User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

2009-10 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015
2016 2017 2018
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Block request[edit]

Hi, could you please block User:Ponyotrash? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done I would ordinarily ask "Why", but that became obvious when I looked at his vandalism. I fear he will return in another guise. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No doubt. You might want to revert all of his edits to others Talk pages - easier for you than for me. I removed my own (very nasty). Revdeletion may be in order too, not sure how it works here. I'll leave it to you. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like it when others remove vandalism from my talk page -- I think it is better to leave that to the owner. I know that when I see that on my page, I have to look to see what it was and then delete it, which takes longer than simply reading and deleting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Different projects, different ways. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit of a quandary with File:Digital Coded Money.jpg[edit]

The license for the Flickr file itself is definitely CC-BY-SA. It was derived from two other Flickr files. One of which was CC-BY-SA on August 10, 2010 and is now CC-BY-ND (which can be dealt with), the other is apparently no longer on Flickr and Wayback Machine only has it after it was taken off. Do you think it would be OK for me to pass a license review of it or should I file a DR because I cannot verify that one of the files it was derived from is CC-BY-SA? Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure it's in scope -- it's clever, but it's personal art from someone who is not a contributor. You certainly should not do a license review -- we must keep our license reviews absolutely clean in case one is ever needed to prove the prior license. If the image were really important, I could argue that because the Flickr user who created it said that the two images were both CC, that it's OK, or I could argue that there's no copyright in a scan or photo of a dollar bill, but it's probably best just to let it go. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I won't do anything as far as a license review. It has a lot of hits on TinEye so it's possible the version on Commons is being externally used. I could just do nothing on the file unless you believe it really should have a DR for not fitting our scope. Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, as I said, let's just let it go. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeletion request[edit]

Hi Mr Jameslwoodward,

I saw the negative result you gave concerning my request, I have to tell you that I don't really agree with the idea of evaluating the uploader rather than the file, just because the user is an evader/harasser, this does not it means that what is left behind does not necessarily have to be thrown away completely. I absolutely understand that such a thing would not be encouraged, but I checked the logs of his uploads and I noticed that some and I repeat some of his following files are correct. then you should open the dialog for some of its files. one shouldn't dismiss everything, because he is "an infamous dirty dodger". I don't find it very fair, and I also don't find it fair the constant puppet attacks he keeps making. I understand this hassle 14:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/HOGD08"[edit]

Hi Jameslwoodward, Good morning. I just saw the resolution of the user verification you requested for HOGD08 and TanailaBaby [1], which is very interesting to me, especially when you mention that "there are other accounts related to the latter". I would like to know which are those other accounts to put on notice in Spanish Wikipedia, since it was also blocked for being a puppet of HOGD08 [2][3], who has been characterized lately for making cross-wiki evasions through female accounts. Greetings. Luis1944MX (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In line with the WP policy of disclosing as little private CU information as possible, I am uncomfortable discussing this here. Any WP:ES Checkuser can answer the question by running a CU on TanailaBaby. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-poppy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-poppy.jpg, however there was a related file included in the discussion at File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-lavender.jpg. Can you please consider making a ruling on that one too? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done by Krd. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amar Osim[edit]

Hello James, I think there was a misunderstanding. The image which you deleted of Amar Osim, was an image I took. So, not only was the camera mine, but I phisically took that image, as in I am the actual photographer of that image... Bakir123 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. In the DR you said, "I do have the permission as this is my phone on which the picture was taken." That would be entirely irrelevant if you were the actual photographer. In the DR you did not say that you were the actual photographer, which would have been the appropriate response if it were the case. I also note that you have an long history of uploading copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) I understand the copyvios are an issue, but I can 100% assure you that I phisically took this image. I said that I "have the permission as this is my phone on which the picture was taken" because I was just flabbergasted that the image was even nominated up for deletion because that was mine "cleanest" image up to that point, as in I was assured it wouldn't be deleted becaue I actually took the image. Okay, maybe my response wasn't the best, but in full honesty I expected that by saying that the phone was mine, I thought that it would be logical to assume that I was also the photographer. That's my bad. The copyvios I hope will not happen anymore. The images I'm uploading now have a reliable source, and in the future, regarding the images of buildings and etc. here in Bosnia, I will upload only locally, because I did have recently an image of the UNITIC Twin Skyscrapers in Sarajevo deleted as I uploaded them on Commons, instead of just locally on Wikipedia. But I understand that now. I truly do hope that you believe me. Once again, yes the copyvios past is a slight issue and the response could have been more precise, but this is genuinely an image I personally, phisically took of Osim. Bakir123 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So... Do we remove the uploaders "This image is free to use only on Wikipedia" comment or should we proceed with the deletion request? Trade (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't change what the uploader wrote. The image also has the problem that it is not Own Work, as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to bring back my image?[edit]


I recently contributed a photograph (I took it myself on my iPhone) of a famous mural of Greta Thunberg, found in San Francisco where I live.

I think you deleted it! How do I bring it back?

File:Andrés_Iglesias_mural_of_Greta_Thunberg_above_Mason_Street,_San_Francisco.jpg Harlancrystal (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how to prove I own this photo aside from showing you my iPhone and the other 20x pictures I took in that area on the same day. But, yes, I definitely own the copyright of this image of a mural in a public place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlancrystal (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, nevermind I read the mural document thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlancrystal (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harlancrystal, I think you get it -- your photo is fine, but the mural itself is copyrighted and images of it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the artist who painted it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Apostolicus[edit]


You closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Apostolicus as delete. Since the time of filing of the DR, Apostolicus has uploaded more images sourced to the Flickr account that look just as dubious. Should I file another DR for those or is the precedent from the original DR for you to take action? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DR was opened March 30 -- I don't see any images uploaded by him after that date. There were acouple that predated the DR and should have been in it -- I deleted them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks muchly. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heller Vignelli files[edit]

Hello Jameslwoodward, I am working on trying to secure proper licence for these files. May I ask you to reinstate at least the Vignelli Dinnerware (Hellerware) files provisionally? I'm particularly interested in the Lella Vignelli article, and these photographs are an integral to the work I am doing there. Their absence leaves a big hole in the article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many photographs that we would like to have for WP articles that we cannot have because they are not freely licensed. Until you get a free license from the actual copyright holder(s), I see no basis for restoring them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted and understood. I will continue to try to solicit a response from the user who uploaded the images (at my request). This person may have very likely has some connection with the company Heller, so once they reappear, they may be well placed to re-upload the files with proper attribution and licensing (the assumption being that the company either owns the images or has a connection to whoever does). Thanks for your reply. I'll let you know if the matter gets resolved. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legal documents[edit]

Hi Jim, Regarding [4], legal documents are perfectly in scope on Commons. We already have thousands of them: Category:Legal documents. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yann, OK, but there ought to be some sort of criteria -- as there is with everything else. Important cases, certainly, but we shouldn't take everything that comes along. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, we are not overflooded with this kind of files, so no explicit criteria is needed now. We accept many pictures of minor Bollywood actors and actresses (or other people and things not really notable), so why not court cases... Yann (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we agree in principle -- while we take minor Hollywood actors, we don't take local high school actors. Similarly, I think we should draw a line at local court cases. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request immediate restoration of mistakenly deleted pages[edit]

The two pages are and You did not notify anyone prior to deletion and did not have any proper reason for deletion. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted on the DR, tables are out of scope for Commons. If needed elsewhere, they should be set locally in Wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Livio Castiglioni[edit]

Hello again, I believe that the deletion request for the file you just deleted was retracted by the nominator. Perhaps Justlettersandnumbers could shed more light on the matter? As this image survived the scrutiny of a Wikipedia DYK nomination, it's deletion now seems odd and arbitrary. Might you have made a mistake? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Also see: (which was also inadvertently modified by the deletion).

Hi, Jim! Thank you for closing this deletion request of mine – the more we can do to limit the activities of this pestilential LTA, the better! Could I just check with you that my additional note about this file did not add up to a reason to keep? I'm asking because the same or very similar file on it.wp has an apparently valid PD claim and is marked 'copy to Commons'; it was recently uploaded by a long-term user in good standing. If you've no objection I'll go ahead and do that, but obviously will not if there's any uncertainty. I've explained to user Cl3phact0 that it could be hosted on en.wp as WP:NFC, but I don't think that would allow use of it in his DYK nomination of the page on the subject. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Google correctly translated the WP:IT template for me, the argument is that this is a simple photo and gets a 20 yr copyright. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I#Italy warns against using that rationale as it is poorly defined. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, the article was already featured on DYK (January 14, 2023) with the photo in question. There was robust discussion of this matter at the time (please see Talk threads here, here, and here), so I am puzzled as to why this is still an open question. (Admittedly, my knowledge of the nuances and complexities of licensing is limited.) Any help you're able to give finding a solution would be much appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any discussion of the subtleties of Italian copyright law on WP:EN will not mean much here on Commons. The guidance I cited above is quite specific that we should not rely on the 20 year rule. This is a posed portrait, not a simple snap. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marginataen's uploads[edit]

Hi, Regarding File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg, I would assume good faith, seeing their statement and File:Brian Mørk, 2022.jpg, a picture obviously taken at the same time. But I understand the lack of trust given the uploader's history. Should File:Brian Mørk, 2022.jpg be deleted? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. Even given his history, I'd be OK if he uploaded a good sized image with full EXIF -- but the "lost the camera" excuse is a little lame when everything goes into the cloud whether you like it or not. Although VRT is not a solution for everything, the more personal interaction there may make it possible to accept what he says. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dare image (SurfaceAgentX2Zero)[edit]

Hi Jim,

thank you for the comment on the undeletion page. I thought I'd do this here after reading your guidance above.

Does the pasted below copy of the email that originally came though to give permission to use the image count? It was sent through with the image but was overlooked. Perhaps it needs to be sent again as I have redacted some details as instructed to do on the relevent page - don't include email addresses etc it said.

Looking forward to hearing back from you. Apologies but I'm learning. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duh... I forgot to paste...

EMAIL: From: redacted <> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 10:25 PM To: Gray <> Subject: RE: Wiki band picture

Hi Gray, thanks for the email.

Please see below.

Merry Christmas Darren/DARE/Thin Lizzy

I hereby affirm that I Darren Warton, represent Legend Records the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here:

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Darren Wharton Redacted Redacted. North Wales. Redacted

DATE 24/12/2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The problem we have is that while 99% of our users are honest, we have 25,000 users, more or less, so we can figure on a significant number of people who are willing to lie and forge in order to have images kept here. The message above could, of course, be a complete forgery. As a result, we require that email licenses come directly from the copyright holder to VRT. That usually gives the VRT volunteer a traceable email address or other way to identify the sender and confirm that the message is legitimate. If worst came to worst, it would be a defense in court against a lawsuit for damages. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jim, and thanks for such a clear and concise reply. Yes, I totally understand what you say about the honesty thing. No issues whatsoever with that. Before I rush off and email Darren again I did have one thought. As I mentioned somewhere back when I first looked at this undeletion request, Darren did send the permission email through, but it was overlooked somehow and the image taken down for no permission. I'm wondering if there's a record/archive kept of such deletions etc., and I wonder if that email is still floating around out there and the two can be connected? If easier for me to just ask him to send an email again, that is fine. Thank you again. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only edits to the image file were yours and a cleanup bot, so there is no record there of any VRT ticket number. Although VRT is not always quick -- its current backlog is a little over a week -- it is pretty thorough -- messages do not get lost very often. My first guess would be that Darren did not, in fact, send the message, or that he sent it to a completely wrong address. Beyond that, I don't know. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, thank you for taking the time to look into this. As I say, I'm learning, so this is all new to me. The email trail I have suggests he did send it through, but no matter, I'll get on it and get Darren to re-send his permission. The address he used was which I take to be correct? Finally, if he just sends an email through and references File:Dare Band shot 2 HIGH RES.jpg that will link to it for verification and then undeletion with nothing else needing to be done this end? Thank you again. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The email address is and the file name is File:Dare Band shot 2 HIGH RES.jpg. There are full instructions at VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derivative Image Not Deleted[edit]

This is regarding your decision here. Honestly, I think it's risible that you concluded that there was "no valid reason for deletion" when the drawing is obvious copywashing by making a derivative work from a copyrighted piece. The very same user, User:Little maquisart, has had multiple uploaded images of theirs successfully deleted for being derivative drawings of copyrighted works. See here, here, here, and here. They also have many more nominated for deletion and awaiting review (through Commons' glacial pace). This is a serial copyviolator. It's absurd that you don't recognize it—especially in light of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith decision. -- Veggies (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously it is a subjective decision and I think we have to leave it there. I saw so little resemblance between the two that I don't think the two images are of the same person -- you say they are, but I see only what I see. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review requested as it's now after 2018 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's probably appropriate, but this is the wrong place to ask. Make an Undeletion Request, making it clear that while the file is not deleted, you want to use the earlier version with the illustrations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Jameslwoodward: , can you please check this file, just like File:Adriana Caselotti photo.jpg and File:CFerrell.jpg, it was also published by Disney who mostly copyright them, and the source material here is unreliable, if it breaks the Wikipedia Commons rules, can you deleted please? Nuturi (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy does not allow me to simply delete an image unless it is an obvious copyright violation, which this is not. If you think it is a problem, nominate it for deletion and let the community decide. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible copyvio[edit]

@Jameslwoodward Jim, I found this copyright violation. File:Flag of SAARC.png is derived from en:File:SAARC Logo.svg. Rather than transferring the PNG to the English Wikipedia, it would be better to put the existing SVG of the logo on a white background. The existence of the flag is confirmed via [5] 00:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you want here. I see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of SAARC.png. The DR must run its course -- at least a week. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward Make an SVG of the SAARC flag for en:SAARC using the existing SVG logo on the English Wikipedia. Note that the flag image will be used under a claim of fair use and therefore uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. The flag is just the logo on a white background. 19:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. I still don't know what you want of me -- I don't make SVGs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]