thoroughly before stepping in. -- Tony YKS (talk), 12:40PM, 19/11/2014 (HKT)

Hi, I just checked these two users on zhwiki and based on data there I would say they are unrelated from a technical point of view. Just that you know :) Jimmy Xu (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello! Regarding deletion of Swedish maps. I do stick to the position that maps that are no more than a printout of a databas have no copyright protection. The statement about maps in the Swedish copyright law is far from as straigthforward as it might seem. The source backing my position would be Henry Olssons "Copyright". If maps are covered by FoP is not relevant since it is not protected by copyright in the first place. Edaen (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not pretend to know the details of Swedish copyright law, but a DR is not the place to change Commons understanding of it. If you think you are correct (and I doubt it very much -- maps are far more than just a database), then discuss it on the talk page of the FOP section I cited in the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I made an update to that page. Edaen (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The w:Database Directive specifies two kinds of databases:

  • Creative databases (Article 3.1), a database which meets the threshold of originality. For example databases of products and product numbers, cf. NJA 1995 p. 256. All Berne Convention countries are required to provide protection for creative databases (referred to as "collections" in Article 2 (5) of the Berne Convention).
  • Non-creative databases (Article 7.1), a database which doesn't meet the threshold of originality. For example, w:Feist v. Rural is a non-creative database under United States law. Unlike EU law, United States law only provides protection creative databases, so non-creative databases are in the public domain in the United States.

The originality criterion is given in the EU directive as a database "which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of [its] contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation". This wording is also used about other things in several EU documents. The exact meaning of these words has I believe neither been settled by a Swedish court nor by the EU court. However, from what I have understood, the wording has been interpreted by courts in both Germany (about the originality criterion for photographs) and in the United Kingdom (about the originality criterion for short extracts from copyrighted works), with, from what I have understood, very different results.

In Swedish law, the database protection is codified so that creative databases are given protection under sections 1 and 49 of the copyright law, whereas non-creative databases only are given protection under section 49. Section 49 gives a slightly weaker protection than section 1. For example, the term is a lot shorter, and there are no moral rights for non-creative databases.

Creative databases are listed as literary works in the Swedish copyright law. Maps are also listed as literary works, so there should be very little difference between maps and creative databases. It may very well be that a court simply would treat a map as a database, but many maps would then be creative databases. Maps are treated in the same way as technical drawings, and there have been at least two supreme court rulings about the originality requirement for technical drawings:

If you want to find out if a map is "creative" or "non-creative", I guess you would have to compare the 1998 ruling with the 2004 ruling. I don't know how to find out whether a map is a database, or whether it constitutes some other kind of literary work. This distinction should not matter if more than 15 years have passed since the publication of the map, and should typically only matter if the map doesn't reach the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps are often databases, see SOU 1956:25 and the SOU from 1967 together with the Royal proposition 1973:15 where the minister wrote:
Med anledning av uttalanden av en del remissinstanser vill jag slutligen framhålla att en förutsättning för att karta skall erhålla upphovsrättsligt skydd givetvis är att den är att anse som verk i URL:s mening (prop. 1960: 17 s. 50). Är kartan inte att anse som sådant verk, kan förhållandena i vissa fall vara sådana att den utgör arbete vari sammanställts ett stort antal uppgifter. På sådant arbete äger i princip 49 § URL tillämpning.File:Kungl Majts prop 1973 15.djvu p. 160
There is no mention of a creative database in this quote.
In an answer to the proposed law, the faculty of law at the University of Lund wrote:
Konsistoriet vid Lunds universitet och juridiska fakulteten vid universitetet uttalar att den föreslagna särregeln beträffande kartor inte synes ha motiverats på ett övertygande sätt. Vidare uttalas att kartor väl i allmänhet inte äger tillräckligt individuell prägel för att erhålla upphovsrättsligt skydd men att skydd enligt 49 § URL ej sällan kan bli aktuellt.File:Kungl Majts prop 1973 15.djvu p. 117
There is a court case from a Hovrätt (appelation court) on copyright to maps. Hovrätten för Västra Sverige, 2002-01-24, T 3627-00, Sjöfartsverket (Swedish Maritime Administration) against a nautical bookprinter. The court found that a very similar choice of facts was not an infringment since the format, construction and choice of colors for surfaces and lines in combination gave a different impression than the original.
Hovrätten fann sålunda att den ifrågasatta efterbildningen visserligen utgjorde en ”nära avbildning av vissa former” och kännetecknades av ”ett mycket likartat urval av faktauppgifter”. Likväl förekom inget intrång i Sjöfartsverkets rättsskydd med hänsyn till att den påstådda efterbildningens ”format, uppbyggnad, färgsättning av ytor och linjer” vid en helhetsbedömning uppvisade en annan karaktär än förlagan.SvJT
Edaen (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
His Majesty's Proposition 1973:15: The first sentence of the quote is about creative databases while the other two sentences are about non-creative databases. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to debate the issue as it will not get the widespread attention it deserves.
With that understood, I tend to agree with you. I am a very active mariner. Most navigators who use charts (not the Sunday small boat person) are now using electronic charting systems. On most such systems in many places, including, for example, the entire USA, we have a choice between a raster chart and a vector chart. Raster charts are mostly scans of existing paper charts, although some new raster charts are being produced electronically and all US paper charts are printed on demand from a raster image. Vector charts are created by the charting system on the fly. On a raster chart, as you zoom in and out, the detail does not change, except, of course, for size. On a vector chart it does, with the system showing more detail as the scale becomes larger. That would appear to mean that vector charts would be my choice, but it is not. A skillfully drawn raster chart will show the detail in a better and easier to read format than the vector chart produced by the system. So, I would be inclined to agree that a vector chart, drawn by machine, does not have a copyright. I would argue, however, that a standard raster chart does have a copyright and certainly the UK Hydrographic Office and the French SHOM would agree as they aggressively enforce their copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Is this a repost of the file with the same name that you deleted back in 2010? The source, author and permission fields contain text which suggests that this might not be own work... --Stefan4 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it looks suspicious. However, it is not the same file -- the filename has a long history -- at least five different images -- which is understandable, since Google translate says "coat of arms". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Tagged "no permission". --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

block and delete NZ's files?[edit]

Thanks for blocking Ketsuban Pichu. What about deleting her (numerous) files? [5] They were uploaded in evasion of a block. Could you please help me figure out the process? Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlike (I think) WP:EN, Commons files uploaded by a sock are not per se suspect and therefore automatically deleted. The normal rules apply. It would be very good if you went through them and nominated for deletion where appropriate. There are many more socks of Newzealand123 whose uploads also need checking, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Newzealand123.
Since there are a lot of files, you may find Visual File Change helpful if you are not already familiar with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761 (crop).png[edit]

Hi Jim,

Should we also delete File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg? Best regards, Yann (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Yury Muhin 2006-03-10.jpg[edit]

I am deeply saddened that you removed the photo without any discussion.

AVN (Armia Voli Naroda at rus., Army of People's Will at ­eng.) was political organization (like a party). All photos and another materials prepared by members of the AVN on the activities of AVN is owned organization. Now AVN don't exists, Yury Mukhin as ex-leader inherited all material with the consent of the other members. Prilutsky (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The DR was open for the full week that our rules require. I cannot help it if no one was interested in discussing it during that time.
The image had no author listed -- an organization is not the author, a person is. It is that person's life that determines how long the copyright will last in most countries. As I said in my closing comment, the subject of an image cannot consent to the license, that must come from the photographer. It is possible that the photographer transferred the copyright to AVN, but that transfer would have to be in writing, not informal.
Even if AVN did own the copyright, with a formal written transfer, there is no evidence of that on Commons. While it is policy to believe our uploaders when they claim "own work", policy requires that under these circumstances that the organization must provide a license using OTRS. Your assertion that you have permission is not enough because "permission for publication" is not sufficient permission for hosting on Commons -- we require permission for any use by anybody, including commercial use.
I suggest that you get the actual photographer to provide a license, or, if the photographer has transferred the copyright in writing, then get the actual copyright holder to provide a copy of that written transfer and a free license, using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank for quick answer!
I think so. To simplify the procedure, I will try to find a photographer (perhaps he's Wikipedian Alexander Sokolov, but I'm not sure). And we shall enter his name and free license into the description of file.
Do I need his written consent? Prilutsky (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking, as this may just be a small error in your English, but "I will try to find a photographer" suggests to me that you will find someone who may or not be the actual photographer just to have a name. Did you mean to say "I will try to find the photographer"?
Yes, you need the actual photographer to use the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my English is very bad. I said about real photographer, of course. And I don't understand what must we do now — when photo deleted. Send letter to address permissions-ru(at) Prilutsky (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The actual photographer needs to send a license to OTRS using the form shown there and referring to the image name above. Once that is received, the image can be restored. If you tell me here when the message has been sent, I can go to OTRS, read the permission (with the help of Google translate if it is in Russian) and restore the image. The backlog at OTRS is several weeks, so having me do it will speed things up.
And don't apologize for your English -- it is much better than my French, which is the only other language I can even begin to read. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)