User talk:Jameslwoodward

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Jameslwoodward's
Archives

2009
2010
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

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


Uploading an image from a blog/TISTORY[edit]

Can I upload an image from a blog that does not indicate its copyright? For example: http://sunnybobo515.tistory.com/ And if I ask permission from the owner of the photos, what are the things needed to prove I was given permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianram (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 September 2014‎ (UTC)

My apologies for the slow answer -- I completely overlooked your question.
The short answer is "no". Everything has a copyright, so the only works you can upload from the Web are works that have a clear and explicit free license. There are exceptions, particularly for works of USA origin before 1989 and, of course, works for which the copyright has expired.
The requirement is that the copyright owner -- who may or may not be the owner of the blog -- must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Beacon Hill, Surrey[edit]

I understand your reasons for deleting the Wikimedia Commons page Beacon Hill, Surrey. It is work in progress for user User:Tony Holkham. See Talk:Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey). Just give him a chance to finish it. I will keep clear, other than to upload images, which cannot yet have the new category. SovalValtos (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I have corrected the name (above) of the page I deleted, but there has never been a talk page by either name.
You say "which cannot yet have the new category" -- if User:Tony Holkham intended to create a new category, then he forgot to include the necessary prefix "Category:" and therefore created a gallery. I see that he has added a category by that name to an image that you (SovalValtos) uploaded. One of you needs to finish the job by creating the category -- I can't do it, because I don't know what categories it belongs in.
If, on the other hand he actually intended to create a gallery, then please understand that we get many new galleries every day. Most of them are mistakes or vandalism and are deleted. We do this very rapidly in order to discourage the vandals.
When you create a new gallery, there are three different ways to avoid rapid deletion. Any one of them will work:
1) Create it in your own space, such as at User:JohnDoe/Sandbox, and then copy it to the new gallery name when ready. You can then just leave User:JohnDoe/Sandbox for future use.
2) Create it as a gallery, but do not save it until you have added at least two images.
3) Put a note at the top that it is under construction.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I will only reply to one point here now; the Talk page I referred to is for the page in Wikipedia, not Commons. The rest I am leaving to others as a bit beyond me. user:Tony Holkham will soon be on the case I expect, he just needed 24hrs grace. SovalValtos (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to cite a page on WP:EN, you must use the appropriate markup. Neither I nor the software can read your mind. There are several ways to cite a WP:EN page from Commons. The easiest is
{{w|Talk:Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey)}} which produces Talk:Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey)
The template defaults to WP:EN, but can be used for any WP. See Template:w for more information.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a bit lost here. There is a page "Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey)" on WP en. Some photos on Commons have titles like "Beacon Hill, Surrey". I tried to create a category called the latter on Commons so it would pick up those photos, but I must have got it wrong, and I now know I should have asked for advice first! Can I have some help to sort it out, please? I also tried to add "Beacon Hill, Surrey" to the Beacon Hill disambig page. Apologies for causing consternation. Tony Holkham (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You tried to create Category:Beacon Hill, Surrey here on Commons, but forgot to include the prefix "Category:", so you actually created an empty gallery, which I then deleted. Commons has a nice feature, that if images are added to a category that doesn't yet exist, it will show them if you go to that page. Therefore, all you need to do is click here and then click on "Create" in the upper right corner, add the appropriate Commons categories, and save it. As I said above, I can't create it because I don't have a clue what categories should be put on it.

As for the dab page, there is an entry for Surrey at Beacon Hill on WP:EN, and your new entry on the Commons dab page is correct, but it's a red link because you need to create the category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Done that, I hope correctly. The next step I presume is to add each relevant pic individually to the category. Thanks very much for your help. Appreciate it. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good so far. As you say, now you need to go to each relevant image and add [[Category:Beacon Hill, Surrey]] to it. There are a number of tools which can speed that up under various circumstances. You should look at
  • Preferences >> Gadgets >> Tools for categories >> HotCat
  • Preferences >> Gadgets >> Tools for categories >> Cat-a-lot
both of which you will find under the Preferences link at the upper right of every Commons page. Links to documentation are there.
HotCat allows you to add a category without opening an edit box on the image page, eliminates typing "Category:" and autocompletes when you get close. It will always be faster than doing them one at a time.
Cat-a-lot allows you to make changes to more than one file at a time. I'm guessing here, but you might use it to move relevant images from Category:Hindhead to the new cat.
HotCat is pretty safe, as it only makes one change at a time. Cat-a-lot can be dangerous, as you can change hundreds of categories with one click, so be careful and start small.
Feel free to ask if you have questions, but I'm off now until around 11:00 UTC tomorrow (Thursday).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I did it manually, but I will remember your useful speed-up tip for next time. Thanks again. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depri.jpg[edit]

I disagree with keeping the file Depri.jpg. Yes the text is too short to warrent copyright, but it's subtitles. Subtitles don't excist in a vacume, I think they were added to the photograph of the woman pictured which the artist then added some paint to. TwoWings seems to know too little about copyright to either deny nor confirm this but under the cautionary principle the file should be delete. --Vera (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You may be right -- I reopened the DR. Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm raising this one at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Shadow_puppet_of_Bima.2C_Java.2C_Indonesia_.2817th-18th_century.29.jpg due to the potential precedent against our norm for the 2D artwork template. Thanks -- (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How about waiting a while before deleting newly created articles?[edit]

Hi, I see that you have deleted Gaganendranath Tagore a few minutes after I created it. How about waiting a while before getting those scissors out? :) -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were trying to create a Creator: page, you forgot the "Creator:" prefix. If you were intending to create a gallery, then the inclusion of creator information in the form you used is not appropriate.
Also, please note that we get around 100 new galleries a day. Most of them are mistakes or vandalism and are rapidly deleted. We do this very rapidly in order to discourage the vandals.
When you create a new gallery, there are three different ways to avoid the problem you had. Any one of them will work:
1) Create it in your own space, such as at User:Cpt.a.haddock/Sandbox, and then copy it to the new gallery name when ready. You can then just leave User:Cpt.a.haddock/Sandbox for future use.
2) Create it as a gallery, but do not save it until you have added at least two images
3) Put a note at the top that it is under construction.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask them here.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to undelete files[edit]

Hello Jim,

Could you please find and if possible restore the files that you deleted previously: the appropriate letters were sent to OTRS about 2 months ago, and yesterday 19.09 I also sent to OTRS attachments with the copies of the images (as I was advised to do by an OTRS administrator).

The deletion requests are:

1) Ticket #2014072210012853, File:Мемориальный знак.jpg

2) Ticket #201407301000224, 2 files File:Plagiarism Table of Sokolov's Thesis.png and File:Андрей Ростовцев.JPG

3) Ticket #2014080610008566, File:Пархоменко Сергей Борисович.jpg

If you need some more information, please let me know. Mlarisa (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The OTRS volunteer who checks the licenses will undelete them in due course. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • But 2 months have passed! Is such term normal for Wikimedia? I mean, if something goes wrong, how soon I should start worrying again? Thank you anyway. Mlarisa (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's one for you[edit]

Hi Jim, Please see [1], thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also three more by the same uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Skore183[edit]

Hi James,

I'm referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Streetart skore183 buy euro bonds.jpg which you've closed. We've now received a substantiated claim by the copyright holder, this time via email, requesting the deletion of the file from Commons (ticket:2014092110009016). The person requesting that does not claim to be the copyright holder of the graffito (which, as you wrote, could be used under the FOP rationale) but of the photograph itself. I find it plausible, particularly given the lack of documentation on the image page. A copyright claim is also made for File:Skore183 InGreedWeTrust.jpg. Both uploaders were more or less inactive besides providing these files and the latter file's description also seems dubious ("Source=Website: www.skore183.com |Author=[[Artist:Skore183|Skore183]]" despite the uploader's name being "Graffitifan"). Most importantly, however, the complainant has included a screenshot showing the image file on his personal file system, including metadata and in considerably higher resolution. Could you (re)check if these files can be deleted? Best, — Pajz (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of procedure here. Your analysis is fairly convincing, but I'm uncomfortable with simply deleting them without any discussion -- I think the best thing would be a regular DR. Another Admin may disagree with my caution and delete them sooner. Or, of course, you may put a {{speedy}} on them, with the information above, and see what happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jameslwoodward, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Sounds perfectly reasonable; actually I wanted to start a DR here but the DR script instructed me to talk to the deleting admin first. (I see that the files have been deleted in the meantime, so this is resolved.) Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oxbow Inn/Saloon and Gila/Salt River Meridian.... in response to your request to remove both[edit]

The Wikipedia Summer of Monuments said it had no pics on these places, and was asking the public to submit pics. I went to both places, took pics, and submitted them. I have absolutely no idea what issue you have with them, or even why. If Wikipedia didn't want pics, why does it even ask for help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseckardjudd (talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 September 2014‎ (UTC)

In both cases, the problem is that the objects you photographed are themselves copyrighted -- the Meridian marker and the Oxbow plaque. That makes your photographs derivative works of the marker and the plaque and, therefore they infringe on the two copyrights. We cannot keep such images without permission from the copyright holders.
I suggest you read Commons:Monuments and copyright, which is linked from the Summer of Monuments Home Page, for more information.
As for your question, the people who organize events such as this are not much concerned with copyright. For a while last month, the Summer of Monuments Home Page was illustrated with an image that had the same problem as yours and has now been deleted. That is unfortunate, but in a project as large as Commons, we all have specializations. And, of course, your pictures of the tavern itself are fine as there is no copyright there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree![edit]

I totally disagree with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Automobiles with advertisement in France, if no rights have violated. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, you, and several others at the DR, think that advertising does not have a copyright. That is simply wrong. All created works have a copyright. There is nothing in French law or the law of any other country which even hints that advertising does not have copyright.
Feel free to post an Undeletion Request if you wish, but you will get the same answer there as at the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of File:Rosebud battle.pdf[edit]

I regret that I was not aware that this map had been tagged for deletion. Your reason for deleting it was "because it is a personal document and therefore out of scope. It might be in scope if the author were a noted historian, but he is not."

Your reasoning is incorrect. The Atlas of the Sioux Wars from which this map is taken was published by the Combat Studies Institute of the U.S. Department of the Army. You may purchase the atlas with this map through the General Printing Office of the U.S. Government or from Amazon or Barnes and Noble. In other words, this is not "a personal document," nor do you have any basis to say that the author/artist is not a "noted historian." I believe that the publication and sale of the "Atlas of the Sioux Wars" by the U.S. government is proof that this book/map is not a "personal document" and is a credible, verifiable source.

I don't know how to play around with the Wikimedia bureaucracy, but, whatever the procedure, I request that you restore this image to its proper position in the Battle of the Rosebud article on Wikipedia. It is important to the comprehension of the reader of the battle. With regards. Smallchief (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of the wrong document. This is not a map. It is a Master's thesis written by Richard I. Wiles, Jr. Amazon does not show any other publications by Wiles, hence my belief that he is not a noted historian. We do not normally keep Master's or PhD theses unless the writer is notable.
You may request a review of the deletion at Undeletion Requests, but it seems to me that this thesis PDF is well outside of our scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you. I saw a red link instead of the map earlier today, but now it is visible again in the Battle of the Rosebud article.Smallchief (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No trouble -- things happen. Hard to explain this one, as neither the map nor the WP:EN article have been edited since September 10 and even that was only a change of capitalization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Need some advice, please re: license tags[edit]

Hi Jim,

Would you mind taking a look at an image review at en:WP? At first it looked like the trailer screenshots from the two older films would need to go to DR. Got curious and went back to original registrations. Compared the dates to those IMDB gave for both films premieres and got news clippings showing that both were in theaters before copyright was filed. Both trailers in question do have copyright marks. What should the license be changed to on the screenshots from both films since we can't say they had no notice. Am willing to copy what we found to all affected files so nothing gets deleted and will change their licenses once it's determined what "fits". Thanks, We hope (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • As I said there,
Under the pre-1976 law, copyright began upon publication, provided that the appropriate notice was included. A work that was not published could be registered and that would also begin the copyright. Although there were certain benefits to registration, it was not required for initial copyright (the first 28 years), so the fact that the registrations in this case were after publication is irrelevant. see Copyright Basics, page 6
Therefore, if there was notice, the copyrights are valid even though the registrations were after publication. In fact, they would be valid without any registration, provided any required renewal was filed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in both spots, Jim. Renewals were checked and both films in question were renewed. Will see what I can do to help them and then guess all of the trailer screenshots from both films will need to go to DR. We hope (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yücel Erten[edit]

Thanks for your Warning. Excuse me. My English is not so gut.I don't know very well about Commons. I wanted to make only what the good. I follow from now more. For another Images, I let send permissionsletter.--Gemalmaz ileti 07:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Question on several images by Aristide Maillol (1861-1944)[edit]

Dear Admin Woodward,

I had passed this image and one of these two images by Aristide Maillol who died in September 1944.

I have not marked these other images in this category or this other category or this category by the same uploader. (He may have other categories) Its not yet 2015 but will be in about 3 months. What would you do here? Could you personally either pass these images or file a DR on them...and revert my flickpass if you wish on the 2 images that I mentioned. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged them all with {{delete}} with the comment that they can be restored on 1/1/2015. Your Flickrreview was entirely correct and should remain, as it establishes that the photographs are correctly licensed. It would be good if you did that for all of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: the uploader has at least two more categories here and here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As an aside this USA image was uploaded by a Commons Admin. I passed it but I don't know if it violates US FOP laws. If it does, please file a DR on it. It looks like a sculpture of a dinosaur. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your advice. I'll vote in this DR now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giani Tirath Singh Ji.jpg [edit]

Sorry about my other two uploaads Jim, this is my first article hence i wasnt fully familiar with the violations, because both of the newspaper articles were handed in by us so i thought it wouldnt violate. But this image is not from the newspaper, Giani Tirath Singh Ji is my grandfather and this was a personal photo that I took him to a studio to take. hence i am sure that this image doesnt violate any copyright issues. So can you please take back your deletion request. kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhsta888 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Routinely DRs run the full 7 days before closure. Please see my question there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)