Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jameslwoodward"

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 234: Line 234:
   
 
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.--[[User:Wing1990hk|Wing1990hk]] ([[User talk:Wing1990hk|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 
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.--[[User:Wing1990hk|Wing1990hk]] ([[User talk:Wing1990hk|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Please Unblock Tvb10data Immediately ==
  +
  +
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 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 an eternal User Block to Tvb10data immediately afterwards.
  +
  +
Blocking Tvb10data forever is extremely unreasonable, as there is no proof that this user has violated any 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 [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:用户贡献/Tvb10data Chinese] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tvb10data 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". Even 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 eternally 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.
  +
  +
[[User:Tony YKS|Tony YKS]] ([[User talk:Tony YKS|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]])<br>
  +
Wikipedia User<br>
  +
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. [[User:Jcb|Jcb]] ([[User talk:Jcb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:34, 16 November 2014

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"


Permission from copyright holder

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

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)

Peter:
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.

Hi Jim, thanks for the notice. I contacted Snježana Kordić using the email address (kordic.snjez@gmail.com) 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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS 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

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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2014_in_Poland&from=B 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 CreativeCommons.org
"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.
Yes.
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 CreativeCommons.org "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

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)

CU

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

File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg

James.

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)

Iraqi FOP deletions

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

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

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

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 --82.50.34.128 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)

File:Umm-ul-Banin-Salaam.jpg

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)

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

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)

Willowbl00

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

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)

Please Unblock Tvb10data Immediately

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 just because of the request of undeletion about the aforementioned file. I demand tounblock 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 an eternal User Block to Tvb10data immediately afterwards.

Blocking Tvb10data forever is extremely unreasonable, as there is no proof that this user has violated any 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". Even 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 eternally 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.

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)