User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015
2nd half 2015

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at

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

The new WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information[edit]

Although I have been busy in the real world for the last several months, I have also been very troubled by the requirement for signing a new confidentiality agreement. As I outline below, I think that the requirement is so poorly conceived and written that I have had to seriously consider what, if any, position I want as a contributor to an organization that makes such an unreasonable request.

I have decided not to sign the new confidentiality agreement required for OTRS and Checkuser status. I have three reasons for this:

First, as noted at User:Jameslwoodward, I have spent my career in the high tech world, usually as Chief Financial Officer. In that capacity I have both written and signed a wide variety of confidentiality agreements. They are typically 500 to 700 words. The documents that comprise the basis for the new WMF requirement have more than 8,000 words, and that does not include the various linked documents. I am a native English speaker and an experienced reader of complex agreements and I cannot fully understand exactly what the requirements are. I think that requiring signatures from our colleagues around the world, almost all of whom have less experience reading legalese and most of whom are not native English speakers, is just silly.

Second, while I understand and support the concept of virtual signatures, I cannot support it in this context – one where the document that is being signed is ill-defined, with many links. I have not followed most of the links, but I would not be surprised if ultimately this document set is several hundred thousand words. A virtual signature, like an old-fashioned one with pen and ink, should apply to a specific document -- a well defined set of words.

Third, every confidentiality agreement that I have ever seen provides that it does not cover information that the signer obtained outside of the scope of the agreement. A typical provision is:

”provided, however, that “Confidential Information” shall not include information (i) in the public domain by publication through no fault of the Employee, (ii) lawfully received by the Employee from a third party who was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect thereto, or (iii) required by law to be disclosed, but only to the extent of such required disclosure.”

The new requirement does not include such an exception and, therefore, signers can be sanctioned for revealing non-public information that they learned completely outside of their OTRS or Checkuser status. As an example, I know the real names of many of our pseudonymous colleagues because they have chosen to reveal them to me in e-mails. While I certainly respect their desire for anonymity, I should not be sanctionable if I happen to reveal one. I have explicitly asked the powers that be to clarify this, but they have not done so.

I would certainly be happy to sign a short – less than 1,000 words – self contained document (one with no links) setting forth OTRS and Checkuser responsibility to keep confidential any non-public information learned through the use of those facilities, but I cannot sign the present document and I strongly recommend that others think hard before they do so.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant essay, thank you for the information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this highly educational reply. I did signe because doing OTRS-work is my hobby which I very much enjoy to do. This said, I doubt that this agreement is even legally binding in my home country anyways because you are a) they used some sort or force to make people singe this. Namely revoking access if you don't singe without giving any change to review/revise the agreement. b) The English isn't understandable even for native speakers as stated above by Jim c) it isn't even clear if the OTRS-policy is on behave of the WMF or the OTRS-admins who have no legal authority to make such an agreement. d) It is indeed unreasonable and unrealistic e) The OTRS-admins could have reasonably suspect that this document isn't suitable for most of the audience which is a form of neglect. f) They are in neglect because they don't respond to request to clarify. Conclusion: the odds are that this agreement will not even held up in a Dutch court and I doubt this differs from other countries who are a member of the European Union. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I have my doubts about signing too. First, unlike Natuur12 above, I want it and keep it as my free time hobby. I usually sign NDAs (if ever) in context of a project work, in exchange of money. While my personal responsibility for eventual harm done when disclosing sensitive information cannot be disclaimed, this agreement creates a legal imbalance - one party asserts its conditions, the other party gets nothing in exchange.  « Saper // @talk »  16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over how I counted words.

The base document is which has 732 words.

However, it calls out as a basic set of definitions and requirements. That contains 6,335 words.

It also calls out which contains 1,709 words.

Since I did the word counts in a fairly rough and ready fashion using MSWord, arguably a careful count would come up with somewhat fewer words, so I rounded down to say "more than 8,000 words". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re engineering illustrations, elated to the russian trains upload Parovoz_LV_razmeri.jpg[edit]

I can see what you are saying in the discussion, but I would not use the ward "certainly". Illustrating the dimensions and distances between the between the outside/engineering parts of a machine such as a train or an automobile, can be done in such a way were there is an illustration of facts without originality as I stated above. Drawings that trace parts and using simple geometry represent distances between those parts cannot be considered original. The drawings here are as simple of a representation of facts as can be done. The amount facts conveyed does not alter the lack of originality of conveying those facts, i.e. complexity of the facts that are represented does not produce originality as long as the facts are conveyed in as simple manner as it can be done. In what way can these facts be conveyed without violating copyright? I am not bickering I am justifying my point and expect the same in return. It would be interesting to read your interpretation of commons' stated reasons for our rules so can you quote the ones that you see as applicable to this matter. Rybkovich (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I mostly hang my hat on the fact that all engineering drawing is creative. Many many years ago, ten years before CAD, I trained as an engineer at Cornell and took a required year's class in engineering drawing. We were taught that all engineering drawing require some creativity, but general views of complex machines such as locomotives, require a great deal of it.
An example. Some years ago I made an AutoCAD drawing of a Big Boy. As an example of the creative choices required, every bolt head has on it information about its manufacturer and its specification -- how strong it is. AutoCAD makes it very easy to populate the drawing with detailed bolt heads -- you draw one and then insert the block everywhere it is needed. The question is, is that appropriate? At any but very large scales, it makes the bolt heads too prominent, so I chose not to do it. Do you draw pipe fittings, which are larger than the pipe they're used with, or simply have the pipes run together? If you do draw the pipe fittings, do you draw the excess threads that appear at every threaded joint? Do you draw the locomotive naked or with lagging? And so forth. Even simple things like where you put dimension lines and what dimension style you use will make the drawing more or less readable and therefore more or less usable. All of these choices have a tremendous effect on the final look of the drawing. This is why really good technical illustrators can make $100,000 a year.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahh I get the point. This is the main point re complex maps - they are considered original even though the decisions of which facts to present are mainly based on utilitarian not aesthetic reasons. I was also going to look at a US case which i think is specifically re car auto cads and will update you. Rybkovich (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Rybkovich, maps are interesting. As you see will on my talk page, I am a serious sailor, so I do a great deal of work with charts. Although I own 1,200 paper charts, most of our navigation is done by a black box which displays our position on a chart, as well as a great deal of other information. There are two sets of charts available for almost the whole world. The first are raster scans of the equivalent paper chart -- charts that have been produced by humans with a strong eye toward usability, albeit with computer drafting assistance. The second are vector charts -- charts that are produced on the fly by the black box from a database. They should be the better choice -- they allow you to customize the charts, so that, for example, all depths shallower than your choice are shaded differently, and can sound an alarm if your position moves over a depth shallower than one you choose. All other features can also be customized. The text stays constant size of your choice when you zoom in and out. Nonetheless, I, and, I think, most, serious navigators use raster charts. They are simply more readable and easier to use. I think that the ability to make something readable is certainly a creative work and deserves copyright. The vector charts do not themselves have a copyright in the US, although the database behind them may have a database copyright in some countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fictitious Ottoman flags[edit]

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Fictitious Ottoman flags, the fact that they are used in articles was precisely the reason why I nominated them for deletion; uninitiated users keep adding them to articles because they are named as if they are not fictitious, and since they are relevant to so many articles it is difficult to keep track of them and remove each time. If Commons policy requires keeping them, then I think they must at least be renamed per Commons:File renaming 2 and 3. We'll still need to remove them from articles one by one, but at least uninformed users won't add them again later, thinking they found the correct flag for that year. I think it would be best to rename them like Fictitious Ottoman flag 1.svg, ...2.svg, etc. It is important not to include years in the title as well; they are just as made-up as the flags themselves and they give a false sense of validity to the flags, like they were actually adopted at that year.

Once their use is phased out they can be deleted, or maybe not, it won't matter since it wouldn't hurt to have them on Commons with that name. But keeping those fictitious flags with their current names is extremely problematic.--Orwellianist (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This problem comes up several times a year. The appropriate solution is to add {{fictitious flag}} to each file and then accept what comes. Commons policy is very clear on the subject -- we do not try to control what WP editors choose to use in their articles. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's not mention that they are fictitious in the title and just deal with it with the template, but the incorrect dates still need to be fixed. Commons:File renaming: "To correct obvious errors in file names, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms." I think it would be best to correct the names of those files and name them as they are, as fictitious Ottoman flags, I believe that's in line with the naming policy; but even if you disagree with that, it is absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect dates per commons policy. At the very least they should be named "Flag of the Ottoman Empire 1.svg" etc, just removing the incorrect dates.--Orwellianist (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't object at all to your renaming them either by adding "fictitious" or removing the dates, or both. I just believe that the primary notice needs to be {{fictitious flag}}. Note that while we call it "renaming", the function is actually called "move" in the drop down menu between the star and the search box. Since you are not an Admin, you will have to leave a redirect behind, but that's a good thing because they are so widely used. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, the use of the fictitious flag template is warranted here, but it is quite misleading to have the title say that the file is something, and then have a template below that says it actually isn't. It's especially problematic because the files even dare to give precise dates; as if an imperial decree officially changed the flag at that year; when there isn't the slightest indication that it was used either around that time, or indeed, at any other time.
Since you don't object, I am requesting moves on all the files listed using the drop down menu. Can you approve the move? I don't oppose leaving redirects behind; it's probably for the best, as you say.--Orwellianist (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a relatively new user -- I thought you either had, or I could give you, the File Mover Right. Since you have only 50 edits on Commons and fewer than 1,000 on all of WMF, I shouldn't do that.

Let me know when you have finished tagging them with {{rename}} and I'll go through them if someone else doesn't beat me to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CC vs. Copyright for File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg[edit]

James, thank you for looking into the license of File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg. I realise the contradictory licenses that appear on the web are confusing but surely the author's own site takes precedence? Let me know if you need more information to un-delete this image and how you wish to resolve this. I am new around here, as you can see, and would welcome your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Noodlings217 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
See my comment at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Monique_de_Kermadec.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons-Deletion requests- File-NorthIndiaClimateKoppen.png[edit]

Regarding- Commons:Deletion requests/File:NorthIndiaClimateKoppen.png.

Hello Jim, as given in its talk page, this map File:NorthIndiaClimateKoppen.png has incorrect map legend in its body, which I am unable to correct. So, I have made a replacement for it File:India and South Asia Koppen climate map with legend.jpg with correct legend in the body of map, (& also in summary info part, which is editable). Global use for the incorrect one now shows none. Now replacement by the better map is complete. All are replaced. May be the map File:NorthIndiaClimateKoppen.png with incorrect map legend, can now be deleted, so that it does not get added to Wikipedia articles.Thanks, by User 2know4power (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC).

Since this is not a copyvio,, it cannot be handled by a {{speedy}}. You must start a new DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jim, according to your advice, renominated for deletion here. Thanks 2know4power (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

File(s) Version[edit]

Hi James. I uploaded 2 new versions here, but the new ones are not being shown. Do you maybe know what the problem is please ? thx --Gary Dee (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Same happened shortly here. Is there a new rule maybe to keep originals on page, after uploading a new version ? --Gary Dee (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Very likely a cache problem, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Although the instructions are for WP:EN, the same problems and solutions are valid on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

deleted photos of historic Ellicott City, MD, by John L. Beck[edit]

Re: Commons:Undeletion_requests#Files_uploaded_by_RichardTE

[moved UnDR discussion to the UnDR] .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jim!

Just FYI but the request for temporary undeletion of the above mentioned file was so that I could import it to Wikiversity as Fair Use there in the lecture v:Yellow astronomy. I had no interest in its being kept on Commons. Also, the image you mentioned as "The image is the second image on this page:" Is not the image of the above file. A copy of the correct image, still carrying the name "File:Krishna.jpg" occurs on url= It was probably copied from Commons back in 2012 or so. The statement "The image itself is copyrighted and the two figures in it are also copyrighted, so you would need to get two or three licenses in order to keep it on Commons." indicates the wrong image and I checked it.

I realize Commons and its Custodians deal with a lot of images per day, but in order for this process to work of importing deleted files from Commons to Wikiversity we need to better coordinate it somehow. Any suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this situation is an anomaly. There have been five different files with the file name File:Krishna.jpg on Commons. The latest of them, uploaded on August 16, 2015, is, in fact, the two figures which I found and linked to and which you have named above. There is also a current file named File:Krishna.JPG (upper and lower case are different on WMF projects). The file at has never been on Commons with the name Krishna.jpg (either upper or lower case). It does, however, appear considerably larger at I don't think it possible for Admins to search deleted images on Commons by image, only by name, so I cannot tell if that image has ever been on Commons under a different name.

The five files with the name are (with uploader names and dates):

  • 06:30, 16 August 2015 Vishnuvardhan817 640 × 640 (50,769 bytes) The two figures linked above
  • 15:37, 16 May 2015 Krishna chotu 720 × 960 (81,503 bytes) Photo of two young men in informal dress
  • 07:27, 27 March 2015 Krishnadahal 600 × 600 (147,127 bytes) Photo of a mid teen boy in suit and tie in front of a nondescript red building
  • 23:14, 27 May 2013 Ossopunk 350 × 514 (46,487 bytes) (A copy of the same picture with slight better contrast and colour.)
  • 23:25, 4 August 2005 Parvati~commonswiki 350 × 514 (30,811 bytes) (The Hindu God Krishna with holy cow) [drawing of haloed man with a flute leaning on a white cow and a peacock in the foreground.

So, the long and the short is that Commons has never had the image you were looking for under the name you gave. It may have had it under another name. In either case, I don't see how there is anything that needs fixing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this! What I remembered of the image was Krishna standing in front of a white cow. The last file you described and the one I found on banglapedia both contained these parts of the image and were named "File:Krishna.jpg". I also found the last one you described on the web. The only way I could tell the difference was the mention of the peacock and the halo. The image on banglapedia did not show the peacock or the halo so the one I actually must have had in v:Yellow astronomy was either the last one you mentioned above or the second to last. This is not going to be as easy as I had hoped.
Originally I asked (with consensus at Wikiversity) at the phabricator for a way to upload files deleted on Commons to Wikiversity as Fair Use. They included "commons" for use with our Import tool but mentioned that by Commons policy I could not search for the deleted image but had to have it temporarily undeleted before import by a custodian. This test has pointed out the complexity but maybe not a solution. When I used the time stamp for the Commonsdelinker removal of the image from Wikiversity, it led me to the deletion discussion I mentioned in the undeletion request. Can you establish that either the last or the second to last image you found was the one the deletion request was about? --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Please could you check [1]. I think it may have been uploaded by someone connected with a PR company for the stadium, but I doubt that that would be OK. SovalValtos (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

I want to nominate

1 Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Convent2.JPG

for deletion because there is now a new version without the excessive tilt of the old version, in the Category:OLSH Convent, Daceyville.

Sardaka (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)