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
1st half 2015

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sik Ferenc alairasa.jpg[edit]

Ok, I understand you, of course the "copyright" of someone's undersign belongs to him/her (regarding the personal rights). But, in this case how do you upload e.g. Benjamin Franklin's of other late person's undersign to the Wikimedia Commons? Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is a personal right and is inherited. Therefore, if the creator is dead, copyright will belong to his heirs for the specified period, usually 70 years after his death, and they can license it or not as they wish. Benjamin Franklin's works are, of course, long out of copyright and therefore not a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I think the Commons' paragraphes are misunderstandable about the requred fields, because the sentences always mentiones the "file" not the original work. So every file created in a way of digitalization belongs to the person who digitalizes the original paperwork. In the other hand the original work belongs to the original author - of course. But, regarding your reply, ok, Benjamin Franklin's undersign was not a good example. But what about e.g. Ronald Reagan 's undersign? I do not (!) want to open an endless dispute abaout this but there is not clear what kind of practice do you follow about this? Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sík Ferenc Emlékdíj közlemény 1996.01.15.jpg[edit]

Ok, this picture contains only texts, but this is a historical document. I wonder if how do you judge the text only documents e.g. the Declaration of Independence? Regards Cyberguy999 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, in most countries, copyright lasts for a specified period after the death of the creator, usually 70 years. In the case of a joint work, such as the Declaration of Independence, the last death among all the creators starts the clock. While we generally think of copyright in terms of books, any text has a copyright unless it is very short -- in the USA the rule is that anything one sentence or longer has a copyright.
In this case, the work clearly has a copyright.Although you claimed to be the author and copyright owner in the file description, I don't think that is correct. Also, as noted, we do not keep images of text, so it has two reasons for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as at my previous reply I do not want to open a dispute. But let me inform you about the status of this paper. This is not belonged to a person, rather than a Foundation (in Hungarian language: Alapítvány), and this is a historical communication - and the value comes from its historical state despite of that is text only document. And because this was a communication/announcement therefore this is public domain as the Foundation originally intended. Regarding the aboves nobody owns the copyright. Regards Cyberguy999 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, perhaps it is in scope -- I now understand that. However, there is still a copyright. Almost all created works have copyrights. The only exceptions are
  • laws and legal decisions in most countries
  • in a very few countries, all works where the creator is a government employee (this includes the USA)
  • works that are too simple -- text consisting of only a few words, not a complete sentence.
  • works where the copyright has expired, usually 70 years after the death of the creator.
The copyright originally belonged to the writer or writers of the document. If the writer(s) had a written contract assigning the copyright to the Foundation, then it belongs to the Foundation. If the writer(s) or the Foundation intended it to be Public Domain, then they must have declared that in a formal writing. If the formal declaration exists, then we need to see it. If it does not exist, then the document is not Public Domain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. The Foundation has been closed in 2009, by the founder (the widow) for some reason. On the other hand the Foundation belongs to my family, the founder is my relative and she transferred all of the rights to me. If you want to get a declaration from me that this paperwork is Public Domain, then hereby I state that this is that. This was the reason I digitalized the documents about the Foundation. Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it is much more complicated than that. First, as I said above, you will have to prove that the writer or writers of the document assigned their copyright to the Foundation. It seems to me unlikely that anyone would have taken that step. The assignment would have to have been in writing. Second, a Foundation is a separate legal entity that does not have owners. Only the trustees of the Foundation could have declared the document PD. Again, that would have to have been by vote and recorded in writing. If the Foundation was closed, then the disposition of its assets, including copyrights, would have been governed by its charter and not in the informal manner you describe. I think it is very likely that this document has an orphan copyright and cannot be used on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think you are not right saying "it is unlikely" because the above mentioned Ferenc Sík was my uncle. The Foundation is separate but there is a founder (in this case the widow) who has the right to close a foundation and to end all of the activity (I don't think this law could be a Hungarian speciality). On the other hand most of the trustees are late persons (if you want to see the hungarian page please visit Sík Ferenc Alapítvány). Unfortunately the page is available only in Hungarian language. And I don't think you have any rights to force me to show a written proof to you above my copyrights (even in English language :-)). Otherwise I could have a right to get a proof from you that you have the right to get a proof from me :-) I think this is an obsolete and possibly endless argument, and during this time I have found an alternative solution. So good luck for the continous sweep the huge amount of pictures in Commons with unproven (or not DMCA appropriate) copyrights. I don't think that could be handled with either some bots, or "bigdata" algorithms and without a worldwide sui generis laws of intellectual property rights. Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons policy is very clear that it is up to you to prove that you have the right to license it. Without that proof, it will remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WMF policy decision[edit]

If you know a WMF policy decision about 2D scans of coins please replace the vintage 2007 talk page weasel indicated that in his view on Commons:ART#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet. The line of arguments for 3D is about picking a point of view and the light as an act of creativity by a photographer. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The page you cite is formal Commons policy -- that's all we need. The opinion of WMF counsel is hardly a "talk page weasel" -- unless you can somehow get counsel to change that opinion, that's the end of any discussion. And, by the way, I fully agree with it. Bridgeman is a District Court decision, binding in only part of the USA. It is contrary to the law in many other countries. I see nothing to be gained by trying to extend Bridgeman further than WMF has already. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, nevermind, I thought you know something better/clearer/fresher when you wrote "WMF policy decision", not this lame "WMF counsel opinion". The "indicated that in his view" is the weasel, it's not "stated" or similar. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A lawyer can never state as a fact what a court might decide at some time in the future. He can only say what his opinion is. So those words are as strong as you will ever see from a competent lawyer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
State as fact would be yet another weasel (likely from another POV.) If this former WMF counsel had an urge to offer personal opinions he'd do that like everybody else, but if it's supposed to be some kind of official (as of 2007) WMF opinion "stated" fits. Of course he's not personally responsible for utter dubious weasels claiming to be a policy on commons. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Olivier.jpg[edit]

Hi, This image was reuploaded. I warned this user not to reupload it. @Steinsplitter:? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons: Undeletion request:File photo of Maryann Corbett[edit]

I would appreciate some advice. I am the subject of the Wikipedia article "Maryann Corbett." I and members of my family are the only persons who own images of me, or the rights to them. The talk page for the article asks editors to improve the article by adding a photo. As far as I can see, I am the only person on the planet who can do so.

I have tried to insert a photo, only to have it deleted. I submitted an undeletion request, which was refused by you on the grounds that my request might be an instance of identity theft, with the added objection that a claim of ownership by my husband, the actual photographer, would be preferred. See this page:

These are my questions:

How can I establish my identity in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's editors?

My husband doesn't have a Wikipedia account and is uninterested in becoming an editor. Can he submit a claim of ownership of the image without one?

Although I regularly edit the articles for the Richard Wilbur Award, the The Willis Barnstone Translation Prize, and the Howard Nemerov Sonnet Award, my knowledge of Wikipedia procedures is limited, and I'd just like to be told what steps to take to add the photo that Wikipedia SAYS it wants.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Maryann Corbett (maryannz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryannz (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 January 2015‎ (UTC)

I see that there was a link to OTRS in the Undeletion request, but sometimes we are a little too cryptic here -- my apologies for that. All that needs to happen here is for your husband to send a free license using the procedure described at OTRS. He should refer to the file by the name File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG so that it is easy to locate. Note that capitalization matters, so it is JPG, not jpg. It would be helpful if he sent the message from an e-mail address that is traceable to you -- one at would be good, but if that is hard, it will probably be all right without it.
We require people using the names of famous people to confirm their identity if they want to continue using that name, so it would be good if you sent a message to OTRS confirming that User:Maryannz is, in fact, Maryann Corbett. OTRS is confidential, so your e-mail address will be seen only by volunteers who have agreed to keep everything there private.
OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and very much understaffed -- their backlog typically runs three or four weeks. I try hard to encourage polite requests, so if you put a note here after he has sent the e-mail, I'll take a look at it and probably speed up the process.
As a complete aside, I note on WP:EN your work:
"Rehearsing the Durufle Requiem, late in 2001"
which has a broken link. My wife sang the Durufle last month, and will, God willing, sing it again at Carnegie Hall in June. I'd like to see the poem, if I could.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

More on WWI memorial images[edit]

Hi Jim. Returning here to ask you about a couple more things.

  • (i) I had trouble finding the undeletion request once it had been archived. I eventually found it here. I usually find such requests by following 'what links here' from the image page, but that didn't work here. I suppose you have to follow 'what links here' for the image to find the deletion request, and then follow 'what links here' from the deletion request to find the undeletion request?
  • (ii) You may remember that a large number of WWI memorial images were nominated for deletion, with this summary at the time. More were deleted after that (as you can see from the long list on my talk page - I am hoping to at some point summarise the history of these discussions so it is clearer what happened here). The question asked over at WP:MCQ is here. There was yet more discussion here (that link takes you to 15 deletion discussions on en-Wikipedia). The thing I don't understand is that people there debated and pointed to Commons policies, about images that were moved from Commons to WP under the (possibly mistaken) impression that en-WP could host them when Commons could not.
  • (iii) Before I spend too much more effort on this, would an approach direct to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission help clarify things at all? It does seem rather sad to be circling 31 December 2016 as a date to be requesting undeletion of images of memorials by Baker (similar to the Lutyens images), but if that is the way it has to be done, maybe that is the way. It is difficult to put into words the feelings evoked by seeing days, months and years of discussions over this. Four years of a war to end all wars. Decades of building cemeteries and memorials to commemorate the fallen. People photographing the memorials over the years. And then (over the past few years) people arguing over whether any restrictions exist on the use of those photographs. Something just feels wrong about that. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
(i) Yes -- you can get at it that way. Knowing that I opened the UnDR, you could also look at my contributions. Or, simply look through the UnDR archive for for a date/time that was close to the time I said I did it.
(ii) The war memorials are simply architectural and sculptural works in a non-FOP country. Therefore their architects and sculptors are entitled to the protection of their copyrights. That is firm Commons policy. The fact that many (all?) of the creators were not French is irrelevant. The fact that they are non-French quasi-governmental memorials is irrelevant. The "expired Crown Copyright" mentioned in that discussion does not actually exist unless -- and I think this is very unlikely -- (a) the creators involved had work for hire agreements with the Commission, and (b) you can show that, as a legal matter, works created by the Commission had a Crown Copyright. Since the Commission is an inter-governmental organization of six governments, only four which recognize the Crown, I am not at all sure that its works would have a Crown Copyright.
I don't know WP:EN policy at all, but I would be surprised if WP:EN allowed images of sculpture in France except as Fair Use.
(iii)Again, while I sympathize with your point of view, the same "it's too bad that we can't keep" arguments could be made about many things -- works by Picasso, all modern architecture in France and other non-FOP countries, and so forth. Since I don't think the Commission holds any copyrights, I can't see how it would be helpful here. The only possibility I see is getting a license from the heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. I'm aware that some of the arguments (on both side, IMO) in the discussions so far (over several years) have been less than rigorous, but that is in part why I want to try and pull the various strands together and get a more detailed treatment of this, one aim being to avoid continuing angst over this (it would be useful to have something to point to). The irony is that it is mostly those who care most about use of these images who would end up doing this, but I think it will help.

On the actual legal points, I suspect that something obvious is being missed in all this. Briefly, the point you make about two of the current Commission members not recognising the Crown, that would obviously not have been the case when the Commission was formed by Imperial Charter in 1917. I remember making all these points in previous discussions, but can't remember what was said at the time (again, this is why I want to write a summary putting all the arguments in one place). I'm sure the issue has come up concerning what happened to copyrights when the British Empire became the Commonwealth, but this is complicated by not being a single country, but several with different histories.

On the works-for-hire argument (I've pointed out before that all the architects were salaried and paid by the Commission [sometimes for decades], but people seemed to ignore that, and I suspect that the devil of the details would be in the actual wording of the contracts signed), am I correct in saying that this only helps if the copyright is Crown Copyright and has expired, and that anything else would end up with that 95 or 120 years since creation term?

About contacting the current heirs of the architects, that is something that would be difficult, both finding them (what happens if I find that some of the architects died intestate?) and trying to work out what to say. Seriously, if you were one of these heirs, what would your reaction be to this if you found out that an online media resource/database/repository (Wikimedia Commons) was defending the rights of your architect ancestor under the absence of Freedom of Panorama in France? Would you thank them and start aggressively asserting rights that you maybe didn't know you had, or would you say you don't in truth know what contracts your ancestor signed, or would you try and release the rights that you might not have, or would you shrug and just say you can't help (or not reply)? Can you think of a sensible way to approach someone about this? Not a form letter, but something actually summarising the issues in a way that is easy to understand for someone not familiar with copyright issues? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, I think, is that I think that a fair summary of both sides of all the various arguments made might turn out to be a good thing, particularly when (I say "when" not "if") we have the next DR on the subject. It is inevitable that more images of the various memorials in France will be uploaded and unlike some other difficult areas (outdoor sculptures at UN headquarters in New York, for example), there is not a single relatively short precedent to which we can point. So, by all means, go to it.
On the question of Crown Copyright -- you are certainly correct that in 1917 India was a colony and the Union of South Africa was an independent dominion, but even then there were four or five different nations on the Commission - Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were independent and the Union of South Africa nominally so. We speak of "Crown Copyright" when we mean copyrights owned by the government of any of these, but in fact five different sets of laws apply. Although the laws in the member countries have changed since 1917, there have always been at least five laws. Which of those laws apply to works owned by the Commission and why?
Indeed, why should any of them apply to works created in France? As I read the UK 1911 copyright act, it applies only to works created by a UK subject or resident and first be published in the UK. I don't see how any of the Crown copyright laws can apply to a work in France.
As far as approaching the heirs goes, I don't think it need be difficult -- you simply ask them to license whatever rights they may own -- a quitclaim. The need can be explained simply that the copyright situation is unclear and that Commons would like to be able to show photographs of their ancestors' works. Intestacy is not an issue. Someone who dies intestate has heirs, but the the heirs are selected by the Crown, not the testator. I don't aggressive assertion of rights is at all likely -- it costs money to assert rights and without any hope of anyone actually paying for the rights, who is going to spend money to assert them. I'll guess that there are actually post cards of the memorials now and I'll also bet that the postcard vendors are not paying royalties to the heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Books with photos have been published as well. I should remember to look to see what acknowledgements are in those books in relation to the photos (in all seriousness, how do guidebooks deal with, for example, publishing photos of the Eiffel Tower?). No need to answer that here and now. I'll come back when (if) I've located any of these supposed heirs, and once I've made a start on the summary I'm planning (that may take a while to get started). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The Eiffel Tower is not a problem, because Eiffel died in 1923. Your point is well taken, though. I suspect that mostly they ignore architects' copyrights and trust that they won't be sued. They're probably right -- while COM:PRP prohibits our using the same reasoning, they probably believe that the the architect will be happy to have his work shown. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:Advent a Hargitan plakat.jpg[edit]

Regardiing the aboves I don't thik using the Commons anymore. I think, despite of your "very clear" policy, without your comprehensive knowing about the Hungarian Intellectual Property Laws, it would be an endless argument between us. So please read again my words about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sík Ferenc Emlékdíj közlemény 1996.01.15.jpg. Regards: 12:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, tell me why you think a poster created in 1986 is PD -- not covered by copyright. It is true that I don't read Hungarian, but I don't need to read Hungarian to know that a work less than 70 years old must be covered by copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific transliteration[edit]

Hello Jim, a new question. I noticed that Slav originally in Cyrillic are transliterated from Serbian according the scientific transliteration like i.e. Dragan Džajić (which in his language is Драган Џајић), but the same doesn’t apply i.e. for Russian or Bulgarian names, which are transliterated according to the anglosaxon transliteration (i.e.: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky whose scientific transliteration is Pëtr Il’ič Čajkovskij, or the Bulgarian Kitsa Stoyanova, whose ISO transliterated name is Kica Stojanova, Кица Стоянова). Either is that intentional or is one of the inconsistencies I must deal with? :-D -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sergio -- I'm always happy to answer questions, but this one is out of my expertise -- I'm aware that there are various transliterations of words and names -- Peking and Beijing immediately come to mind -- but I don't have a clue here. I would try several things -- first look at WP:EN and see which it uses, if that doesn't help, I would use Google Translate to translate the name and see what it comes up with. I might also look and see who created the categories -- I would favor the methods used by experienced bi-lingual editors over those used by newbies.
Also, I'd guess that the transliteration of famous deceased people's names -- Tchaikovsky, for example -- probably were set in stone 50 to 100 years ago and may not be consistent with the way his name might be translated today. Therefore, I might expect consistency in the way such names are handled. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes thanks. It may also be like you say: on the other hand the Serbo-Croatian language can be written in both alphabets (the language is basically the same but whereas Serbs use Cyrillic alphabet Croatians use Latin) so what arrived to us is the Croatian version of a name (which is, Latin alphabet integrated with Slavic phonemes. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dünya Atay[edit]

Dear Friend Can you please explain "copyvios" rules? The images are planning to be used by artist's permission, Dunya Atay, she sent an email to permission-tr stating her permission of the usage of her artwork. If there a document she can sign maybe? Thank you very much for your help--Gemalmaz ileti 09:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemalmaz (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 January 2015‎ (UTC)

All done, thank you. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Dünya Atay.
Please note that on Commons, you must sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). The signature above, which begins "Kullanıcı:Gemalmaz" leads to a non-existent page because on Commons you are User:Gamalmaz. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I am User:Gemalmaz.--Gemalmaz ileti 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but your sig reads
[[Kullanıcı:Gemalmaz|<font color="#EEB422"><b>Gemalmaz</b></font>]] [[User Talk:Gemalmaz|<font color="#0000FF"><sup><u>ileti</u></sup></font>]] 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
and there is no Kullanıcı:Gemalmaz on Commons. You must change your sig to User:Gemalmaz. As it is now, it is a redlink -- but because you give it a color in the sig, it does not show red. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jim.--Gemalmaz ileti 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That's good. It's very strange -- the only Turkish word I know is "Kullanci" -- because at least five or ten Turkish speakers have created a Commons page Kullanci:XXX. The same thing has happened with two or three German speakers, but no other language. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It still needs a source:[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AutographNeumeister.jpg you closed as Kept, however the concern is that this uploader takes all kinds of old stuff, says own work and uploads. An 1802 signature cannot be his own work and needs a source. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never understood the need for a source for something that is completely obviously PD. Is it that we are worried that it is a fake? Who would fake an old autograph? And, even if he cites a source, who is going to go there and check? I agree that "own work" is not right, and must be changed, but beyond that, I think we have bigger worries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
We might, but this uploader has no clue what own work means and passed off all sorts of stuff as his own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:CoA from blazon[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:CoA from blazon has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

GNOME High contrast icons/authors[edit]

Hi! You deleted this page with reason "Commons galleries are for collections of images, not text". But this page was important role for attribution (and credits) of 200 images (see there). These icons is used in POTY galleries and links to the authors are urgently needed. Maybe you restore this page or tell me another way to correctly specify the authors of these icons? --Kaganer (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I put the data on Talk:GNOME High contrast icons, which is a legitimate place for such information. However that's not a solution for the attribution problem. You must credit each author on each icon's file page, as is done with all other Commons images that require attribution. Putting the attribution two clicks (and page loads) away from the image is a violation of the license and Commons policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but this not my contribution. I don't see information about authorship of separate icons. --Kaganer (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Dear Admin,

What can I do now to undelete this file.

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)