User talk:Jacklee/Archive: Image issues (2010)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Hi Jack, could you elaborate "too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}"? Also, I am authorized as I am staff at Media Resource Department at SAF MP Command. If you need verification you can SMS me at +6581680434. I will be happy to provide you with more details for verification of my identity. Many thanks. TimLee90 (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have replied on your talk page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I'll check with my boss on the matter and see what they want to do. Many thanks! TimLee90 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jack, thanks much for the solution. Will use it. All the best! TimLee90 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Great cleaning job in Category:Multilingualism. Maybe we should isolate most items in an in-between category, such as Category:Multilingual media or Category:Multilingual objects ? You choose, I will try to help cleaning up this "Mixed writing systems" thing within a couple of days. --Foroa (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to help with this. I think it is a good idea to rename "Category:Mixed writing systems" as "Category:Multilingual media" or "Category:Multilingual texts", but I guess the right name for the category depends on what sort of images you envisage editors placing in it. Is it a sort of catch-all category for multilingual texts that do not fit into any of the other categories? — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The idea is for a root category for all pictures of multilingual objects: multilingual signs, inscriptions, passports, stamps, books, statues, ... . All stuff that did not find a proper category yet, but away from Category:Multilingualism. --Foroa (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it is useful to distinguish between "Multilingual objects" (objects with two or more languages printed on them, such as inscriptions and signs) and "Multilingual texts" (books and documents such as passports, stamps, statutes and treaties in two or more languages)? Or is "texts" confusing (e.g., a sign could be a "text" too)? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Obviously, I was not very clear, I propose the following structure for Category:Multilingualism:

  • Category:Bilingualism
  • Category:Interpretation
  • Category:Language-neutral diagrams
  • Category:Language-neutral maps
  • Category:Polyglots
  • Category:Translation
  • Category:Multilingual media (or objects) (former Category:Mixed writing systems)
    • Category:Multilingual banknotes
    • Category:Multilingual books
    • Category:Multilingual documents
    • Category:Multilingual inscriptions
    • Category:Multilingual newspapers
    • Category:Multilingual passports
    • Category:Multilingual signs
    • Category:Multilingual stamps
    • Category:Multilingual statutes
    • Category:Multilingual treaties

--Foroa (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right! Sure, that looks all right. I'd suggest using "Multilingual media" for the root subcategory, as we may need "Multilingual objects" for multilingual texts on objects such as boxes, clothes, and so on. By the way, do you think the subcategories "Language-neutral diagrams" and "Language-neutral maps" belong in this category? — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Done most of the restructuration. I guess that we better leave language-neutral thingies aside (or over time in "language neutral media"): the Multilanguage items are for normal media (providers and consumers), the neutral language things needed special efforts to create them, and have as destination the multi-language "do it Your selvers". Best. --Foroa (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Singapore contributors

Many thanks for the help! Especially thankful for the SGpedian page-- I found some places to post, but that's a very useful page! -- Nick Moreau (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Prekmurian bibles

Thank you the new category. I reckon so, that i construct for some category, for ex. Prekmurian prayer-books, coursebooks and newspapers. Doncsecz (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your help. My english is generally "sufficient", but when it comes to write something really unambiguous, it is really only 2.718 (see my user page). Cheers. --GaAs11671 16:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"ascertain", « ascertain », please ascertain I'll try to rememeber this verb lol. --GaAs11671 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort people by name

On 8000 --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)defaultsorts added the last four days, there are cetainly a few percent to be improved. Please feel free to change the defaultsort without discussion, whenever you think it an improvement. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with sorting couple hundred names left at User:Jarekt/a? --Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a really busy period for me. I did some of the ones that were more obvious to me (mostly Chinese names). — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal issues about sexually explicit content

Hi, Jacklee. Since we are interested in the same topic I wanted to further explain my thinking. I've participated in these discussion and read these discussions before and have a pretty good understanding of the legal issues involved and the approach that the Foundation is using to address them. So, I'm thinking ahead to the solutions that will address the issue in a way that is user friendly since we need to be concerned with helping our volunteers understand and comply with the laws of their own state or country even if the Foundation itself is not in jeopardy of breaking any laws. I think it is best practice for the WMF to encourage people to understand the legal and ethical issues involved of uploading, viewing, and using files. Because there is a wide variation in laws, self education and self filtering is the most practical way to manage the issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid have to disagree. Even though I don't think it is terribly useful to have large quantities of sexually explicit images in the Commons, I seriously doubt if there will ever be consensus on some sort of tagging or filtering system. Therefore, I think that approach is a non-starter. On the other hand, if the law states that images have to comply with certain requirements before they can be uploaded to the Commons, then we have to develop a system for ensuring that this is done. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
So, you have no concern for the person that is unexpectedly exposed to sexually explicit images? Is that a responsible way for WMF and Commons to deal with material that may be offensive to some, is illegal in some places, and is certainly against workplace policy for many employers. Readership and utilization of Commons by as large an audience as possible means that we need to be more sensitive to this type of issue. Given that many organization that handle content are addressing this issue, I see no reason that Commons and all WMF can't, too. I'm optimistic that a sensible policy and process can be put in place, and will be support by the broad WMF community. It will take some organizational effort and patience, but it is doable. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to break the problem down into achievable steps. Right now, I think issue 1 is achievable and issue 2 is not. I'd rather that the matter not be stymied entirely because consensus over issue 2 cannot be reached, which is highly likely to happen. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens in Iraq

I don't have ownership of it and no doubt uploaded it prematurely. Do you recommend that I contact Hitchens directly, and if I get some kind of permission or authorisation from him, would that suffice to reinstate it (in the meantime I'm sure it will have to be deleted or suspended). Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, I've replied on your talk page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


hi! i need this file deleted to change the type of permission. i have no idea how to ask for it directly.--Camr (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In the left frame on the screen, click "Toolbox", then "Nominate for deletion" and follow the instructions. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
done. thanks!!--Camr (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transport of valuable goods

You may want to comment on the attempted move back of this category. I oppose it, and I'd assume you will too, seeing that you originally asked for the move. Ingolfson (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Have commented on the category talk page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrevocable License

Hello, Jack: I decided to continue this here since it's really irrelevant to the discussion where it started. I should start by saying that you're the legal scholar, I'm just a gray haired business person who has been advised by a lot of high priced counsel on contract issues over many years. With that said:

I think we would be on shaky ground asserting contract against a user who had made a mistake -- that is, one who simply clicked on the wrong file during the upload process and then promptly asked for deletion, as was the case here. If I were arguing for Jcorelis, I might argue:

  • Lack of consideration. While arguably Commons gives consideration in the hosting of the image and the publicity (of a sort) which it gives, that is over time, not over the few seconds we're talking about here.
  • Lack of action by Commons in reliance upon the gift.
  • It seems to be to resemble the status of a charitable pledge, which, while a promise, is not generally enforceable in the USA unless the charity acted in reliance on it (it varies state to state). *User:Jcorelis lives in Wisconsin, a community property state. In most such states, one spouse cannot make a gift of community property without the actual consent of the other.
  • It seems analogous to a person dropping a US$100 bill in the collection plate at church when he meant to drop a US$10 and instantly picking it up again. I don't think any court in this land would argue that the gift became irrevocable at the instant of dropping.
  • The trouble with the cases you cite is that they are commercial cases; this is a charitable case.
  • While the mistake by Hughes was straightforward, by the time he realized it, Smith had already acted in reliance on the contract. There was not a nearly instantaneous request for rescission. If Hughes had signed the order and five minutes later, before Smith left, realized that the oats were green and torn up the order, I doubt that the court would have enforced against Hughes.

Or, am I missing something? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding to your very interesting comment which contains a lot of issues (and I'm not a contract lawyer)! First off, I should say that the original comment I made on the other talk page was simply intended to point out that the law may not be so cut-and-dried where it comes to unilateral mistake, as your comment seemed to suggest. As for your comment above, the first difficulty is determining which jurisdiction's law applies to the case. If I am sitting at my computer in Singapore uploading an image to the Commons' servers in Florida, is the transaction governed by Singapore or Florida law? I don't know the answer to this at the moment, and I see nothing in the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use that declares the applicable law. Let's say for the sake of argument that Florida law applies but it is not significantly different from Singapore law (!) (because I know nothing about Florida law).
  • Gift? When I upload a file to the Commons, is the transaction a gift or a contract? The difference seems to lie in whether any consideration is provided. Here's an example from a textbook: if A promises to give B his new Rolls-Royce car for nothing, this is a gift from A to B. There is no consideration from B and no contract. If A reneges on his offer, B cannot sue A for the car. However, if A promises to give B the car if B will give him one dollar for it, then this is an enforceable contract. So long as consideration has been provided, a court will not inquire into its adequacy or proportionality. If we accept that the Wikimedia Foundation does provide some consideration to uploaders of files, then the transactions are contractual and not in the nature of gifts. (If they are gifts, other issues arise such as whether the transactions are enforceable if they were not executed as a deed. That may explain the $100 bill in the collection plate scenario.)
  • Adequacy of consideration. Assuming, then, that the transaction is a contract rather than a gift, under Singapore contract law which is largely similar to English contract law, not much is needed to show the existence of consideration. While the actual hosting of an image and the publicity provided certainly amount to consideration, so does the promise to host the image. Therefore, it could be argued that the Wikimedia Foundation has provided sufficient consideration for the transaction simply by holding out to users that it will host content that is uploaded to its servers.
  • Unilateral mistake. I do not know if the Wikimedia Foundation is a charity in Florida or not, but I think the rules of contract law do not differ depending on whether one party has charitable status. My reading of the UK cases such as Smith v. Hughes and Hartog v. Colin & Shields is that there is no requirement that the non-mistaken party can only rely on the transaction if he or she has not acted in detriment yet. In lawyer-speak, the mistaken party has no locus pœnitentiæ – there is no period of time within which he or she can back out from the transaction. Although one party may have been mistaken about a particular aspect of the transaction, if from the non-mistaken party's point of view there was nothing untoward about the transaction, the mistaken party is bound by the contract and the non-mistaken party can enforce it against the mistaken party. (In Smith v. Hughes, Hughes was mistaken as to the type of oats that Smith was selling to him, but there was nothing on the facts to indicate the existence of this mistake to Smith.) On the other hand, if the non-mistaken party realizes that the other party is contracting under a unilateral mistake and seeks to take unfair advantage of this, the court will allow the mistaken party to resile from the transaction. In this case, Jcorelis has mistakenly uploaded to the Commons a file that he did not intend to upload. Say he has uploaded a print-quality image when he only intended to upload a small, low-resolution version. He is under a unilateral mistake that he uploaded the correct file. The Wikimedia Foundation has no way of knowing that Jcorelis was acting mistakenly. Therefore, I would argue that, applying the principles articulated above, the Foundation would be acting within its legal rights if it declined to rescind the transaction by deleting the image. However, I understand that as a matter of policy to maintain good relations with uploaders, the Commons allows deletion requests in the case of mistakes such as the one committed by Jcorelis, provided the request comes soon after the upload.
  • Community property. I'm not sure of the relevance of the community property point you made. Was there any evidence that the copyright in the image was jointly owned by Jcorelis and his spouse? But, certainly, if the copyright in a image is co-owned by two or more persons, then all the co-owners must agree to license the image to the Commons.
— Cheers, JackLee talk 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the talkback -- normally I don't need (or like) them, but after a while, one forgets...
A couple of points, then perhaps we should let this die, while it's interesting, as we both have more productive things to do.
  • Gift or contract? I'm not so sure. What good does having my images hosted do for me except further my ability to give them to Wiki projects and others? I think you'd have a split decision on that. And, yes, WMF is a 501(c)(3) (the section of the US Federal Tax code that defines charities to which donations are tax deductible). I would argue strenuously that I was giving images to Commons in furtherance of its charitable goal of providing images for educational projects around the world and that I had no expectation of any consideration in return. Actually, that's not far from the truth.
  • Community property. In the community property states -- mostly states in the West, but Wisconsin is one -- all property that either spouse acquires during a marriage except by gift or bequest is community property and therefore jointly owned. If I were trying to knock down this transfer, I would surely argue that since the spouse had not consented to the transaction, either gift or contract, the spouse's undivided half interest remained with him or her and therefore Commons did not have a valid license.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I thought I should respond to your message since you took the time to write it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission obtained from The Mail on Sunday Picture Desk to use Peter Hitchens image in Iraq

Hi there, progress has finally been made on this question and I have written to with the letter I received from the The Mail on Sunday Picture Desk giving me the go-ahead to use the image. I am now waiting to hear back from them with confirmation that all encumbrances have been removed. Best wishes Jprw (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the best thing to do is to delete the current image of Peter Hitchens in Iraq and use the one that The Mail on Sunday sent me with their blessing. Do you know how to go about this?

thanks Jprw (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear – when you say that you have a new photograph of Peter Hitchens with the "blessing" of The Mail on Sunday, do you have an e-mail from them (preferably sent a company e-mail account) stating that they are agreeable to the photograph being released into the public domain or licensed to the Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY-3.0) or Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (CC-BY-SA-3.0) licence? Statements like "you are free to use the photograph on Wikipedia" or "the photograph can be used for non-commercial purposes" will not be enough. See "Commons:Email templates" and "Wikipedia:Example requests for permission" for some sample e-mails. If you have a properly worded e-mail from The Mail on Sunday, then follow these instructions:
  1. Go ahead and upload the new photograph on to the Commons using the "Upload file" link. Do not overwrite the original photograph; choose a different name. In the "Permission" field on the {{Information}} template, add the tag {{OTRS pending}}.
  2. Once you have uploaded the photograph, forward your e-mail conversation with The Mail on Sunday to the OTRS at, indicating in your e-mail the name under which you uploaded the photograph. An OTRS volunteer will read the e-mail conversation, and if he or she verifies that the photograph has been properly licensed by the copyright owner, will replace the {{OTRS pending}} tag with {{OTRS}}.
  3. Post a message in the deletion discussion on the old photograph stating that the The Mail on Sunday has decided to license a different photograph, so you no longer have any objections to the old photograph being deleted.
— Cheers, JackLee talk 12:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fw: SVG version of the coat of arms of the Straits Settlements

Hi mate! I need the heraldic description of the coat of arms if you want that I tried to create a new svg format design. If you found it, then I will be able to design a coat of arms. Why do you ask it to me? See you! --Xavigivax (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, let me see if I can find one. I asked you because I noticed that you recently updated "File:Coat of arms of Singapore.svg". However, I think there may be a copyright problem with that file. I believe the Government retains copyright over it. I will have to do a bit of research and find out if the Singapore coat of arms is still copyrighted. If so, it may have to be moved out of the Commons and back to the English Wikipedia and used under a fair-use licence. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Found the answer at
“Quarterly, the first quarter gules, issuant from the base a tower proper, on the battlements thereof a lion passant guardant or; the second quarter argent, on a mount an areca nut palm tree proper; the third quarter also argent a sprig of the oil tree kruing proper; the fourth quarter azure in base on waves of the sea in front of a representation of the sun rising behind a mountain, a sailing yacht in full sail to the sinister, all proper. Crest: A demi-lion rampant guardant supporting in the paws a staff proper, thereon flying to the sinister a banner azure, charged with three imperial crowns or.”
The website gives the following informal explanation of the heraldic blazon:
“A quartered shield bearing the following charges representing each Settlement in the following order:
  • First quarter: Singapore (a gold lion passant guardant on a white tower all on a red field).
  • Second quarter: Penang (an Areca palm - Pinang or Betel nut palm).
  • Third quarter: Malacca (a sprig of leaves and fruits of the keruing tree).
  • Fourth quarter: Labuan (a depiction of a schooner headed towards Mount Kinabalu - or Borneo - at sunrise).
The crest for the arms is a gold demi-lion rampant guardant holding a staff from which flies a blue banner charged with three imperial crowns. The arms as illustrated here were shown in the Singapore Annual Reports with a red and gold mantling. The crest appears on a wreath (torse) of gold and red placed above a silver helm with a closed visor, a helmet used by esquires, gentlemen, and corporations. The arms, specifically the shield portion only, was used on the Regimental Colours of the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force. Occasionally, a simpler depiction of the achievement of arms was adopted showing only the shield with charges and crest.”
— Cheers, JackLee talk 16:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
All the states have use restrictions of their symbols. This is informated in the file with the template insignia. However, this is not a copy of a official design. It's my heraldic interpretation of the description, based on the official, but is not a simple vectorized copy of an image. Ask to an admin, but this file has not more problems that the coat of arms of Spain or any another country. If somebody upload a copy of the official desing coat of arms, then must be deleted, but is not the case. For this reason, I reverted two uploads in my desing of the coat of arms of Singapur.
I has not much free time now, but I'll try to do a free coat of arms following this: Quarterly, the first quarter gules, issuant from the base a tower proper, on the battlements thereof a lion passant guardant or; the second quarter argent, on a mount an areca nut palm tree proper; the third quarter also argent a sprig of the oil tree kruing proper; the fourth quarter azure in base on waves of the sea in front of a representation of the sun rising behind a mountain, a sailing yacht in full sail to the sinister, all proper. Crest: A demi-lion rampant guardant supporting in the paws a staff proper, thereon flying to the sinister a banner azure, charged with three imperial crowns or. --Xavigivax (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • About the coat of arms of Singapore: I've just been informed about "Commons:Coats of Arms" by another editor. Thanks.
  • About the coat of arms of the Straits Settlements: sure, take your time. I suppose if you are following the blazon, there will be no mantling? Or can that be added too? — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I always could use some external ornaments, but is not needed and is not important. Strictly, the COA of Singapure is this: File:Blason Singapour.svg, the rest are external ornaments. --Xavigivax (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Done! File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Straits_Settlement.svg --Xavigivax (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That's brilliant. Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, read this: [1]. An admin erase my own design of the COA of Singapore and don't understand that this file is my interpretation of a blazon, is not a deritave work. I answer him here [2]. I would appreciate you very much if you can help to resolve this issue. Thank you. --Xavigivax (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me look into the matter shortly. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Hi Jack, Just writing to say thank you for letting me know that you included my photos in Wikimedia Commons. It's always nice to know when and where things circulate. Best --Driscoll (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Nice to see you're on Wikipedia too. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Blythe Danner.jpg

Hello Jacklee, can you explain me, why you changed the license tag for this image? It is available under flickr, what is the source under cc-2.0 . Why change it and where is the reference to that? Do you think the owner of the flickr account made a mistake publishing this picture under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic? Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • By law the US government cannot claim copyright in its works. cc-by is fairly close to PD in terms of permissiveness but the real license should be PD. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As Nard pointed out, since this is a work of the US Federal Government, it is in the public domain. Therefore, the CC-BY-2.0 licence should not have been applied to the image by the uploader. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Faster Renames? >> File Mover? Admin?

So, Jack, you'd like more volunteers working on {{rename}}? You could help with that if asked for the Filemover right. Or, of course, you could run for Admin. I'd be happy to nominate you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, will check that out. Not sure about adminship at this point, though thanks for the vote of support! Am not sure I would have time to use it enough to justify having such rights – what I currently do around the Commons seems to be keeping me quite busy already. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think just for doing category renames, it could be helpful for you (and others that do them for you).  Docu  at 12:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The Filemover right doesn't allow me to rename categories, unfortunately. Is there a separate right for that? — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, COM:ADM.  Docu  at 10:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right. As I mentioned, I'm not quite ready for adminship right now. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think your category renames are fine. If all admins would do the same, it would be great. Adminship would make category renames easier for you (and others) and thus potentially, keep you (and others) less busy.  Docu  at 11:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, will think about that! — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

category:Female blond hair and category:Women with blond hair

What is the difference between these categories? Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to sort out. I've requested for "Category:Women with blond hair" to be renamed "Category:Women with blond hair by name" (see "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category move requests"), because that seems to be how the category seems to be used. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your help in that matter.--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG

Would you take a look at this interesting question and weigh in if you feel so moved? Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries! — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Life

Yeah, has been left a while hasn't it? Probably should go to the pump for further discussion. It needs a bit of tweaking still but I think the content is about right.

Once that's done, can work on deletion requests for the stuff...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to complete the edits you were doing? I see you added a placeholder footnote, but am not sure what you wanted to put there. Once you've finished with it, I'll put a note at the Village Pump. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thinking it over some. Biggest concern I have is by quoting large sections of the ToS that page is probably a copyright violation itself, its probably best to reformat the details to a "human-readable" summary and link to the legalese (which is where the refs come in). Going to work on it a bit now.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just done a rewrite of the older TOS section, referencing the clauses instead of quoting.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Dear Jacklee,

Ni hao / Nay haw,

Thank You very much for Your work, having renamed my file File:Limit point vs subsequential limit.gif according to the established scientific terminology.

Zai jian / tsoy keen,

Physis (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Jacklee. Thank you for renaming my pictures. Is it possible to write "bells" instead of "bell". The church has nine bells and those pictures are just examples. --Micha (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Stadtkirche Bremgarten, Aargau, Switzerland - ceremony to consecrate and install the bell - 1986-01.jpg File:Stadtkirche Bremgarten, Aargau, Switzerland - ceremony to consecrate and install the bell - 1986-02.jpg

Sure, no problem. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Dear Jacklee,

I dont know that, the same file name was inside commons, at least commons should alert me that this file name is already in use. So that i can choose another file name..And i didnt do it purposefully...I think this is an error
Is it will affect the linking of files (my file)....Please advice the current location of my file and how to link it in future..--Common-Man (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Strange – when you upload the file the Commons normally advises you that you are overwriting an existing file. As I mentioned on your talk page, the file is now called "File:Jungfrau, Swiss Alps - 20100218.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 100% sure, that commons didn't ask me, May its a browser error also. As i said, i didn't do it for over writting, If its done by me why i need to put a rename request...??. And i didnt see the uploaded page before, After uploading it came like that and i surprised. I think may be its default for all the Swizz pictures as i add the swizz tag...Please don't take it negative...--Common-Man (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I realized it must be an accident. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Move category

Hello, please can you move Category:Cableway to Stóg Izersky to Category:Cableway to Stóg Izerski? Thank you.--Jan Polák (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have enough authorization to rename categories. I only have filemover privileges. You need to request a move at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Jan Polák (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal rights

"violation of personal rights" is not a sufficient reason for deletion" - are you really sure about that? --4028mdk09 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found "Commons:Photographs of identifiable people", which I didn't know existed before. According to this, it depends on whether the photograph was taken in a place where there was an expectation of privacy. Photographs taken without the subject's knowledge where the subject had an expectation of privacy are generally not permitted. However, if the subject knowingly participated in the taking of the photograph (posing nude, for example), it seems to me that no "personal rights" are violated. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

I left this exact message on an administrator's talkpage but they never responded. Since you're working toward your doctorate in law I feel like you'll be able to answer my second question in particular. Please respond:

Two things:

  • I have tagged several images uploaded by Tm as duplicates but he has since undid my edits because he/she believes they are "derivatives" and not duplicates. Here is an example. Is there a difference? Am I wrong?
  • I have been in the process of moving images by photographer Mark Sebastian to the category that I created for him. While editing I have noticed that with some of the images—in the description and/or permission parameters—there are statements being made that appear to be from Mark Sebastian but, I believe, are not from him (Here is an example of what I mean in the "Permission" field). I believe this because at the bottom of the page it says the image was uploaded by Tm who is not Mark Sebastian and because Mark Sebastian has a message on his flickr profile page that states "Dear, Stop jacking my stuff. Thanks." So I've deleted these statements because since he didn't upload these photos and since he appears to not like the fact that his photos are on the commons, it couldn't come from him. The problem is these edits are being undone as well so these statements are being added back. Is there some kind of policy on wikimedia that prohibits this—pretending to be the photographer? I would like to leave a message on Tm's talkpage about this but I don't know what policy, if any exist, that this would fall under.
  • To be fair, the statements that I've seen that were in the description parameter were taken directly from Mark Sebastian's descriptions on his flickr page. Here is an example --> same image on commons, then on flickr–same description. Still don't think this is allowed (correct me if I'm wrong) but I thought it was worth mentioning. //Gbern3 (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Gbern3. Actually, the doctorate is not in intellectual property law, but in any case your queries are not really about intellectual property law but Commons policy and practice. Here are my views:
  • On the first issue, Tm is right. Strictly speaking, a retouched version photograph is not a duplicate of the original photograph and shouldn't be treated as one. First, retouching is usually done to improve an image, so it shouldn't be tagged for deletion. Secondly, the original version should not be tagged for deletion either, because other users may still wish to use it to create other derivatives from it.
  • On the second issue, I don't think Commons has a policy on what exactly should be stated in the "Description" field of {{Information}} templates. However, my view is that the description (1) should accurately describe the subject matter of the photograph, and may also contain useful details about how the photograph was taken (technical camera details, for example); and (2) does not have to be exactly the same as the description given to the image on Flickr, because such descriptions can be inaccurate or can be comments that do not describe the image. So I think it is acceptable to change inappropriate descriptions.
  • Finally, I would just add that Mark Sebastian's "request" to Wikimedia to "stop jacking [his] stuff" doesn't make much sense. If he does not want people to re-use his images, then he should not license them under a CC-BY-SA-2.0 licence, which explicitly allows people to make use of images provided he is attributed as the author and that any derivatives are licensed under the same licence. Furthermore, once an image has been released under a CC licence, the licence cannot be revoked. Let's say that on 1 October Sebastian released an image under CC-BY-SA-2.0 and on 3 October you uploaded it to the Commons. Even if Sebastian changes the licence of his image to CC-BY-SA-NC-ND-2.0 on Flickr (which is not an acceptable licence for the Commons) on 6 October, we need not remove the image from the Commons as it was suitably licensed at the time when it was uploaded. So I don't think you need to worry about Sebastian's statement right now.
I hope this is helpful. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I thought the same thing when I first read his comment on flickr; Why did he release his photos under this license if he doesn't want them reused? Odd. Whatever. //Gbern3 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Ronchi lith. - Cacciatori delle Alpi a Lodrone (16 luglio 1866) - litografia - ca. 1870.jpg

Il titolo è sbagliato perché i "Cacciatori delle Alpi" hanno combattuto nella 2ª guerra d'indipendenza italiana (1859). La battaglia di Lodrone (1866), fa parte della 3ª guerra d'indipendenza italiana, nella quale ha combattuto il "Corpo Volontari Italiani". --Ligabo (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
[The title is wrong because the "Cacciatori delle Alpi" ("Hunters of the Alps") fought in the 2nd Italian War of Independence (1859). The Battle of Lodrone (1866), is part of the 3rd Italian War of Independence, which has fought the "Corpo Volontari Italiani" ("Italian Volunteer Corps").] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligabo (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Is the rest of the information in the file name ("Ronchi lith.", "16 luglio 1866" and "ca. 1870") correct? [Grazie. È il resto delle informazioni nel nome del file ("lith Ronchi.", "16 luglio 1866" e "ca. 1870") è corretto?] — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
[Grazie. E il resto delle informazioni nel nome del file ("lith Ronchi.", "16 luglio 1866" e "ca. 1870") è corretto? - Salute]
No, non è corretto. A Lodrone si sono svolte due battaglie: il 7 e il 10 luglio 1866. Nessun combattimento il 16 luglio. Ciao --Ligabo (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
[No, not correct. A Lodrone there were two battles: the 7 and July 10, 1866. No fighting on July 16. Hello.]
What about the lithographer Ronchi and the date of the lithograph ("ca. 1870")? — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
[E il litografo Ronchi e la data della litografia ("ca. 1870")?]
Non sono un esperto di litografie, ma questo sito [3] conferma i dati per autore e anno di pubblicazione. --Ligabo (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[I'm not an expert in lithography, but this site [4] confirms the data by author and and year of publication.]
OK, I have renamed the file "File:Ronchi (litografo), Battaglia di Lodrone, Iuglio 1866 (Battle of Lodrone, July 1866) (c. 1870).jpg". — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[OK, ho rinominato il file.]
Grazie. Quando hai tempo, bisogna sistemare anche questa. Ciao, alla prossima. --Ligabo (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[Thanks. When you have time, we must also fix this. Hello, you next time.]
You are welcome. Regarding the other file, the new name you have suggested seems to be wrong. Can you fix it? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[Sei il benvenuto. Per quanto riguarda l'altro file, il nome nuovo che avete suggerito sembra essere sbagliato. Riesci a risolvere il problema?]
Si potrebbe sostituire con "File:Bersaglieri alla Battaglia di Rivoli. 22 luglio 1848". --Ligabo (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[You could replace it with "File:Bersaglieri alla Battaglia di Rivoli. 22 luglio 1848".]
OK, I have renamed the file. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
[OK, ho rinominato il file.]
Grazie. Una curiosità: perché metti titoli così estesi ? C'è qualche convenzione a riguardo ?
[Thanks. A curiosity: why put such extensive qualifications? Is there any agreement about it?] --Ligabo (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for the late response. I do not think there are any instructions about how detailed file names should be. Personally, I prefer to provide more information about images. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
[Oops, scusate per la risposta tardiva. Non penso che ci sono tutte le istruzioni dettagliate su come i nomi di file dovrebbe essere. Personalmente, preferisco di fornire ulteriori informazioni sulle immagini.]
OK. Alla prossima. --Ligabo (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
[OK. The next.]

I would...

... support this too :) cheers, Amada44  talk to me 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Not right away, as I'm rather busy at the moment. Maybe in a couple of months' time. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
okay, I'll wait ;) Amada44  talk to me 10:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Greetings, Jack. I reopen the question -- I just went through Commons:Deletion requests/2010/10/09 and found 56 comments by you. If you were an Administrator, you could have closed at least half of them with about the same effort that it took to leave your comment, saving me time to do other things. Policy requires only five Administrative actions in six months to remain an Admin -- need I say more?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As I mentioned to another editor above, I'm rather busy in real life at the moment but will think about it (and find out what it entails), and consider in a few months. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Andriette pic.jpg

Would you care to take a look at this? I have grave doubts about its legitimacy. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Posted a comment on that page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Much obliged. Thanks for taking the time. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Muth (1885) - TIMEA.jpg

Hi, Jacklee. See original image: [5] and copy [6] in [7]. Is the god Hapy (or Hapi) = "souce of the Nile" [8]. Not is Muth (?). Thanks for your comprehension. --JMCC1 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (Personal information: [9], [10], [11], Commons:Patrol)

Thanks. I've renamed the file. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --JMCC1 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Merci ! ... Thank you ! for File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg and my 2 other pictures ! Marc ROUSSEL --Markus3 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Problematic renaming

Hi Jacklee, I have removed the delinker request (and I have requested revert to original file name) as your renaming File:Kirkby Stephen02 2010-09-08.jpg to File:Settle-Carlisle Line north of Kirkby Stephen Station, Cumbria, England - 20100908-01.jpg has broken consistency within an image series. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

Really? I looked at both "Category:Kirkby Stephen" and "Category:Settle-Carlisle Line" and did not see any series. You'll also need to rename "File:Settle-Carlisle Line north of Kirkby Stephen Station, Cumbria, England - 20100908-02.jpg", as this image together with the other one were the only two that appeared to me to be related. Anyway, sorry about that. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Regarding the series, it is not officially defined (yet?) but numbers range from 01 to 08. Renaming requests for both affected images are in place. Anyway, I wrote you as at the delinker page they say one should notify the requesting person when removing a request. Best regards. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hi Jacklee! The deletion discussion here has now more than exceeded the usual seven days. Who can we get to close it with consensus KEEP? I do not know any admins over here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You could try asking Jameslwoodward. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Alas, it is no longer a dead discussion. To bad I didn’t think to get the discussion closed after seven days. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Qué tal, no hablo inglés peor venía a decirle que si puede dar por terminada la soiguiente discusión sobre el siguiente archivo,, ya que las razones del borrado son ABSURDAS en su totalidad, descritas por el usuario Ezerate. Le pido por favor que haga oficial el fin de la discusión y que elimine la ficha de borrado, muchas gracias de antemano ;)

Atte. Neo ender (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

[Google translation: Hello, do not speak English worse came to tell you that if you can end the discussion soiguiente next file, since the reasons Absurd deletion are fully described by the user Ezerate. I ask please that made official the end of the discussion and to remove the deleted form, thank you very much in advance]

Hello. I cannot end the discussion myself as I am not an administrator. You can ask Jameslwoodward if he can help. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
[Hola. No puedo poner fin a la discusión como yo no soy un administrador. Usted puede pedir Jameslwoodward si puede ayudar.]

Delete and rename

Please, can you :

Thanks ! - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Marc. Unfortunately I can't, because I am only a filemover and not an administrator. I can only rename files to names that do not exist. If a file name already exists, you will need an administrator to carry out the move for you. Try asking DieBuche, Foroa or Jameslwoodward. (The file that you wanted to have deleted has already been deleted by an administrator.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
OK ... Thanks ! - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello ! I don't unterstand why it's impossible for you ! You have done the same for "my" files, it seems :
  • "File:Amiens (17 cotobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg" to "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg" ... see here
  • "File:Amiens (17 cotobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg" to "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg" ... see that
It's not possible to "play" momently with a new third filename, which will be deleted/renamed later ... for example with this process :
1) "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg" to "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03z.jpg" ... "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg" exists also no more ... filename is free !
2) "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg" to "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg" ... "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg" exists also no more ... filename is free !
3) "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03z.jpg" to "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg"
Thank you ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I was able to rename "File:Amiens (17 cotobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 03.jpg" to "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg" because the file name "File:Amiens (17 octobre 2009) 4ème Nuit Blanche 01.jpg" did not exist at the time. However, now that it already exists, I cannot rename give the same name to another file. You need the help of an administrator because I do not have sufficient authorization to delete files. Let's take a simpler example. Suppose we want to rename A.jpg as B.jpg, and B.jpg as A.jpg. As you suggest, the way to do it is to temporarily move B.jpg to, say, Bz.jpg. However, this would leave behind a redirect at B.jpg (the filename does not become "free", unfortunately), and because I am not an administrator I cannot overwrite B.jpg with A.jpg. Where deletion of files is concerned, I am in the same position as you. So if you can't do it, neither can I. Sorry about that! — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok ... thanks ... and sorry for the "trouble" ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and no trouble at all. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jacques-Louis David, Portrait of Madame Récamier (c 1800).jpg

Hello Jacklee

Thanks to your good job on Commons. I dont know if it the rename correct or not but I think it will be good idea to let the uploader or other thae edited the file to make an opinion. Geagea (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It was tagged for renaming by AnonMoos. I think it should generally be the tagger who should notify the uploader. — Cheers, JackLee talk 03:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
May be but it was to quicly. I see it in this file also. If you look at the Revision history you can see that it was dispute. 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I never thought of looking at the revision history, but I would say that it is difficult to tell from the revision history whether the name of a file is in dispute or not. Generally, as a filemover, I look at the files that are tagged for renaming in "Category:Media requiring renaming" and if I don't see any obvious problems such as copyright violations I will rename the file. Anyway, if you think a file has been wrongly named or renamed, you can always tag it with {{move}} again and start a discussion about the matter on the file talk page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well if it is uploader request then ok in case that you see for sure that it is mistake correction it is also ok. In other cases it will be better to wait a will to some respond. In the second rename the user that request rename didn't get filemover rights. Maybe we need to update a little COM:FR about that. No harm will happend if file not renamed couple days. Geagea (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll bear that in mind. You may want to start a discussion at the Village pump if you think there should be a waiting period before files are renamed. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your advice will be appreciated

Can you advice a solution in mentioned below images - per this [12] and this [13] and several more sources - the listed below pictures taken in early 1920s at Russia but have been used to depict the Great Famine-Genocide in Ukraine in 1932-1933 as original photographs of the Ukraine Famine in 1932-1933.

[14] [15] [16] [17] [

How to deal with this issue - simply to rename and recitegorize? Or?

Also about copyright issue [18] [19] [20] [21] described [22] as having been taken by an Austrian technical specialist in Kharkiv in the summer of 1933. And printed in Wien [Vienna] in 1935 - i.e. not in Ukraine (were they can not printed before 1990s) - so there no clear infor about author Alexander Wienerberger does he died or not in 1930s - please advice how to handle this.Jo0doe (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've copied your question to "Commons talk:Licensing#Photographs of Ukraine" and replied to it there, so other editors can join the discussion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Spilling vs. discharge

Dear Jacklee, I have seen you renamed the photograph I uploaded and this was the message I got: The Wikimedia Commons page File:Akosombo Dam discharging water, Akosombo, Ghana - 20101106.jpg has been changed on 8 November 2010 by Jacklee. The title I gave used the verb SPILLING, because that is the engineering term used for the action for reducing the high water level in a reservoir by not letting the water flow through the turbines. Although English is not my native language, but I can quote the British BBC reporting on similar event and using the verb spill ( So I am going to change the title back because of this and I would like you to agree and leave it like that. Thanks ZSM 02:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that spilling is an engineering term. I have renamed the file "File:Akosombo Dam spilling water, Akosombo, Ghana - 20101106.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Princesse Marie-Christine de Saxe (exhibited 1763).jpg

Sir, I wish to thank you for renaming the file. However, I will permit myself to make one observation, namely, that the preparatory study of Marie-Christine de Saxe had never been exhibited at the Salon of 1763. Thank you.--Thorvaldsson (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Misread the description. It was the lost portrait that was exhibited at the Salon. Have fixed the filename. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I shall permit myself to add that despite the fact that the Princess visited for the first time Versailles in 1762, the expression 'before 1763' excludes '1763.' Thank you. --Thorvaldsson (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Do we actually know when the portrait was painted? Are you saying it was either 1762 or 1763? Would "c. 1762-1763" be more accurate? (* Sigh * :-)) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would be correct. Thank you very much. --Thorvaldsson (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, ✓ Done! — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your renaming my poster

Thank you for your renaming my poster file's name. --Akaniji (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Princesse Marie-Christine de Saxe (c. 1762-1763).jpg

Hi Jacklee,
when working on the Other-speedy-deletions-queue this morning I found an empty File:Christine of Saxony.jpeg that was still in use on 2 project pages[23]. When I tried to find the "other version" (rename-target[24]), File:Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Princesse Marie-Christine de Saxe (exhibited 1763).jpg, it had also been deleted[25]. And the same seems to have happened to the following rename-target[26]. As I still would like to replace the 2 initially mentioned project uses, I do need one non-deleted version. Do you remember if there is another version/filename of that image, that "survived" this rename/deletion-chain or, if none, which filename should be undeleted? --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a discussion with the editor who nominated the image for renaming (higher up on this page, actually), and we eventually decided the most accurate name for the image was "File:Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Princesse Marie-Christine de Saxe (c. 1762-1763).jpg". I updated the CommonsDelinker nomination page to reflect this change, and thought I had updated the redirect at "File:Christine of Saxony.jpeg" as well. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now put File:Christine of Saxony.jpeg through dupe-delinking with the new replacement. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


..for the renaming. Do you think i should remove the added deletion tag on that file, or must i wait ? --Gary Dee (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to ask an administrator to speedily close the deletion discussion. Try Jameslwoodward. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Gary Dee (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Elblag train station

Hi. I've seen you've moved some my pictures to other names. Well as I can say since 2006 I've been using some naming system (yeah, in Czech so it might be less understable, but I am Czech so why not) so I don't think your edits are hmm how to say it in the best way... constructive. I mean... when all the users here on Commons would start "unifying" filenames there would be so many standards, so much chaos and - so much demotivated contributors. For example; I love to upload lots of picture on Commons, but categorization or organization of all these media is a work that I know that do some of my friends here. Such an effort you made I have never seen here before (since 2005) and I don't think it is contributive. I mean - i link my pictures, I know how they are named so I can found them easily - but renaming like this makes me much work and complications (i. e. there is a lot of presentations about Wikiexpedition 2010 and people need to see good examples). I also use my filename system for statistical reasons (like I can know from what city what percentage of my work originally is - good to know when talking about future activities in czech Wikimedia). So I don't think we should continue in this effort. Thanks. Aktron (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the file histories, it was Starscream who nominated your images for renaming. I think you should discuss the matter with him or her. I just rename the images in "Category:Media requiring renaming" that are nominated by renaming. If you reach a consensus with Starscream and wish to have the images renamed again, add the {{rename}} tag to them. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ehh OK I'll talk to him. --Aktron (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope that you are not angry at me. If each files have not names by the digital camera, then few and far between I add "rename". In every other case, the change of name of the file causes unnecessary controversies. The allergy on Commons is against English names. The reason of my conclusion in the matter of Your photos Elbląg Train Station is following: Polish train stations have a horrible opinion. This and several other important train stations refine the great modernization. I wanted, so that watching of this photos here and on each other projects of Wikimedia have a certainty that that look of the station in Elbląg is already out-of-date. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Kashubian sheet music


Kashubia is not country, but historical region in Gdańsk Pomerania. Kashiubians are propably the oldest people in Poland. Fundamentally, sheet music are identical worldwide. Such special sheet music and these from Singapores, should be in the category divisive according to the cultural separateness , not the country. Because this category is very small. Greetings. --Starscream (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the machine translation is not working very well. I do not understand what you mean by "according to the cultural separateness". — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The difference between cultures. "cultural separateness" is idiom. --Starscream (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I see nothing wrong with "Category:Sheet music by country". If you find it objectionable, you are welcome to start a discussion at "Commons:Categories for discussion". — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Thanks a lot for renaming and correcting on this file. --Tokorokoko (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

published template

Hi Jacklee,
you seem to have worked on the published template. Howver, the current result, see File talk:BischofMixa Augsburg.jpg, is not so nice. --Túrelio (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Will temporarily revert the changes. Somehow, the template is not passing the |org= parameter properly on to {{cite journal}}. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, it was a problem with {{cite journal}} (which I also worked on yesterday). Sorry about that. By the way, you can include up to five citations in {{published}}. Sorry, the documentation subpage hasn't been updated yet. I will get to it shortly (I hope). — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

pic change / jo0doe

I started a sock case on the english wiki, but the user, Jo0doe is perabanned on Russian wiki and has a current long term ban on English wiki, 1. He just made up random stuff in his edit and then requested the pic be moved. If you actually check the pdf / ref he threw in there it has nothing to do with the picture. He's just trying to stir up more trouble. Watch out for this guy.--Lvivske (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. If Jo0doe is being disruptive, please file a complaint at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" or "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism". By the way, it was another filemover who actually renamed the file, not me. Also, I cannot move the file back to the original name. You will need to ask an administrator for help with that. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I also suggest you to read [27] and [28] - editor suggest that the reports and person depicted [29] did not exist:)Jo0doe (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Check this [30] (and delete) and [31] page 24 - photos from the period of the 1921-1923 famine) - and this [32] . Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, this is not a matter I am knowledgeable about. Also, please the keep the discussion in one place: at "File talk:Child affected by malnutrition 1921-1923 Famine in Soviet Russia.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest a solution

With issue I've tried to adress with author and uploader[33] - The issue in never existed flags and uniforms (sources directly suggest) - which in some Wiki articles presented as actually existed flags and uniforms. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these are not matters I am knowledgeable about. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I told you to watch out ;) --Lvivske (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Renaming of "File:LambrettaModelC123cc.jpg"

Spero di aver sistemato il problema. [I hope I have fixed the problem.] [34] --Ligabo (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming problems

Hi. I have some objections to latest name of this file that you renamed:,_B%C3%A1cs%C3%BAjlak_%28Saint_Anne_Roman_Catholic_Church,_Ba%C4%8Dko_Novo_Selo,_Vojvodina,_Serbia%29_-_20070501.jpg User Beroesz proposed this file for renaming claiming that file should have Hungarian name because it comes from Hungarian Wikipedia and I think that it is not valid reason for renaming. I understand that files in Hungarian Wikipedia would have Hungarian name, but since file is moved to commons its name should be most acceptable for multilingual project, not most acceptable for Hungarian Wikipedia. Furthermore, this file show an German church in an ethnic Serb village in Serbia and due to that, Hungarian language is not most relevant language for file description. I originally proposed this file for renaming into English so that its name is understandable for everybody because it is written in an international language, but if we use multilingual name of the file then Hungarian language is not first choice here and Hungarian language is much less important than Serbian and German when this specific file is in question (there is no valid reason that an German church or an Serb village are named in Hungarian and English,but not in German or in Serbian). If file name is multilingual then it should have description in all 4 languages and exactly in this order: 1. English description, 2. Serbian description, 3. German description, 4. Hungarian description. You maybe do not know much about Central Europe (or you do?), but linguistic issues are very sensitive thing here and usage of one language or name in wrong way could be seen as insulting by speakers of other language (in this specific case, Serbs from this village or Germans whose ancestors built that church could understand that usage of Hungarian name instead Serbian or German is an ethnic insult for them). Language usage is very carefully regulated by laws here and policy that decide which language will be written first in multilingual tables is made in a way not to be insulting for any ethnic group. For example, here you can see an multilingual table in Novi Sad, capital of Vojvodina: there are inscriptions in 4 languages here: Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak and Rusyn. Order in which these inscriptions are written is same as size of these ethnic groups in this city (for example, it would be insult for local Hungarians if Slovak and Rusyn name would come before Hungarian one since Hungarians are more numerous than Slovaks or Rusyns in this city). In other settlements where Slovaks or Rusyns are more numerous than Hungarian order of names is different, of course. This is fair policy that tend to keep good and peaceful relations between ethnic groups in Vojvodina and violation of that policy is an dangerous behavior, even in Wikimedia Commons (I do not think that purpose of this project is to insult ethnic feelings of the people). Speaking about that, I think that proposal of User Beroesz to rename this file from English to Hungarian is made because of pure nationalistic reasons. In the 19th century Hungarians ruled over other nations of Central Europe and during that time they tried to impose their language and to suppress our languages. Position of my own ancestors who lived under Hungarian rule in that time was similar to position of Black people in South Africa during apartheid. Once they gained independence from Hungary in 1918 they had chance to develop their language and culture. However, some Hungarian nationalists, even today almost 100 years after our independence, are still trying to impose their own language and to suppress our language and the reason why they imposing their names for Serb, Romanian or Slovak settlements is their way to "remind us that we are only guests on sacred Hungarian soil and that once Greater Hungary is restored we should either become Hungarians either leave from our settlements". I see no other option but to believe that user Beroesz is follower of this nationalist policy and that he trying to impose Hungarian names because of this exact reason. On the other hand, we Serbs, are using our own names for most World cities (New York is Njujork in Serbian, Vienna is Beč, etc), but if I ever upload images of these cities it would be basic decency that I do not upload them under Serbian names, but under names that are common to people who live in these cities. I believe that Commons policy that allow file names in languages other than English is made for cases where such names are in some way related to the subject presented in the file, but not for cases where language used for file title is not only unrelated to file subject but is also insulting for people who live in the village which is subject of this file. Therefore, I would ask you to consider renaming this file to English description only or to try to find some formula in which all 4 languages (English, Serbian, German and Hungarian) would be presented in file title. 123iti (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that Commons policy currently does not take account of the issues you have raised in the posting above. In general, filenames can be in any language because Commons is an international project: see "Commons:File renaming#What files should not be renamed?". Occasionally, files are renamed into English because a name in another language uses symbols that are causing technical problems. If you feel this policy needs to be changed, I would suggest that you make a proposal at "Commons:Village pump". I changed the filename so that it contains both the Hungarian name and the English name as a compromise. Also, I do not think it is fair for you to claim that Beroesz is a "follower of this nationalist policy and that he trying to impose Hungarian names". It may be that he is Hungarian and is simply using his native language. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that „What files should not be renamed?“ specifically forbid that this file is renamed (example presented there (Rathaus_bremen) is usage of German name for city in Germany and due to the fact that it is a common language of people in this city there is really no reason to favor English over German there). But, „What files should be renamed?“ section claims that „Additional naming conventions and exceptions from the above list might be discussed“, so we discussing this one due to that. There is no reason to favor Hungarian over other languages as well especially in the cases where language policy is such sensitive issue. I have nothing against that Hungarian names are used for files that showing places in Hungary or even places in Serbia where Hungarians are majority since Hungarian language is common to people there. But in this village, there 1,228 inhabitants of which only 26 are Hungarians, so why language of 26 people should be favoured over language of other 1,202. Note that this specific image was originally uploaded into Hungarian Wikipedia by user Czinitz and I agree that file name was in Hungarian because it was native language of uploader and because it was uploaded into Hungarian Wikipedia (it is logical that files uploaded into Hungarian Wikipedia are in Hungarian and I do not want to say that it is nationalism). Nationalism is later action of user Beroesz who wanted to favor Hungarian language in Wikimedia Commons, clearly not because of native language reason (he is not author of the file, remember – he just moved this file to commons), but because he was to make Hungarian an dominant language. It is common among some Hungarian users to upload images of Serb, Slovak and Romanian settlements under Hungarian names because they want to show „superiority“ of their language over other languages. Here, user Beroesz used term „noble Hungarian language“ with clear implication that other languages are not „noble“ and that they are less valid because of that (you can use google translate if you want translation of his comment in Hungarian). All in all, due to my previous proposal, can we establish an more fair compromise here? (the one that will respect majority of people in that village). You say there is no reson to favor English language? Fine. Then we can remove English description from file and it could have bilingual Serb-Hungarian description, like this one: „Crkva Svete Ane, Bačko Novo Selo (Szent Anna templom, Bácsújlak)“. In that case, sensitivity of linguistic issues in this region will not be violated. 123iti (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute over what the proper name of the file should be. I am putting a copy of this discussion on the talk page of the file so that other editors can join the discussion and reach a consensus on the matter. Please add further comments there. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Julian Assange in Barcelona, Spain - 20100815.jpg

Hi. You moved the above image yesterday per my rename-tagging it. When I checked back, I saw that you'd added the date from the description, plus 'Spain' which would be entirely reasonable except for the fact that all the news is talking about events in Sweden that week... So I wandered over to Flickr and find that it's a derivative work of this:

which offers 30 November 2009 as the date and credits w:Esther Dyson as having taken it. 'Adam Feuer' would seem to have been the person who cropped the image on 15 August 2010.

So, it seems to need renaming again. Sorry I didn't look into this further, initially. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (real name's David; see: w:Jack Merridew)

Hi, David. We have a problem. Dyson's image is tagged CC-BY-NC-2.0 (i.e., for non-commercial use only), which is not an acceptable licence for the Commons. Unless there is some evidence that the image was licensed CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.0 when Feuer produced his cropped version (which is going to be hard to find), or you ask Dyson to change the licence on the image to one of the foregoing, I'm afraid we're going to have to delete this image. I suggest you try leaving a comment at — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Jack. I'd missed that. I expect Dyson has her reasons for specifying the license she did, and I'm not inclined to go badgering her about a cropped version another flickr user took and inappropriately tagged. If anything, I'd move to get the crop deleted, there. I'm seeing it used at wikinews:fi:Lontoon poliisi pidätti Wikileaksin perustajan, which was not the case, the other day when I looked. methinks they'll need to switch to another picture, as I believe the best option is to simply delete this. We've others that are better, anyway. Oh, I don't even have a flickr account ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I've nominated the image for deletion, and you can comment on the request at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julian Assange in Barcelona, Spain - 20100815.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Done; I just happened to check back minutes after. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack for your comments

Hi Jack, I just wanted to drop by your page and say thank you for dropping the comment regarding my contribution at ESSO Business Model. - - -Your comment: "There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the copyright statement, because neither GFDL or CC licences require the copyright owner to abandon his or her copyright in the work. However, it would be clearer if the copyright owner added a statement to the image stating that it is available under the GFDL and CC-BY-3.0 licences. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)" - - -As I am new to Wikimedia Commons, I am uncertain about the process. Can you please advice me if there is anything that I must do concerning Mdd's request to delete my contribution? Or should I just leave it alone? When can I remove the delete request sign or who will remove it? Cheers, Mike. --Mikebeep (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, Mdd is of the view that there is insufficient evidence that you, the uploader of the file, is the same person as the copyright holder of the file. You should therefore send an e-mail to confirming that you are the author of the work and that you consent to the file being licensed to the Wikimedia Commons under the GFDL and CC-BY-3.0 licences, and place an {{OTRS pending}} tag on the file description page. For more information, see "Commons:OTRS". As indicated above, I would also suggest that you upload a modified version of your file stating that it is available under the GFDL and CC-BY-3.0 licences, though you need not remove the copyright notice. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

--- Thanks Jack. I have just sent an email for OTRS as suggested. --Mikebeep (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Thank you jack for changes in my page. So I could make some progress ... D Villafruela (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Tannks for renamed File:Statue of Rechiar, Suebic King of Galicia (sculpted 1750–1753), Royal Palace of Madrid, Spain - 20080109.jpg and also the Spanish description, it'is perfectly, but the file name is a few long. Thanks.User:Basilio

You are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A confusion

Hi Jack, Is it really required a web source for a public domain Image? I am not good at policies [and in English :)] Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ravi Varma-Shakuntala columbia2.jpg and this change.

When I go through artworks from India, some are loosely connected to their original title and some has no connection at all. Whether all of them need a renaming or not? --Praveen:talk 06:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that one should always cite a source for an image, even if it is in the public domain. Knowing the source can be useful for a number of reasons, such as determining whether the image is reliable. (See, for example, the big debate going on at "File talk:Child affected by malnutrition 1921-1923 Famine in Soviet Russia.jpg".) It is up to you whether you want to nominate images for renaming. If you feel that the current file names do not describe the images well, then do go ahead and tag them with {{rename}}. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of sources are available. But not exact source :(--Praveen:talk 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Then just state one of the more reliable sources where the highest-quality image is available. Avoid random blogs or file sharing websites if possible. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jacklee, thank you for editing our picture. Part of the collage contains stock-photos we bought for advertising purposes. I dont´t think we do have the right to publish them for reuse. So we thought it would be best to blur them. Do you have another solution for the Problem? We want to use the collage for Online-Banners.

Cheers Dominique — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCOLLAGE (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you create another collage using only freely available images from the Commons? — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, i did so. But have problems with recreating the page. The new Collage consists of pictures from CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCOLLAGE (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What problem did you encounter? Also, what is the montage for? (By the way, please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ("~~~~") after them.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Trillium vaseyi - 20070425.jpg

FYI--Bapti 17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! I plead temporary insanity. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Are you saying that OSCE material must be removed from commons? thanks Mdupont (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes. The website you referred to, [35], states:
Content on the OSCE website is subject to copyright.
The OSCE must be credited as source when using content from its website. For texts, the publication or page the texts originate from must be given. Photos credited to the OSCE may be reproduced without charge for non-commercial purposes only. When using photographs from this website, both the OSCE and the photographer must be credited in the following format: OSCE/photographer's name. [Emphasis added.]
I see a general assertion that all material from the OSCE website is copyrighted, and a specific note that says photographs credited to the OSCE can be reproduced without charge for non-commercial purposes only. That is not a sufficiently free licence for the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi, and thank you for helping me. What is the difference between this and this other one ?

Is it going to help in here, If I switch it ? I'm saying maybe I chose a wrong way to upload the file!!! *** in fact *** (contact) 09:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Commons ( and English Wikipedia ( are separate projects. Commons images can be used on all other projects (e.g., English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia, and so on), but images uploaded to the English Wikipedia can only be used there. The general policy of both the Commons and the English Wikipedia is the same – an image should only be uploaded if there is sufficient evidence that it is in the public domain or has been licensed under a free licence. However, the English Wikipedia also permits "fair use" images, that is, images that are still copyrighted but satisfy the non-free content criteria. These criteria are quite strict. I don't think your image satisfies the criteria. Criterion 1 states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." It is possible for someone to take another photograph of the robots and upload it under a free licence, so the image is replaceable. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)