User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive7

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


This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

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.



I'm done with transferring. --Miha (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Gobierno de España Files

Hello Jameslwoodward,

I`ve seen that you recently closed some file deletion requests from "". On September 2012 some "" files were Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gobierno de España deleted, based on the same principle stated on the December deletion requests. It's not an easy decision, but we must keep the same standard for these files.

Happy new year.--Dura-Ace (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. What we must do is make decisions honestly and straightforwardly on each case when it presents itself. While all of us on Commons must consider precedent when we make our decisions, we are not bound by it. Even Supreme Courts can act against precedent. If the Ministry's legal page is the same now as it was then -- and that is something that we don't know -- then my comment in August was incorrect, as was the deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:AEF flag.png‎

I did the work of CommonsDelinker and replaced this file by the correct one in every WP. Is it now possible to delete it?--Antemister (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. While I am tempted to just delete it and change the edit summary in the DR log archive, that offends my sense that transparency is always good. I think you had better hang another {{delete}} on it to keep the action public, instead of hidden in an archive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for deleting my bad page, I just re-submitted the correct page. It went through as "Disneytree/Nancy temple rodrigue". I hope I did this correctly so the page will be named "Nancy Temple Rodrigue" Disneytree (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Robert Kehlmann

Hi Jim, I created a page for glass artist Robert Kehlmann as an artist I admire and believe should be represented on Wikipedia. This is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia, so I'm figuring it out as I go along. When I got to posting images, I found it confusing and complicated and so I contacted Robert Kehlmann to see if he'd upload his own photos -- the ones he owns -- so I could use them in the article. He did, but then all the photos were requested to submit OTRS forms or be removed, by GeorgHH. Robert submitted the OTRS, but now his account has been blocked, I think because the OTRS forms weren't received or clear? I guess I need some guidance on what's the best way to proceed? thanks, Tuna4tina (talk)

Please forgive our institutional skepticism and understand that we have it because we get a great many people trying to upload copyrighted work without permission or with fake permission. We delete around 2,000 files every day, many of them for that reason. We are simply trying to keep from being an enabler of copyvios and protect the rights of the copyright holders.
The main problem with this situation is that the license sent to OTRS was from a g-mail account, not from Kehlmann's own domain We frequently get fans who upload artist's work without permission and then, when asked for OTRS permission from the artist, get a g-mail or yahoo account with the artist's name and send a bogus "permission". A secondary problem is that, in order to protect famous people from being impersonated on Commons, we require them to confirm their identity through OTRS if they want to use their actual name as a username here. This is why I blocked User:Rkehlmann.
Although I am inclined to believe your explanation above, I'm afraid I have seen too many sincere looking lies so that I must ask for further confirmation. Please have Mr. Kehlmann send a message to from an e-mail address at or from the public contact address shown on his web site, The message can be very simple:
"I confirm that I am Wikimedia Commons User:Rkehlmann, the artist profiled at, and the person who sent the permissions from which are listed on OTRS ticket 2012122710010947."
Once that is done, please drop me a note here and I will see that the DRs are closed as keep and his account is unblocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tech-logo-2010.jpg

I am always horrible when it comes to our TOO policies, but the main purpose for the request was someone claimed it to be CC, when it is wasn't. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood -- but if it were under the TOO, then there's no copyright and Tech can claim a copyright all it wants. If I had kept it, I would have changed the license/permission to PD-textlogo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
And I would have told Tech to stuff if they emailed us. I used to be the public relations chair for the Alpha Tau Omega chapter there until I graduated and they had so many external (and even more internal) restrictions on the use of the Tech logos and names and it was just a headache that I refused to deal with. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder

Should we make an attempt to amend the admin requirements? They were set up in the days when a man and his dog could happily look after the rare copyvios (no one checked them much anyway). The sheer volume of DR/speedies does require some commitment to Commons at least. It might be worth tackling the "admin is the same everywhere" one at the same time. 'pedias do deal with copyvios but at a far more basic level than here and it is not the major part of the role elsewhere that it is here either. Just thinking is all :) --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(replied as Herby pinged me) Yes, agreed. I had to learn a lot about copyright violation in general before I could delete my first copyvio file. But is there somewhere a "list" of all admin requirements? Or do you mean pages like Commons:Administrators/Howto and Commons:Guide to adminship? Regards, Trijnsteltalk 22:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that before one becomes an Admin here, he or she should demonstrate
1) a basic knowledge of US, UK, French, and German copyright law, and the understanding that the other countries we deal with are all different, but generally have rules that are similar to the big four.
2) a basic understanding of our copyright policy, including COM:PRP
3) understanding that we deal in a multilingual environment and that while English is our basic lingua franca, we respect all languages and do our best to accommodate those who can't write English.
4) the ability to be firm with problem editors, welcoming to newbies, and mellow with colleagues.
5) a willingness to average an hour or more a day on Commons.
That's a big list, but it reasonably describes all of our productive Admins. I think that our requirement that candidates have spent time in the Commons namespace gives us some assurance that these requirements will be met, but I do see a number of RfAs where the candidate clearly meets #4 and gets voted in as a result, without any of the remaining four skill sets. People do not seem to understand that a WP Admin acts mostly as a moderator and judge, with very little specific knowledge required, while a Commons Admin is very rarely a moderator (although often acting as one of a group of moderators), but is mostly applying very technical rules to the keep/delete question. I'm not sure this is fixable, except possibly by having even tighter rules over who can vote in an RfA.
It worries me a little that while I often point out that a small percentage of all Admins do almost all of the work, in fact over the last year we have had two people doing the vast bulk of the work -- first Fastily and now INeverCry. I am not sure that when INC burns out we will find the capacity to keep up with the flood. Fastily deleted a quarter of a million images in his brief rise to the top of the Admin actions list.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hum - not quite sure if this is "consensus" :) - either way changing policies here tend to be massively draining :(
I'd favour improvement however I'd find it hard to subscribe to anything very rigid - I spent the first year as an admin deleted out of scope stuff and dealing with vandals - over that time I learnt a bit but there are some aspects of copyright I am still not fully au fait with. The logic then as now is that if I dealt with something others who knew more than me didn't need to and could get with something else useful.
Point taken on what might be seen as "over activity" though. The ones that do (by our standards) sod all are an issue as well. --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think a familiarity with basic principles of copyright is essential - I wouldn't require as much as Jameslwoodward would, though. Knowing the right questions to ask (and where to look) is more important than knowing the right answers. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree -- you can't keep it all in your head. I do think that any Admin should understand the no-notice rules in the USA (and that notice is a USA-only concept and only until the new rules), the difference between 70 years pma and 50 years after publication, and the major differences in FOP rules (which the four I named cover very well, from none to everything including text, and from outdoors to Mme Tussaud's). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jim

Sorry about the acticle that I left on the site, I am a student and was to publish on Wikipedia however it directed me to this site. again sorry for any confusion.


Hey Jim, happy new Year! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 02:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Malone Hoard

Jim One or two of my photos have been deleted (fop issues in Italy) and I did not protest. But this case is different. The isssue is whether or not the Malone Hoard display is a work of art.It seems as though because Vera and no-one else decided that it is the file has to be deleted.In fact the dropped out of a bag or contrived layout has been so commonplace in museum design that only a straight line or other arrangement (or in Vera's terms non-artistic) would be considered even a novelty. This file was in use on three pages which now lack it. Please reconsider this and also it's implication for all museum photos. Notafly (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC) as Robert Nash (formerly Curator of Entomology, Ulster Museum)

It's not correct to say
"because Vera and no-one else decided"
because I also have the same opinion. Part of being a Commons contributor must be understanding that there are some things that we cannot have on Commons. This is one of them. Museum exhibits beyond simple straight line arrangements clearly have creative input and, therefore, have a copyright. I suggest that you approach the museum for a license, asking them to use the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
If the three articles you mention are on WP:EN, then the image could be uploaded there with a fair use rationale. You may also ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests, but I will oppose it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

European Court of Justice

Hello Jim,

My picture of the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg has been deleted. I was not given time to do what it takes, i.e. get the green light from the architect. As I am going to Luxemburg next week, I will try to find out what to do.

Has this picture received the authorisation of the architect? File:European Court of Justice 01.jpg

If so, I will ask the author if said picture how and where he got it.

Honestly, I find this quite ridiculous. It is a public building, anyone can see it and anyone can take pictures of it.

--BiiJii (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I have little sympathy for this point of view:
"It is a public building, anyone can see it and anyone can take pictures of it."
The same is true of all copyrighted works. Anyone can buy a book and make copies of it, or take a recent painting and print it on t-shirts. I hope that you would agree that both of those would be copyright infringements. If you agree that books and paintings have copyright, then why do you object to buildings having a copyright?
If you can get the architect to send a license using the method at Commons:OTRS, then we will be happy to restore the image. If not, it will stay as it is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jim,

I'll try and do that and will try to know how to proceed... ;-)

Just a stupid question while I'm at it: has this picture received the authorization of the architect?

File:European Court of Justice 01.jpg

If so, how can I see it? It might help me find said architect, although my good friend google might give me a few hints.

Or this one: File:European Court of Justice in Luxembourg - Construction site (2) - May 2012.JPG

--BiiJii (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies -- I did not understand the question the first time you asked. As far as I know, we have no authorization from the architect for photographs of the ECJ. I have put {{delete}} tags on both of the images you listed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's only fair.

I found the architect on google, I also found people who sell pictures of said building and who claim copyright on THEIR pictures of the architect's building. So...

Anyway, I can't really see people copying skyscrapers. It would take a lot of money, a suitable plot of land + all necessary authorizations. An architect who would like to draw the same building can very easily find pictures on the internet, elsewhere than Commons, that is.

I'll keep you posted as soon as (if...) I get an answer.

Have a lovely week-end

--BiiJii (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:MaloneHoard.JPG. BabelStone (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Montreuil - Salon du livre jeunesse 2011 - Lilidoll - 001.jpg

You deleted this. Just in case you're interested, there's a discussion about your closure at COM:BI#Petite question sur les usages en vigueur. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Merci. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello Jim, maybe I'm not good at explaining things, can you please tell this user that emptying his archived talk page and hiding it is not exactly a co-operative behaviour? I'm kind of fed up of repeating the same thing countless times. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Jim: Please read my objections to BlackCats allegations careful. Despite my request, he could not name any official policy. Thank you in advance!--FAEP (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, FAEP is correct, there is no official policy that requires a user to archive his or her talk page rather than blanking it.
With that said, though, much of what happens on Commons is done by custom and unwritten agreement rather than by official policy. This is one of those things. Almost all of us much prefer to have all users keep their talk pages easily accessible. A user who regularly blanks his or her talk page is going to make colleagues unhappy with him and will find it more difficult to work with others. I strongly recommend that you (FAEP) do as almost all serious editors on Commons do, and archive everything, both good and bad, from your talk page. If you need help setting that up, I would be happy to do it, or you can just look at the markup for it at the top of this page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This too doesn't sound much cooperative to me. I've always been respectful when addressing other users, but this doesn't look much respectful towards me, Jim. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sergio, I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I made a comment to Peteforsyth about his wanting to become an Admin. He answered me politely, in a perfectly straightforward and good way. Then you started a new topic as shown here What I don't understand is where that came from. It is, I think, your first post on his talk page and there's no history of his posting on yours. I don't see that he has been blanking his talk page, at least for a year or so. So, why did you post the comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of this, Jim. I was replying to what Pete wrote on FAEP's talk page, explaining him why an user shouldn't blank their talk page (because of the same unwritten rules you were reminding FAEP, in short). But Pete thought better blanking my entry in his talk page. Which is like hanging abruptly the phone while speaking with someone. Not a good way to cooperate and interact with other users for being one who ran for admiship, especially if you consider that I addressed him in the most polite way. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, I understand. Probably he did also, but perhaps he was as confused as I was. Among other things, your comment says, "As Jim pointed out, no need to write a rule when common sense should be enough." but he had no reason to know where that came from, since he presumably had not read my comment above.

Your comment might have an included a little introduction -- something like "Following up on our discussion at User talk:FAEP....". I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you're right. Of course nothing I said meant to be unrespectful or aggressive, I simply pointed out that such behaviour is not good for a cooperative environment like this. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello Jim, I remember your help, that allows me to ask you questions :) I am writing an article in French on Thomas Edwards (heresiographer). The best image I found about his Gangræna is located here, on the Folger Shakespeare Library. The problem is that this page tells us that the work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. Bizarre, his work has been written on 1646, so it is on public domain ! So I wonder if I can upload this cover on commons. What do you think ? I have another stupid question :) I found an image on Google Books last week, about an older French book, I downloaded it on my computer, but I can't retrieve it on the net, and I can't remember its title, nor the name of its author... I would love to use this image to illustrate my userpage, here and on wikibooks. so do you think I could upload this image even if I miss informations like its source, etc... ? Regards, (genium ) 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First question -- the official policy of the WMF follows the US case Bridgeman v. Corel which takes the position that simple copies of PD paintings are PD -- no new copyright comes when copying a flat work. That certainly extends to copies of books. Therefore, go ahead and upload the image and tag it {{PD-Art}}.
Thankyou !
Second question. I don't completely understand -- it's an image of a book, but you don't know it's title or author? I would say that if it is obviously old -- 18th century or earlier, then you're probably all right with a PD-old tag, but it would really be better if you had more information. Have you tried using Google search to search for the image? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I tried, but without any success. I saved it at first in order to send it by email. It's an image of a monk reading a book. I feel sometimes like a monk copyist on Wikisource, I would love to use this image on my userpage because wikisource seems to drive my other activities on wikimedia. But I understand the need on having more information. Perhaps I could add a note asking people to let me know if they find the needed information ? Anyway, no urgency here, Thankyou again... (genium ) 23:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There's always Rembrandt: File:61014Monk Reading.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Or Corot: File:Corot Monk Reading Book 1.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No, mine looks like black-and-white engravings. He's standing, reading the hood closed, in front of an architecture… I'll let you know if I find anything ;) (genium ) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

IP-block-exempt request

Hi. Could you grant my bot, User:Smallbot, the IP block exempt) right? I've moved it to a VPS and and am getting the following response when I try to edit:

{"servedby":"mw62","error":{"code":"unknownerror","info":"Unknown error: \"globalblocking-ipblocked\""}}

Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg ResolvedUser:EugeneZelenko granted the right.Smallman12q (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Djamel Bouchaffra

Es: Hola veo que transformaste este archivo que para mi era un claro ejemplo de algo que no esta de acorde a las normas de common, con el propósito de aprender me gustaría saber cual su la razón en este caso para convertirlo en una pagina de usuario. Gracias de ante mano.

En: Hello I see you transformed this file for me was a clear example of something that is not in line with common standards, in order to learn which I would like to know your reason in this case to make it a user page. Thank you in advance.--Veronidae (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a biography of a user in gallery space, so I looked to see if he had a user page. He did not, so I moved the page there.
This is a bad example to learn from. While we allow serious users to create fairly complex user pages (such as yours and mine), this one is perhaps too much for a beginner and I am sure that some of our colleagues would have simply deleted it. I like to try to be welcoming to new users, instead of simply deleting their first effort on Commons. Perhaps I am too soft.
All of that is a long way of saying that I am not sure your decision was wrong -- it was a close call..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok no problem :) --Veronidae (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Rama's Birth Details.JPG

The above file is deleted without taking in to account the explanation given by me. This picture does not involve any copyright issues. The painting of Lord Rama is owned by 'Rashtriya Yodha Smarak Samiti', of which Mr. Darshan Lal Jain, is the President and undersigned is the Vice-President. Our organisation got paintings by professionals, of several national heros and warriors for use in calenders and our own publications. So please reconsider its deletion and let it remain on Wiki. I may add here that I have uploaded dozens of pictures on Wikipedia during last several months and follow the rules of wiki judiciously.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment:
"Owning a painting does not give one ownership of the copyright to it and our uploader does not even own the painting."
There are two issues here.
First, the owner of a painting rarely owns the copyright to the painting. That almost always remains with the artist. We recently deleted photographs of several official White House portraits of US presidents because the copyrights are still owned by the artists. In order to overcome this issue, you will need to prove that you own the copyright, either my having the artist send a message to give permission, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS or by sending a copy of the contract transferring copyright, using the same procedure.
Second, you say that the painting is owned by an organization. We do not know anything about User:Sudhirkbhargava other than his or her name and we certainly do not know that he or she is authorized to license works owned by the organization. In order to restore this we will also need a license from the organization, again using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
In both cases the necessary e-mails must come from domains clearly identifiable to the source -- no anonymous accounts such as g-mail, please. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As I explained earlier our organisation 'Rashtriya Yodha Smarak Samiti' gets paintings made on payment and hold all the rights to use them on our calenders or printed matter. Even this Combo of Lord Rama's picture, the shalokas,and Planets positioning is in public domain released by RYSS. We have several such paintings of national heros/warriors etc., whom we remember/perpetuate. I find procedure on Commons:OTRS very lengthy and discouraging.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Can I vouch on our letter-head regarding ownership of all rights with us and release them for wiki. Alternatively, if the picture of Lord Rama is that big an issue, I can download one from Wiki and prepare another Combo to upload as my own work, to expedite.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just do what Jameslwoodward suggested above. It's quite simple and just requires sending an email to us (you can find the address at COM:OTRS) with the requisite information. This doesn't need to be complicated... – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would bother. Aside from the copyright issue we discussed above, there is the issue of copyright over the star map and the overriding question of whether the image is in scope. I don't think this image is going to be kept even if you overcome the issues with the one image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new mail Id (we are already on gmail, which you won't accept), documentations of copyrights of painting/photograph of Lord Rama and now copyrights of celestial positioning globe issue,if I use a photograph of Lord Rama from wiki which is in public domain, draw a map of positioning of Planets my self and prepare a Combo with Sanskrit shaloks as they are, will it be acceptable or some more issues can come up?Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, it is not clear to me whether this creation is within the scope of Commons. It seems to me more or less equivalent to my producing a star map as of the date of the first day of Genesis - a personal creation without widespread support. Therefore, if you recreate it as you have described, I will tag it with {{delete}} and see what the community says. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
File is within the scope of Commons and has great educational value as one look at this compilation gives you Birth Date as mentioned in Sanskrit Shaloks. Globe you find on the picture depicts the Janampatri or the birth horoscope of Lord Rama. The three shaloks written in Sanskrit language describe the positioning of Planets at the time of Birth of Lord Rama. The Globe depicts those exact positions of Planets in pictorial form. I can describe for you the exact meanings of shaloks if you need. However, these Janmpatris or Horoscopes are common in India and are prepared at the time of birth of a child. When the positions of planets are analysed through Planetarium software, the date of birth of Lord Rama is calculated as shown. I do not think any issues are involved and the picture will only enhance the understanding of any related page where it is put.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Jim, I'm curious about this closure. While I tend to agree with you that the image isn't particularly valuable, doesn't the fact that it was in use at several Wikimedia projects indicate that there are other editors who disagree with us, who have perhaps put more thought into how to best illustrate an article about this software topic? -Pete F (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was working a little too fast. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks! -Pete F (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gb-ltmd-1938ts Emergency Equipment.jpg

Would you care to elaborate on your closure here? No one mentioned Crown Copyright, and you have stated no justification as to why the diagram should be under that jurisdiction. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

From Crown copyright#United Kingdom:
Crown copyright applies "[w]here a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties".
Since the subject work was made for the London Underground, it seems clear to me that it falls within the scope of that definition. I'm not an expert on Crown Copyright, though, so if you can give me a reason why it wouldn't apply, I'm all ears. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Castroville Japanese Language Schoolhouse, Castroville CA and Castroville Japanese Language Schoolhouse

Es: Hola me encontre con estos dos archivos cual se deja y cual se elimina son artículos duplicados. Lo dejo a tu criterio. :)

En: Hello I found these two files which is left and which is removed, are duplicate items. I leave it to your judgment. :) --Veronidae (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Theo van Doesburg Composition 1923-1924.jpg

Hi James, File:Theo van Doesburg Composition 1923-1924.jpg (painting by Theo van Doesburg in the Kunstmuseum Basel) was recently deleted following the URAA. On closer inspection however I found out that this file might be licensed as {{PD-US-unpublished}}. The reason for that is that this painting has never been published in the United States, nor has it ever been exhibited there (see nl:Compositie_(XXVI)#Tentoonstellingen). Maybe this file could be re-uploaded under a different license? What do you think? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That might work, but you need to do a little more work -- proving a negative is very difficult, but I have to ask:
  • It has never been shown in a book?
  • It has never been sold at auction and therefore appeared in a catalog?
  • There were no copies on the Internet before 2003?
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, I can provide the folowing list of previous publications with place of publication in bold:
  • Exhibition catalog Sammlung Marguerite Arp-Hagenbach, Basel 1967 with image.
  • Exhibition catalog Theo van Doesburg, Eindhoven\The Hague 1968.
  • Exhibition catalog Theo van Doesburg 1883-1931/Konstruktive Kunst, Nuremberg/Basel 1969.
  • Exhibition catalog Verzameling Marguerite Arp-Hagenbach, Otterlo, the Netherlands 1970.
  • Polano, Sergio (1979) Theo van Doesburg. Scritti di arte e di architettura, Roma: Officina Edizione, with image in black and white.
  • C. Blotkamp (1996) De vervolgjaren van De Stijl, 1922-1932, Amsterdam/Antwerpen: L.J. Veen, with image.
  • Hoek, Els (redactie; 2000) Theo van Doesburg. Oeuvrecatalogus, Bussum: Uitgeverij Thot, ISBN 9068682555, with image in color.
It was never sold in a public auction. Also this copy of the painting (uploaded in 2008) was the first and only copy ever to be found online. See google. So I think it's safe to say that it hasn't been published in the US before 2003. The same, BTW, goes for the other two paintings by Van Doesburg recently deleted. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that you have proved the opposite of what you wished. For the purposes of {{PD-US-unpublished}}, it must have been unpublished in any country with which the USA has a copyright agreement -- essentially everywhere. Since van Doesburg died in 1931, his work was in copyright in Holland on the URAA date.
The following is from USCO circular 38b:
"To be eligible [for restoration of copyright under URAA], a work must meet all of the following requirements.
1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries. [yes, Holland]
2. The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection. [as of the URAA date, 1/1/1996 -- van Doesburg died in 1931, his work was in copyright in Holland until 1/1/2002]
3. The work is in the public domain in the United States because it did not comply with formalities imposed at any time by U. S. law, lacked subject matter protection in the United States in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, or lacked national eligibility in the United States. [PD-No notice]
4. If published, the work must have been first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." [as shown above]
I think these works meet all four requirements.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right. {{PD-US-unpublished}} just says "never published", not "Never published in the U.S." That brings us back to the URAA. But what about the Hirtle chart? We've seen that this painting was first bublished in 1967. According to the URAA it enters the PD in 2062. That's an aweful long time for an artist who has died over 80 years ago. However, if the image in the 1967 publication does not contain a copyright notice that particular image could be licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. I will try and do that instead. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. In order for PD-no-notice or PD-no-renewal to apply, the work had to be first published in the USA, or within 30 days of publication elsewhere. These fall into the Hirtle Chart box that reads

"1923 through 1977 -- Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date."

which gives us 95 years after publication if we accept 1967 as the publication date. I'm not sure that's correct -- it may be that the publication date is when the paintings were first sold -- but that still doesn't make them PD now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bla bla bla: no-fop in Italy

Hi, the discussion on Pedia is finished and we have concluded with complete assurance that in Italy there is no concept of freedom of panorama; so all the files User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy that will be considered protected by copyright will be deleted in different PDC. If you have any tips I thank you for them. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that I would advise is that you make separate DRs for each category -- try to make the DRs small enough so that they can be addressed as a whole. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos of Italy

Es: Hola vi en tu página que estas fotos de Italia serán borradas por no haber lo que ustedes llaman libertad panorama, yo he subido fotos de Italia las mías también serán borradas porque estoy por subir un lote nuevo de la ciudad de Roma.

En: Hello I saw on your site that these pictures of Italy will be deleted for not having what you call freedom picture, I've uploaded photos of Italy will also be deleted mine because I'm by uploading a new batch of the city of Rome. --Veronidae (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The following is taken from Commons:FOP with edits to suit Italy:
In Italy, art, architecture, and other works are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the creator. That means any photograph taken of such a work during that period is a derivative work.
A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit.
There is no FOP exemption in Italy.
Note that in Italy, as in every country, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer.
Does that answer your question? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

deletions of some photos

Why did you delete some of my photos. You should have confer with me before doing that.--Ezzex (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@James, FYI: User talk:Túrelio#deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you did not give me a link to the photos, I do not know which ones you mean. However, please remember that we delete between 1,500 and 2,000 images every day. Although we notify users when their images are up for discussion, we cannot have individual discussions with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Old open DRs

Hi Jim. Can you please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2012/11/17? It looks like 10 or so of my old DRs got overlooked and a couple were partially done. I don't do complex DRs, so I'm sure these can be easily closed. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Closed out the day. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. INeverCry 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bkchem Taxol Holton C ring part II.svg

Hi Jim. The SVG bug has disappeared with the new version of MediaWiki. But do you really think that we do need five files that are virtually duplicates?

Only the last one is in use. --Leyo 14:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need only one -- and I would be happy to delete the other four if you -- or someone else that I trust -- tells me that he has examined them carefully and has determined that they are functionally identical. I have neither the expertise nor the patience to do that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The first one misses some stereochemistry (just discovered) and should get deleted as incorrect.
The second also contains text as such (smaller file size), but has some incorrect stereochemistry at the bottom. It may be kept or deleted.
3–5 all have the text converted to paths. No. 3 has the same incorrect stereochemistry and should get deleted. No. 4 has one line too bold and should also get deleted. No. 5 is correct and needs to be kept.
--Leyo 14:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Leyo 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Las monjas de Bendito Paladar.png

Hi Jim, this may need a bit more of a tidy up. As I mentioned in the DR, the other uploads from the same person need attention. For example, File:Monjitas-13tv.jpg is blatantly taken from the promotional Facebook collection, it even includes the TV channel logo. My intention was for this DR to act as a bundle, let me know if you would prefer a more explicit DR where I enumerate the questionable files remaining. Cheers -- (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the one -- I think you may be right about the other four, but I'm reluctant to blow them away since they were not in the DR list and the uploader has not been notified. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look at creating a bundle DR to be clearer. -- (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Freinsheim.svg

Hi Jim, this may need a bit more of a tidy up. As I mentioned in the DR, at [the end]. Or should someone make a new DR (I have sworn to do this never again any more on Commons) with the lion as copyvio? I mean only the last version of this file. I know you're doing a difficult job, sometimes good sometimes not so good, in my opinion. But I respect that. Cheers -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lion is probably taken from File:Small coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg. Except for colors, direction, and the double tail, he is identical. Note, however, that that file is PD, so it is perfectly OK to take the lion from it to create a new COA. Although it would have been polite for Bayemraute to credit the source, attribution is not required with a PD image. Also, we have 745 files in Category:Crowned lions in heraldry and there are many very similar lions there, so I think that a copyvio claim against any rampant lion would probably fail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok that sounds plausible and there could be a generally rule. That would also imply for example PD-CoA (in the meaning of the author can't have copyright) from are completely free to use here? But there is also a sentence against this (COM:COA): “Both the definition and the representation of a Coat of Arms are intellectual creation, and their legal protection may be considered as such.-- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 00:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response -- I was in the middle of writing it nine hours ago when our Internet went down from a storm.
Images from are royalty free only with certain limits -- nowhere near free enough for use on Commons, see [[1]]. Commons requires a free license for any use, anywhere, in any quantity.
As a general rule, blazons (descriptions of COAs) are old enough to be free from copyright, and even if under copyright, only the actual words are copyrighted, not the substance of the description. If "lion passsant d'or" were copyrighted, I could write "gold panthera leo walking" without infringing. I could also draw an example without infringing, but my drawing would have its own copyright. In general, each individual representation of a COA is copyrighted like any other creative work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferdousi-square-tehran.jpg

Hello, Jim. Could please you help me with the case. I don't know whether this image are available in PD at the link on it. Thank you very much--Morning (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented at the DR -- you need a Farsi reader, not me. Try User:Mardetanha or User:Mmxx..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Eur Court of Justice

Hello James,

Have you received my message - also sent to permissions@-etc. - with the authorization of the architect for my picture CJE.JPG ?

The picture has been deleted, I have received and forwarded the authorization.... and nothing happens.

However, this picture still remains.

Double standards???

Thanks for your help

--BiiJii (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all a double standard. Deletion Requests take at least a week and sometimes as much as a month. Coincidentally the image you cite above was deleted about an hour after you left the message above. As for OTRS, it typically has a backlog of several weeks -- we do not have enough volunteers to keep it completely up to date.
However, I found the permission from DOMINIQUE PERRAULT ARCHITECTURE on OTRS. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient permission. As is explained at Commons:OTRS, which I referred you to earlier, Commons and other WMF sites require a free license for all uses. The permission from DPA is only for use on Wikipedia.
When its turn comes up on OTRS, an OTRS volunteer should send a message to the architects asking for the proper license. You could speed that up by asking the architect directly. Please copy on that request, referring to ticket #2013010710009345. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jim, thank you for your answer.

The architect probably mentionned his authorization for wikipedia because I mentioned Commons etc... Being myself a beginner around here, I was not aware of the exact way a permission must be sought.

I can of course write to them again and ask them to rephrase their authorization, but I'm afraid these people have more urgent things to to. I prefer to give up, too bad for the wiki-community.

Thanks for spending your time on this


--BiiJii (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, an OTRS volunteer will probably follow up. If I were an architect, I would want photos of my best known works available on Commons, so we will see what happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slovenian war map.jpg

Hi, in this request, my argument was not that the map is not a work by the CIA because there are names written in two languages. The argument was that it is not the work by the CIA because the local names are written so that they're barely visible and partially obscured. Don't you think that if the CIA would have created this map, they could have easily fixed this? I think it's fair to say at least that there is significant doubt about the copyrights here. I'm bringing this up here because it was not addressed in the conclusion of the nomination. Thank you for your opinion. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am basically depending on the Library of Congress to get it right -- my experience is that they understand copyright and are careful with it -- they are, after all, the copyright repository for the US. Although I believe in and often refer people to COM:PRP, I think this is a case where we are safe because an major authority on copyright says it is OK. We rarely actually know anything for certain on Commons -- we are almost always relying on a source for details. What better source to rely on than the LOC?
I think the problem you see here is that the CIA created the base map and then later added the overprint. Since the overprint was not designed for close reference, they ignored the question of whether the overprint obscured some of the base map. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there are still some unresolved questions at this proposal's discussion page. A comment would be welcome. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have ignored the post closure comments, rather than simply deleting them. If people don't like the closure, then they should post an UnDR, not continue a closed discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why an UnDR? It's for images that have been already deleted. I've contacted you because I would like to hear your opinion on what has been said there before reopening the deletion request. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was headed out the door and went the wrong way on this. I meant, of course, reopen the request. Objections to deletes beat objections to keeps 10 to 1.
I've explained my reasoning several times -- I don't see why another time would be helpful. The reasoning in the post closure comments is not persuasive for me. It is US policy to use place names in the local language on maps and charts. The fact that the location is in Austria does not change the fact that it is a map of Slovenia and will, therefore, use place names in Slovenian. Unless you find a different source, I'll stick with the LOC assertion that it is the CIA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request

In this deletion request, you forgot to delete the first file. Thank you.--Dega180 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
And in this deletion request, you forgot to delete the first file.--Dega180 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Sometimes DelReqHandler, the script we use for closing DRs, hiccups and misses a file or two. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jim, similar request: File:Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie by Philip Alexius de László.jpg and File:George Bell 1931.jpg. Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't update image

Hello sir... trying to upload a new version of but it won't let me. Help? NawIinWikiSucks (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why it won't let you -- try asking at Commons:Village pump. However, since you are neither the uploader nor the author of the image, you should read Commons:Overwriting existing files before continuing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See CU list posting :) --Herby talk thyme 18:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to ask about the name -- both because it is offensive and because I have to wonder why we want a contributor who, with every contribution, says that he doesn't like us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stara Cerkev Gefallene des Ersten Weltkrieges Pfarrgemeinde Mitterdorf.jpg

Hi, I'd ask you to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stara Cerkev Gefallene des Ersten Weltkrieges Pfarrgemeinde Mitterdorf.jpg. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No you should wait (and undelete it). We are awaiting reply from the Slovene intelectual property office regarding the memorial plates. There are several articles in other laws, acording to which it is possible to conclude that the plates should be PD. --Miha (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific and state which articles are you discussing? The copyright act is only one in Slovenia, so I don't see how they could be relevant for the copyrights. An explanation would be welcome. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- There was a read only period yesterday and this must have just caught it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Slovenia in World War I

There were multiple files and not all of them were from problematic Europeana.

A lot of them were from the museums on their own. If you can trust LOC for claims that something is in PD, why can't you trust European museums that something is in PD?

I just ask myself when we will start deleting pictures of prehistoric arhitecture since there is no claim that they have been build by an arhitect who has died more than 70 years ago (<sarcasm>One could easily live for centuries, the Bible says.</sarcasm>) Furthermore, the pictures were taken in a country that doesn't exist anymore and to my best knowledge (I'll try to find a source) it did not even had a copyright law which which would prohibit the freedom of panorama.

Again, closing such DRs should be taken with a greater amount of carefullness. Juts like I can not simply nominate the entire category for undeletion since there are some images that are problematic (I can not check which ones are not, since I can not see the deleted content.) --Miha (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the architecture (and therefore FOP) may be an additional issue, the principal issue on all of these is that we do not know when the photographers died. An image taken during World War One is nowhere near early enough to assume that the photographer was dead before 1943 -- I generally use a date around 1880 for that. Others will argue for an earlier cutoff. An image taken in 1860 by a person born in 1842 could conceivably still be in copyright if he lived to age 100.
As for my trust in the LOC in the discussion above, it is two-fold. First, as the repository for copyrighted material in the USA, the LOC has an institutional knowledge of copyright that I have not seen in other museums, both in the USA and elsewhere. Second, as I noted there, it was a CIA map -- the LOC was simply confirming what was already fairly obvious. In the subject case, the museums are saying, without explanation, that images that appear to be still under their photographers' copyrights, are PD. So, in the case above, the LOC was simply confirming something that was entirely plausible, while the museums in the subject DR are claiming, without any explanation, something that is very unlikely.
Finally, as for "Again, closing such DRs should be taken with a greater amount of carefullness", I completely agree that a mass DR of a heterogeneous list requires more care than a DR of a single image. I take such care, within the broad limits imposed by the great volume of work for Commons Admins. We delete around 1,800 pages every day; ten of us do most of that work. Fewer than one of our actions per thousand are reversed by UnDR (that number excludes cases where the reversal came from evidence not available during the DR), so the evidence is that we do a pretty good job. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Your comments about my recent query were very useful. Thank you. Bdcousineau (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steiner Alpen.png

Can you please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steiner Alpen.png, i.e. merge it with Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alps_-_Regions_(Eastern_Alps).png and the other files I listed there. Thank you. --Miha (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't close them -- it's very much too early -- but I redirected the one to the other, something you could have done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jim. Is there any way to make it so that the category connected to {{bian}} is updated automatically from month to month? I just updated it manually after noticing it was still on April 2012. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have made some templates, including {{bian}}, I've never gotten deep into complex template and toolserver programming, so I don't have a clue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Me either. Maybe I'll post a question on VP. INeverCry 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at COM:VP #{{bian}} where someone is disputing the policy behind the template. INeverCry 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salida.svg

Would you mind explaining why you deleted my file which came directly from a Chilean government PDF, was in use, and had the proper sign designation, when the user wanted his own file gone? Just because the government file had jagged edges is not sufficient, the file you kept may have rounded ones but they too are distorted, and you have disrupted two articles that used the file. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, Fry, give me a break -- "you have disrupted two articles that used the file" -- just how long will it take to swap the file names in the two articles -- two minutes? Much less time than the two of us will spend here. The long term quality of Commons images is overwhelmingly more important than a couple of minutes to fix two links.
As I said in my closing comment, the one file appeared to render the letters better at high resolution. Even if the official Chilean PDF shows the letters as polygons, you can bet that the actual signs are smooth curves, so the one I kept is a better representation of what is actually used. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't "give me a break" me. I'm not being combative, I'm asking a relevant question. Never have I seen an admin ignore an uploader's request to delete their own file, and delete the other one in use and officially sourced. Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The question was fine -- and I think I answered it. I bridled at "... disrupted...".
We're both very active editors. While I respect your opinion and usually just take your recommendation in DR closes, occasionally we're going to differ. I've found that the best way to disagree with colleagues is to be as polite as possible. "Disrupted" doesn't fit that mold for a two minute cleanup.
Please take the opportunity to teach me why you think the image I deleted was actually the better choice to keep -- I've told you the reason I deleted it. Was that wrong? Why? I try learn a little every day and to fix my mistakes when I make them.
I have no experience with SVG files, but I've been doing 2D and 3D AutoCAD work for more than 25 years, so I have a thorough understanding of the difference between raster and vector files. And, BTW, is there an easy way to convert a DWG into an SVG? Does SVG do 3D? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello Jim ! You deleted several pictures but one of them (ClickScript.png) is a screenshot of an open source tool (the diagram is homemade). it's possible to recover it ?

Regards. --Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If the diagram was homemade, it is probably out of scope as personal work, see COM:SCOPE. Most open source tools copy right their icons (eg Wikimedia, Mozilla, etc.), so it would require a careful search of the source licenses to determine if the images were free. You're welcome to do that, but it will require actual citations, not just your statement.
I have deleted your File:Smart gateway.png for a second time. It is a violation of our rules to upload a deleted file again. You may, as you did above, ask for reconsideration from the deleting Admin, and, if that does not succeed, post it at Commons:Undeletion requests. You may not upload it again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, for ClickScript, I'll ask the author if there is a license on his images.
Sorry for the file "Smart Gateway" , I changed the images used. I used personal images and images under GPL.
I don't want to recover my file, because one of the image can be used for non-commercial use. I have to modify all my files : before uploading them again. It's possible ?
Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
First, when you add a comment, please don't put it above an old signature -- that makes it hard to notice.
I'm not sure I understand, so please explain if this doesn't help you. There are two cases:
  • An image was deleted because of problems with the license or lack of permission which are now OK -- the image can be restored by any Admin or by making a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Asking the deleting Admin to do the restoration is a good idea because most Admins are reluctant to undo a colleague's deletion without consultation.
  • An image was deleted because of problems with the image itself and you have a new image which serves the same purpose and is freely licensed. This can simply be uploaded with the same name. Since the upload will show up on several watchlists (the deleting Admin, the DR nominator, perhaps others), it is a good idea to tell at least the deleting Admin what you are going to do and why.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
For the files ClickScript.png, i send a request to the developper to know if all images are under free license.
For the other files, i'm going to modify them with free license images (GPL, LGPL) [Can i re-use in my diagram, some modified images of commons ?] and after i upload them again.
Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello ! I re-upload 2 images :
I didn't manage to re-upload the file Smart_gateway.png, i have the following message :
Smart_gateway.png. Il y avait déjà un autre fichier présent sur le site avec le même contenu, mais il a été supprimé.
Can you help me ?
This time, i didn't use "free for non commercial licence", just GPL or personnal images :).
I think that should be just an informative message -- I don't think it should prevent your uploading a new file with that name. If I am not correct, just use a slightly different name. Even "File:Smart gateway.PNG" is a different name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good with a different name File:Smart_gateway.PNG
Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

help on copy right

Hi, Could you please help me with these questions:

  1. Someone told me that such pictures: [file:Forouzan on the cover of magazine 1974.jpg] may have copyright for the magazine logo, but I argue that based on “• In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality.” in {PD-Iran}, as the magazine is a legal personality instead of a person/persons, there is no copyright for the logo and ultimately whole picture after more than 30 I right?
  2. If I capture a photo of a grave, is there any copyright for the text, calligraphy, any graphic or design of the grave stone which would deter me uploading it as “copyright holder” of the photo?

Thanks. یوشیچی تویوهارا (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1) This is a complicated question. If the magazine cover is pure text -- it does not matter whether it is a latin alphabet, a different alphabet, or a pictograph language such as Chinese -- then the cover itself probably does not have a copyright unless there is enough text on any one subject for the text itself to have a copyright as a literary work. A typical magazine cover, with a few words about several articles will not have a literary copyright. The UK is an exception, as there is a special copyright there for typesetting. If the magazine has an image, then the copyright on the image usually runs for the life of the photographer or artist plus 70 years, although there are many exceptions in different countries. I am not expert on Iranian rules, but at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#Iran I read that in cases where the rights were transferred to a legal entity, such as this magazine, the author's rights are over after 30 years (both our translation and the WIPO translation are rough, but I think this is the intent of the law). So I think that you are correct, the copyright on the magazine has expired.

2) Also complicated. If the text is long enough to have a copyright as a literary work -- more than one sentence or so -- then your image would infringe on that copyright unless it had expired. In most countries, including the USA, but not the UK (I don't know about Iran), there is no copyright in typesetting or calligraphy. If the stone is a simple rectangular slab, with nothing but a few words -- "John Jones 1914-1994 Rest in Peace" -- there would be no copyright. A simple cross, crescent, or star of David would not have a copyright. If the stone were more complicated though, it might have a copyright as sculpture. All of the examples below are PD-old, which is why we can have them on Commons.

These both would have copyrights for their art:

This would have a copyright for its literary work:

This would not -- although there are many words, they are all just bare facts, names and dates, and cannot have a copyright. The shape of the stone is too simple.

Finally, although you are completely free to have a username in any language and any alphabet, it is helpful to those of us who cannot read Persian if you would provide a latin alphabet version of your in your signature. You can do this easily -- go to Preferences (at the top of each page) at the bottom of the User Profile page. Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your thorough explanation. I got what I wanted to. But about my signature, I might follow your advice in future, however I prefer to sign in our own script as I love it. But if you want to read my alias here, it is a forged Japanese name (for a non-Japanese as me) read as: Yushichi Toyohara  :-) --یوشیچی تویوهارا (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A last word on the subject -- perhaps I wasn't clear -- you can have both -- your sig could be

یوشیچی تویوهارا (Yushici) or almost anything else you wanted. I'd be happy to help with the HTML if you need it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ete Buecker 1953.jpg and File:Ete Buecker 1959.jpg

Dear Jim, there are no DRs on the photos you suggested for deletion. As Erich Bücker was my father, I know that these photographs had been taken from his very own photo album. My brother, now residing in the US, digitally refurbished them. The pictures might have been taken by a professional in the 50s being a friend of my father's. Regards from Germany. Yours Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmteaWiki (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Michael, I have copied your note to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ete Buecker 1953.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ete Buecker 1959.jpg. You may comment further there if you wish.
Briefly, though, you have claimed that you were the photographer. As you say above, that's not correct. The fact that you or your brother own copies of the images does not give you the right to freely license them here -- the copyright belongs to the photographer. The rule in Germany is that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer, so even if the photographer died the day after he took the 1959 image, it will be under copyright until January 1, 2030. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


hello, Jim. what was a reason for deletion of personal page linking to CC0 works? Yurinokuni (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, while a user is free to put what he wants on his or her user page, that freedom is broader for contributors who have done a reasonable amount of work on Commons and less broad for new users.
Specifically, while users are permitted to link to off-WMF pages which they control, for example, a personal web site, even experienced users may not link to off-WMF pages which are not theirs. The simple reason for this is that the Commons community controls what is on Commons, both content and licensing. We have no control over either on Flickr.
If you think that some of the images on the linked page belong on Commons, then please upload them -- they all appear to be licensed CC-BY. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

that is true, there is no CC0 license on flickr. i agree with problem of having control over images, however what's releavant here is that i myself declare them as being CC0/WTFPL so i dont care much. it's a big problem to carefully sort and arrange even that small piece of material, you know. i am not aware of any alternative to flickr and doing personal website means writing it from zero, otherwise i get all sorts of server and security problems i neither want nor have time to resolve for. this is going OT, but i'd be happy to hear about alternatives, supporting tagging, geotagging and organising it to sets, with a community that will see these photos. not sure such thing exists, and driving all community on own, unknown site is a pain, you might even have idea where exactly in. i want to contribute to wikipedia but arranging stuff here is even a bigger trouble. how about a copy of my page from, explicitly stating CC0 before link? basically, i don't get the idea of userpage linking to something non-WMF and not under control of linking user. while i always try to make my own sites, there are cases, when it's not possible for me to do it at the time. Yurinokuni (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so -- basically, your user page on Commons is supposed to be about your activity on Commons. Images that are not on Commons are not part of that activity. You can certainly chose to upload your images to Flickr, but please don't expect to be able to simply link all of those images from there to here. We want good images on Commons because our users, both on WMF and elsewhere, can be sure that an image that is licensed CC-BY here will continue to be licensed CC-BY the years from now. On Flickr, the images could be taken down tomorrow or relicensed ARR and no one would object.
I think that some of your images would be a valuable addition to Commons. I'd certainly like to see you upload them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing a tough DR

Hi Jim,
I am looking for a third opinion on a DR I closed yesterday, and which was reopened a couple of minutes afterwards. Could you please have a look at it and write down your opinion? Obviously, I believe that my closing comment was a good summary of the arguments brought before (also including the previous DR), but I wouldn't want to single-handedly decide on this subject, especially not when there is still some disagreement about the copyright status of these images. Thanks, odder (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Panorama photo of Baku

Hello. You've deleted this photo. But according this general views was kept. I think this file must be restored. --Interfase (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an easy decision, but the flame towers are such an important part of this view that I don't think we can keep the image. Feel free to file an Undeletion Request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning/notification templates

Hi James,

Why there are no warning/notification templates? Like we have on English Wikipedia for vandalism, test pages, patent nonsense, etc.—Bill william comptonTalk 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. We have a wide variety of templates for warning users to stop bad behavior -- click on "Notify this user" in the left tool bar while you are looking at any user page or user talk page and you will see them. Vandalism, test pages, patent nonsense themselves don't get warnings, they are delete on sight by any Admin -- non-admins can put {{speedy}} on them to see that they will be acted on promptly. If I've missed your question, please give me an example of the sort of WP:EN template you have in mind. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. We're supposed to notify users when we tag their pages for speedy deletion. I know "Notify this user" has a wide variety of templates but which one would fit if I tag a page for "empty gallery", "pure vandalism", "test page", etc? Shouldn't we warn users so that they don't repeat the same mistakes? English Wiki templates like this.—Bill william comptonTalk 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Go to the speedy template and click on the "Click here for further instructions" link. It has 4 different user notification templates, depending on the reason for the speedy deletion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the Slovene interface and don't see the link "Notify this user". Where can this be edited? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Philosopher, I know about them, but if you have noticed, none of them apply to what I'm talking about here. They are just for copyvio, derivative work, out of scope and fair use. Besides {{project scope}}, rest don't come in much use when I patrol new pages. At the Special:NewPages, most of the unpatrolled pages are galleries, e.g. Древнерусская книга, what template should I use for this?.—Bill william comptonTalk 08:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Eleassar. Help:Gadget-UserMessages. Note that I've never done this -- but that's where to start if you are going to do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Bill. First, I'd suggest you direct your energies elsewhere. Half a dozen Admins do New Page Patrol on a regular basis, so nothing stays unpatrolled for very long. Empty galleries (including pages that are all text), vandalism, tests, and mistakes all get deleted promptly with an appropriate edit comment that links to the necessary information.

Second, in most cases, the scope or vandalism templates under "notify this user" will apply. Since Древнерусская книга is nonsense (at least Google translate thinks so), I'd call it vandalism. Note that most of the new galleries that should be deleted are created by IP users, so that messages are pointless. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks James for your suggestion. It's just that old habits die hard :-)—Bill william comptonTalk 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Museum figures in Slovenia

Hi, Jim, could you please review this closure? The administrator simply did not put any attention to the fact that faces may be copyrighted, despite the fact that the clothing was not mentioned in the nomination rationale at all. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yann and I frequently disagree -- I defer somewhat to him because he is our longest serving Admin, but I agree with you that he is probably wrong on most of these. I might keep the plain dummy with the dead white face, but the others are clearly sculptures. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for how long he is here or whatever. Comments like [2] or [3] are hostile and uncivil, therefore not an acceptable behaviour. I'll reopen the deletion request and post a request for the review of his comments and actions at the Administrators' noticeboard. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:A white sandy beach on a small island, near Ile-Vache.jpg

The images are from page not a copyrighted website. I made a mistake to use the website as the owner/author of the images while there isn't any downloadable image on the website. All the images are from the facebook page whereby the page mission statement clearly states that these images are free-to-use pictures. (unsigned2| 17:08, 7 February 2013‎|Charlypedia04}}

As noted in the deletions and at UnDR, the images have appeared on a copyrighted web site. In addition to that, the mission statement of the Facebook page says:
"Mission is to show & expose HAITI's beauty and your help is unconditional to contribute in spreading a positive image Of Haiti."
That says nothing about copyright. It goes on at greater length, but copyright is not mentioned. Note also, please, that all Facebook pages are copyrighted by Facebook itself.
Therefore, as it says at the UnDR, you must get a written license from an authorized officer of Haiti Tourism Inc, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Images in Category:License review needed

Could you have a look at US-Army images uploaded by Serdechny. Are all of them valid. I have reviewed some pages and it sounds good to me but I'm not very sure. Thank you for your help--Morning (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they got into that Category -- I looked at half a dozen of them and don't see any problem. INSS and the other sources are all US DoD sites..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

José Rafael Botelho

Dear Jim. I just sent an e-mail to permissions commons with a license to upload my father's drawings and architectural drawings; I had sent another one, a few months ago, with a license for his photographs, and I'll use that OTRS to upload the new images. Is this the right thing to do? If not, please let me know what I must do. Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Manuel: That's fine, thank you. The ticket number is #2013020910002677. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jim. I replaced the old ticket number (#2012121410013601) for the new one (#2013020910002677) in the 3 most recent uploads. I suppose that's what I was expected to do. Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Undel req

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at the very top undel req about the AIDS poster? I voted support on it, but I could be wrong. FoP Vietnam isn't something I'm very familiar with of course. Thanks. INeverCry 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I struck my support vote. INeverCry 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Would you mind implementing a block on Look2See1? His long talk page is almost completely messages from people who object to his categorisation practices, much of which arises from his numerous errors in judgement and frequent placement of parent categories on pages that are already in child categories. Yann warned him some few months ago for a short while and he stopped, but he resumed despite a block from Yann in mid-January; I asked Yann on 31 January to intervene again, but he doesn't seem to have noticed, since he gave me no reply (not even "blocking not needed here") and neither did nor said anything to Look2See1. My objections on Look2See1's talk have been met by almost-TLDR allegations that I'm doing this to spite him, which are demonstrably false; I simply notice when my watchlist lights up with tons of pages whose categories are changed around and whose description pages are turned into a list of bullet points. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I've known you for four or five years and very much respect your judgement, I don't have any background on this situation. I'm therefore reluctant to block a user without a more public discussion. This request really belongs at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections which was implemented for exactly this kind of situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alix, Duchess regnant of Brittany.jpg

Hi Jim. Some of the images of this deletion request are re-uploaded by the author in high resolution (for example File:BerengariaNavarre.jpg). FYI. Trijnsteltalk 17:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion. :) And what about File:BerenguelaBarcelona.jpg (was it used before?) and File:BerengáriaNavarra.jpg (never nominated). See also Special:ListFiles/Mhmrodrigues for all files uploaded by this user ... No idea what to do with them. There are quite a lot and I don't know if he uploaded them earlier. Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 17:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I've gotten all of those covered by the original DR you cited above. As for the rest, I think that some of them look modern, like caricatures, and should probably be deleted, but others look OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

False claim?

Hi James,

User:MackenzieChristineFoy uploaded File:Audition.JPG. And, judging by the description, it appears that x/he is trying to make a claim that x/he is Mackenzie Foy. File's resolution, quality and metadata raise my suspicious and I believe that it's not an original work. What should be done with the file?—Bill william comptonTalk 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bill (and by the way, as it says at the top, I much prefer "Jim" from friends and colleagues).
I agree that image looks suspicious -- it's unlikely that a 12 year old professional model, who has all sorts of handlers, agents, and reps, would be posting a very low res image here. Also, Commons policy requires that accounts using the name of famous people must verify that they are actually that person (or at least share the famous person's name) using OTRS. I have deleted the image and blocked the user. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Dumb me (ignarus), never noticed beyond the big yellow tag. Well, thanks for the guidance!—Bill william comptonTalk 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright India

Hi Jim. Some of the images I have uploaded have now been deleted by you. To my knowledge (of course, I am not a copyright lawyer) they were correctly licensed in copyright terms. I did not agree with the reasoning of the person who launched the deletion nomination. And I strongly feel that this person was not sure about the copyright issues either. So what I would like to ask you: Are you a declared expert in copyright matters? If you are or even if you are not, I would request you to please define precisely the reasoning why you have deleted the images. I saw your statement "Unknown original publication. We cannot assume that it was published before 2013", but that does not show clear relevance to the copyright question at hand. Please put the deletion grounds in clear words that I can then verify through the copyright laws of the US and of India. As a matter of fact, I have brought to the attention of the concerned deletion nominator another image, which I suppose would need deletion too - if the arguments exchanged so far were justified. It is this image: Thanks for your help. – Thanjavoor (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive all Admins for sometimes being cryptic -- or for not giving any reason at all. We delete almost 2,000 pages every day and ten of us do 90% of that work, so we must work fast or Commons would be overwhelmed with problematic contributions.
Most of us try to judge how much comment will be required by both the experience of those involved in the discussion and the subtleties (or lack of them) presented in the case. In the very few cases where someone doesn't understand a closure, we try to answer any questions here or at Commons:Undeletion requests.
As it says at User:Jameslwoodward, I have been involved with copyright for more than thirty years, as one who was responsible for the protection of various copyrighted material in the USA and abroad. I am not a lawyer, and I would certainly not hold myself out as an expert on copyright anywhere. On the other hand, I am a Commons Administrator with around 130,000 contributions to WMF projects. I have deleted almost 55,000 pages and am rarely reversed on appeal -- less than one tenth of one percent of my deletions are subsequently restored.
Since you quote my closing comment, I assume that you are asking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:V A Sundaram, late 1930s.jpg -- it is polite to provide specific links so that the person you are writing to does not have to look up the references. While looking up the DR, I also note that you have also left messages for Stefan and Yann. It is rude and a waste of Admin time to ask the same question in three places at once. The standard procedure is to ask about the closure here, on the talk page of the closing Admin, and then at Commons:Undeletion requests, but not in several places.
This case appears to be fairly simple. There are several issues. First, if the image has never been published before its 2013 publication here, then it is under copyright in the USA and will be until 2133. Since the first publication was in the USA, Indian law does not apply. The image description says:
"The picture has, to my knowledge (and after extensive research) never been published before."
That appears to be definitive.
Second, the fact that the photographer is unknown does not mean that the rule for anonymous works applies. That is a very common mistake here. Anonymous means just that -- that when the work was published the photographer's actual name was deliberately withheld. If the photographer is simply unknown, then the work may be an orphan -- the copyright belongs to an unknown photographer or heirs, but that does not mean that the work is in the public domain.
Third, please note that is our firm policy that the burden of proof lies with those who want to keep an image -- it is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image was published in India before 1941 (to avoid the URAA rule). It is not up to those who believe that the image is still under copyright to prove anything. Since there is no evidence that it has been published and your own description says that it has not, then there is no good reason to believe that it is somehow free anyway.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

suppression photo du Musée Granet

I answered in French on his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Merci. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Two Files

This file and that one were deleted after this request. But according to this discussion, it's valid to upload an artwork photograph if it's settled in a public place (Although the artist of the statue is still alive). Sait Faik statue is also settled in a public place in Burgazada, Turkey. So can you kindly bring back these two files? Thanks. --Guzelonlu (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct, but maybe not. Not all public places are subject to the rule, only "public streets, avenues or squares". Although it's hard to tell from the photographs, these do not appear to meet that requirement. If you can give me a link to Google maps for the place where they are, I could make a decision easily. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a bit harsh and disputable to delete this kind of images. The distinction is very arbitrary, and not verifiable. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I take them as they come. Certainly our German colleagues take the identical provision in the German FOP literally and would delete these if they were in Germany and are not actually in a street, avenue, or square. Maybe Guzelonlu can tell us where they actually are. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FOP of sculptures by non-US sculptors

Jim, I have raised a matter with Dcoetzee here referring to an earlier discussion I found that you had had with him. Can you help? Thincat (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Although we have had a number of discussions about it, at the moment we are using the rule that the only FOP law that matters is where the sculpture is located. Thus an Alexander Calder sculpture, made in the USA, is OK for Commons if in a public place in the UK, but a Henry Moore sculpture, made in the UK, is not OK if it is in the USA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't realise that at present Commons only regards location FOP law (but that seems very reasonable to me). This particular sculpture is out of copyright in the US and is physically in the US so FOP doesn't arise anyway. Presuming the sculpture was located in the UK, Dcoetzee's bot placed a tag saying "this file must be usable under freedom of panorama in its source country or it will be deleted". Even in the UK this seems to be wrong. The file would be OK either if the sculpture was out of copyright (in the UK) or if the photo was in accordance with FOP in UK law. The same would apply if it was the nationality of the sculptor or the place where it was made or first "published". Thincat (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you assume that the bot thought that the sculpture was in the UK? As you say, it would be covered by UK FOP, so the bot would be wrong to place the tag under those circumstances. We have many images of sculpture in countries other than the home of the creator. I would assume that either
A. the bot knew that the sculpture is in the USA and placed the tag accordingly or
B. the bot is tagging all sculpture.
The first is a bit of a stretch, because the Cats (as they sit right now) don't tell you where it is, but the description does and certainly some of our bots are sophisticated enough to reach the correct conclusion when seeing "Princeton, NJ". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It was because of the discussion at User_talk:Dcoetzee#.7B.7BNot-free-US-FOP.7D.7D_on_sculpture_in_the_USA. Dcoetzee said the bot had made a mistake and it had been corrected ("I incorrectly assumed all of Moore's works were located in England"). I came across some other files that had been likewise wrongly tagged previously and which had not been corrected. I have removed those other tags and everything I know about has been sorted. Thank you again. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pic of [4] deleted - ??

Hi, I follow Alannah on Facebook and today she complained, with exasperation, that she could not add this one great photo of her because of all the complicated wiki-legalese to get its donated-public-domain intent passed through Wikipedia's cumbersome licensing.....I've been faced with this, deletion attempts, against my own many donated photos and maps; Wikipedia is supposed to be user-friendly... I've asked her to send me the image and photog info etc. so we can try and re-add it. This was her donating a personal/commercial photo of herself for her page; surely there's better ways to deal with this kind of thing than having them have to face the complicated technicalities of GDFL/public domain donations....I mean, really. Please reply on my wikipedia talkpage; if you know another editor who could nurse-maid this donation so the deletionists don't attack it again, please refer me in that direction....Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't given me much information here. The name of the deleted image would be helpful since you, apparently, are not the person who uploaded the image.
Please remember that we get around 8,000 new uploads every day. About 2,000 of those are problems for one reason or another. Some of the problems are accidents or misunderstanding, but others are deliberate attempts to upload images that infringe a copyright. We try very hard to ensure that every image on Commons is, in fact, free for all to use for any purpose, subject only to the requirements of a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. That means that we are fairly tough images that we suspect are problems.
Celebrity images are particularly problematic for several reasons. Fans upload them, falsely claiming that they are authorized to do so. Agents and PR reps upload them, completely ignoring the fact that the celebrity doesn't own the copyright. Images get uploaded that have already appeared on the Web "(C) All Rights Reserved". And so forth. While we generally Assume Good Faith -- that the uploader is telling the truth -- that often goes out the window with celebrity images.
For almost all celebrity images we will require confirmation of a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The confirmation will have to come from the copyright holder, usually the photographer. It must come from a domain that is obviously associated with the sender -- not Gmail or another anonymous e-mail source -- anyone can be
Finally, I have to reject your comment that the process is complicated. Obviously I understand it -- I've been here a while -- but so do 25,000 users in the average month who upload around a quarter of million images. If you're the photographer, you pick a license. If you're not the photographer, you tell us who is and, usually, have him or her confirm the license with OTRS. As you will see, the required e-mail is right there, so all the copyright holder has to do is copy, paste, fill in the name of the image, and sign.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Rainville's Garten Reinhardt 1856.pdf

File:Rainville's Garten Reinhardt 1856.pdf File:009 rainvilles garten.jpg

You rejected my request for delition of the pdf-version: "There is more data in this image than the new one -- it looks better at high magnification." But that isn't so. The 75 KB "addional data" in the pdf are nothing but the white rim cut away for the jpg-version. The full resolution pdf looks the same as a magnification of the jpg-version with Ctrl +. (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. At very high magnification -- 16x -- it becomes clear that while there are the same number of pixels in the two images, the PDF rendering, mostly the anti-aliasing -- looks better. :
But that is beside the point -- why are you so anxious to delete the PDF? It costs nothing to keep it -- we actually keep everything, the only thing that "deleting" it does is make it invisible to Users who are not Admins. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Could you maybe look at this. Another view on what may be going on would be helpful maybe. --Herby talk thyme 13:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Statue of George C. Marshall

Hi, Jim,

I am doing some editing of the article for Dodona Manor, and I noticed that the picture of the statue of General George C. Marshall was removed on Jan. 1, 2013, because of copyright concerns about the statue. Can you tell me if that was done because of a complaint or because of a general policy? Thanks. Tom Bowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowers1942 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 February 2013‎ (UTC)

An infinitesimal percentage of our deletions arise from takedown notices -- we delete around 2,000 images every day and I don't think we get more than a few dozen formal complaints per year.
As shown in the edit summary from the delinker, it was deleted on the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of George C. Marshall at Dodona Manor.jpg. As noted there, the problem is that the sculpture is probably still under copyright and, therefore, the image infringed on the sculptor's rights.
If it was installed between 1923 and 1989 and does not have a copyright notice ("sculptor's name (C) 19xx") then it is PD and the image could be restored. If it does have notice or it is later than that, then the only way to restore it here is to get permission from the sculptor or his heirs using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, 1980 sculpture per SIRIS [5], higher hurdle than pre-1978, needs published pic in newspaper. Slowking4†@1₭ 23:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
First, my reading of the 1978-89 law is that the making of copies must have been prohibited and actively prevented, so that "no publication solely by exhibition" actually has very limited application. It is hard to imagine that the unveiling of a statue of an important figure was not photographed and published. Since SIRIS has published photographs, obviously they are not prohibited. Second, as far as I know, there has been no case law on that clause. Since its effect is to give a perpetual copyright if you comply with the "no copies" rule, it appears to violate the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, which calls for copyrights and patents to last "for limited Times". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
i agree about the publication, but try explaining it to a deletionist. i've given up, hard enough to defend the pre-1978 from the "no fop-us" automatically mentally. Slowking4†@1₭ 17:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Recreating a gallery deleted because it was not a collection of images

Hi Jim ! Would you please, allow me to recreate a gallery now that I have got a dozen of pictures concerning the subject of Angélique Bègue Re : "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted....14:36, 20 January 2011 Jameslwoodward deleted page Angélique bègue (Page is out of project scope: Commons galleries are for collections of images, not single images)". How to proceed ? Thanks a lot --Cquoi 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can do better than that -- I've restored it with an {{Underconstruction}} tag so that it will not be rapidly deleted. Please remove the tag after you have put more than one image in it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Jim. Regards Cquoi 12:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, File:Portorose-hotels.PNG has been nominated for deletion in this deletion request that you have closed, but not deleted. Can you please review it and delete if not suitable for Commons? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it was tagged with {{delete}} but it was not in the list in the DR. Since it has not been discussed, it cannot be deleted without a new DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. I think it is de minimis in any case (comparable to [6]). --Eleassar (t/p) 10:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Biber - Medaille RS.jpg

Hi, Jim. I'm the owner of a copy of the shown medal. The photo is taken by myself. Just some minutes ago I added {{PD-self}} at the site of the photo. Best regards, F.punkt — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.punkt (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I have closed the DR as a keep.
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Your hint was very helpful for me. Of course, progress will only develope step by step. But I try to learn as much as possible.Thank you, Jim. F.punkt (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot to learn here and step by step is fine. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask them here. There are no dumb questions, only those those that are not asked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Please do not delete Maisons identiques.webm. This is appropriated to Wikimeddia Commons. --Robby2-Ozonehays (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You may comment at the Deletion Request. You may not delete DRs or log entries as you have done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Jim. Can you take a quick look at Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Henryk Gąsiorowski? The author died Jan 16 1947. Is this restorable in 2017 or 2018? I added the 2017 undelete cat, but I haven't had much experience with these. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

in Germany it is 70 years+ (not less than 70 years). The undelete date is . If someone died in it is as well, but nearly a year earlier. --PigeonIP (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, PigeonIP, that's correct. In many, but not all, countries, the rule is to add 70 years to the date of death, then go to the following January 1. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi James, I just wanted to delet my 1st file of a regular DR (after I helped with the speedys the last months) but when i clicked with your tool on kept then there was no changing of the page but the script changed the file. What went wrong?--Sanandros (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about DelReqHandler? It's not actually my tool, but no matter.
There are two steps, keeping or deleting the file(s) and closing the DR.
You must, separately, click the 'keep' or 'delete' link on every file. The script does no checking, so it is perfectly possible to keep the file and close the DR as a 'delete' or vice versa.
Then you must click 'Close Kept' or 'Close Deleted' and leave a comment. When closing the DR with DelReqHandler, you must leave an edit comment in the box -- if you don't, nothing will happen. If you really don't need a comment -- if it is an obvious delete for the reasons given by the nominator, you can put a single period (.) in the box.
It looks like you clicked the 'keep' link after the file. File talk:DM-SD-06-06300.JPEG has a {{kept}} template on it that you (or DelReqHandler acting on your orders) put there. The history of Commons:Deletion requests/File:DM-SD-06-06300.JPEG shows nothing from you, so perhaps you did not click on the 'Close Deleted' link. Or, perhaps you didn't leave an edit comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't c close deleted/close kept, after i click keep there appears that window which is asking me what is the reason to keep it and then the page appears again but without the [keep] or [delete] buttons.--Sanandros (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Right. After you click on the 'keep' or 'delete' link next to the image, you get a box asking for the reason, with the name of the DR filled in as a default. When you close that, you get the DR again, but, as you say, without the links for the file. If there is more than one file, you must deal with every one individually.
Then you must close the DR by clicking on either [Close:Kept] or [Close:Deleted] in the left upper corner of the DR. As I said above, you must give a reason in the box, even if it is just a dot.
If you don't see
[edit][Close Kept][Close Deleted]
as links in the left upper corner of every open DR, then there's a problem that I don't understand.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
No just tried it again, I'm linking the disc on the talk page and let's c what we'll get.--Sanandros (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jim. Can you take a look at this user's userpage and talkpage history? I've blocked several vandal accounts both registered and IPs over the past couple months for posting accusations on Katepanomegas's talk and uploads, and for overwriting Katepanomegas's attribution image with an attack image. The main vandal account is User:Burn the thief, but I also blocked a creative imitation account User:Katɵpanomeɡas (the 1st e isn't an actual e). Tonight Katepanomegas himself/herself replaced both their userpage and talkpage content with the exact same vandalism that I've been reverting. I've posted about this on Katepanomegas's talk.

My concern is that Katepanomegas is related or in control of the vandal accounts, and playing a game. This user has uploaded some widely used COAs, and so I don't want to see any vandal overwrites or CSDs, etc. I guess I could see this as being a frustrated reaction or something like that, but that would be weird seeing that everything had been quiet for a while before these two edits tonight. Let me know what you think of this strange case. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 05:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning.
I ran the usual CU checks and it is very unlikely that Katepanomegas is related to the vandals. I did find a total of five related vandal accounts, all blocked by you, Denniss, or Trijnstel:
  • Katɵpanomeɡas
  • Thief cleaner
  • Buurn the thief
  • Burn the thief
  • Thief cleaner
  • Kathiefanomegass
I'm not sure what is going on -- three of the names imply that they are a vigilante, taking care of a thief? Is there any possibility that the problem files did not actually belong to Katepanomegas? I'll drop a note on Trijnstel and Denniss's talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
No idea what's going on with this user, either he/she is tired of these accusations or the account is compromised. --Denniss (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
According to an IP claiming to be Katepanomegas on my talk, the account has indeed been compromised by vandals. See User talk:INeverCry#vandalism. I didn't want to block the account right away without checking if the IP is really Katepanomegas if possible.

The underlying issue seems to have been a copyrighted COA element used in the past by Katepanomegas. Because of this, quite a few images were deleted. My impression is that Katepanomegas acted in good faith to identify and have these images deleted. INeverCry 17:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC) INeverCry 17:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As you known CU is not an exact science, but I would say that is probably Katepanomegas and certainly has nothing in common with any of the vandals above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I've blocked the account. INeverCry 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

temp undeletion of pictures

Hello Jim, I temp undeleted the pictures that you deleted in this DR

for 5 days. The images will be used on other projects without Freedom of Panorama limtiations. After the Export I will take care that the images will be deleted again.

I added as reason for undeletion the following text on all undeletes :"temporary undeletion for 5 days (till 7.03.2013) for check on possible usage on unrestricted projects ("

Best regards --Neozoon (talk)

OK, thanks for the note. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
pictures are deleted again. case closed Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Embersland images

Hi Jim

How are you? I'm Jimmy the guitar player of Embersland, I try to edit the page of my band (Embersland) and you delete two images.

Embersland Band.jpg Where is the copyright? the photo has no copyright, you can find image on section Band > Biography from the site and this image has no copyright. I uploaded the picture to enter the contest Telecogresca in 2012.

The image Embersland Luana.jpg Ok, the copyright is from Ramon Hortoneda and he's my friend on facebook... If Ramon Hortoneda wasn't my friend I wouldn't have access to his facebook.

Before deleting images, please contact with the person that edit a page, so the person will not waste her/his time.

Thank you, ;)

Jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmythepooh (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 March 2013‎ (UTC)

We delete approximately 2,000 images a day. Ten of us do half of that and neither time nor policy allows a discussion. When we see a clear copyright violation, we are required to delete it on sight.
Both of the images which I deleted appeared on websites, noted in the edit summary, which had explicit copyright notices. But, please remember that absolutely everything (except some government works) has a copyright from the moment of creation until it has expired, usually seventy years after the death of the author. No notice or other special action of any sort is required.
Note also that the site you mention,, has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the home page. We have no way of knowing that User:Jimmythepooh is connected with embersland in any way. We have many fans who try to upload images without any authorization.
Commons standard procedure for images that have appeared on copyrighted sites is to require the site to send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Make certain that the message comes from the site, not gmail or another anonymous account and refers to the Commons file names of the images. Once you have done that, please post a note here and I will restore the images promptly.
Also please note that Commons prefers the largest possible file in every case. Your uploads of smaller versions of some of your files will be reverted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cobblers Reef

Hello Jim a string of my images for Cobblers Reef have been proposed for deletion. Some of them were similar to but not copies of images in my gallery on (John Davies). The images on were shrunk for the purpose. I am the author of the drawings and the photographer. For Wikicommons I used the larger size originals that I retained for my own use. The WikiVoyage Article which uses them has already been categorised as useable. I am a novice at this game but these are all my original pictures. Johnmartindavies (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a link to the DR(s) -- I see many nice images uploaded by you, some striking, a few not so good. I see that Jonud has nominated a few for deletion on the grounds that we have better images. (That's true, but probably not a reason to delete). I see one drawing, but no DRs on drawings. It's always helpful if you give a link to the DR, but if you have many uploads, it is essential.
The situation you describe is fairly common -- a user uploads an image that he has used previously elsewhere on the Web. Since we don't know that User:Johnmartindavies is Viovio user John Davies, we ask for a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for work on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anizotropia

Probably brought to mind why the administrator emblem is a mop... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it should be a Pooper-scooper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files from the Polish Senat website

Jim, would you mind taking another look at the permission we received from the Senate? As far as I see and understand both the Polish and the English version (translated by a professional, by the way) of the permission from the talk page, it is very stricting in concerning only the pictures of the Senators ("Encyclopaedias are an important and useful source of information, all the more we do permit the use and redistribution of the Senator's pictures from the Senate website"). odder (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's where I see the permission:
"The Chancellary of the Senate is the copyright holder for the Senators' photographs published on the website We do not object to our pictures or information being used on other websites (we would appreciate quoting the source as required by the law and the good custom). Encyclopaedias are an important and useful source of information, all the more we do permit the use and redistribution of the Senator's pictures from the Senate website." emphasis added
It seems pretty clear to me that he is not speaking of just the images of Senators, but of all the pictures and information on the site. That seems logical to me, as why would they give permission for the Senators, but not the rest. I think the reference to the Senators' photographs is simply because that is the way the request was phrased.
Your BabelBox does not say that you speak Polish, but I assume that is an oversight. If I am correct, why don't you ask to clarify. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, this is a matter of COM:PRP. I have had permissions for only specific things because that is how the request by myself may have been formulated/come across. Because we can only go by what is explicit, we shouldn't be leaving it up to our own interpretations of what was given permission for. In this instance, I think we can all agree that the use of Senator's images is explicit; anything more than that is in that grey PRP area. Of course, someone could send something to the Senate to clarifying, but it appears no-one has done so in the last 5 years; until we get a permission that allows for use of everything explicitly, we really shouldn't be hosting those photos from that DR. russavia (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but I won't oppose a new DR. However, please consider the rule of law that ambiguity is construed against drafter (the person who writes the words). In this case the writer said "'We do not object to our pictures..." -- that is ambiguous in the context of a discussion of images of Senators, and can easily be construed to mean "'We do not object to any of our pictures...". Furthermore, it seems clear to me that free use of everything on the site is the policy of the Chancellery. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

May I just pop in. I read that permission exactly like you did. They quite clearly stated "We do not object to our pictures or information being used on other websites" without any restrictions. Their comments about senator photos are just about their wish to be included in Encyclopaedias that "are an important and useful source of information". But I can't read in that message a spirit that would suggest that they intended to restrict their permission in any way. If anyone is seriously concerned about this, why so much reluctance in recontacting an obviously open for discussion Senate internet department? I guess because the answer would be that we can use the photos and why is this an issue to anyone is beyond me. But either way, I think we should solve this issue that way exactly, people who think those images should be deleted, should not contest your correct decision to keep them but should be instead directed at Andrzej Andruszkiewicz for further clarification. If it turns out the Senate indeed forbids sharing of any other photos but the photos of senators, so be it, we will delete them, but with the current permission text I don't think there is any grounds to delete the images. Emphasis on a certain type of content is certainly not something that could warrant their removal.--Avala (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Avala -- although I agree with your reading of the permission, I don't agree with the strength of it. Both odder and Russavia are very experienced colleagues with whom I have several years experience. Although we certainly don't always agree, the fact that both of them disagree with me is the reason that I said above that I would not oppose a new DR on the subject images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Jim maybe I sound harsh because English is not my native language but here is what I meant - the Senate office seems more than open and transparent. There is no point in discussing this here on several pages when there is a far simpler and obviously completely conclusive way to know for certain - communicate with the Senate office. But it's not even seen as an option and that's what bothers me. Deleting these files would harm the project greatly, and for what?--Avala (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:University of Notre Dame's Hesburgh Library.JPG

Fair enough call. Just to be clear, the OTRS 5542595 applies to the underlying work by Sheets. Should that ticket be applied to File:University of Notre Dame's Hesburgh Library.JPG as well? And maybe to Category:Word of Life? Not sure how to proceed.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea, although the {{kept}} on the talk pages will lead a user to the DR and thence the OTRS ticket. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I added a few other images to the category, so there's no direct line to the DR. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Louvre case

Hi, regarding your recent closure (Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960s postcard of Ljubljana.jpg), it has been mentioned and criticised as unreasonable at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana Castle from Ljubljana.jpg. Perhaps you would wish to comment about it. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate your opinion regarding these two closures ([7], [8]). I've asked Yann to comment on the latter one,[9] but until now he has not responded. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as you have not responded, I presume everything is ok or the case is not so important. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this. These were uploaded before OTRS and have what appears to be permission from the municipality. I think this is a case of AGF -- we take bigger risks under that policy all the time.
As for the Louvre case, I think that citing a strange case in France that none of us really understand, and that has no similar case law, in France or elsewhere, is poor practice. There is absolutely no evidence of a TOO higher than zero anywhere for architecture and de minimis can't apply when the the copyrighted building is the center of the image -- the only important thing in it. However, our inclusionist colleagues disagree. For the most part, I've stopped fighting those battles -- we have more than 16,000,000 images on Commons and my usual guess is that 1% of them -- 160,000 -- are problems. I can't get excited about a single complex case any more. Perhaps that's a mistake, or perhaps it's just realistic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should comment at the cited proposal page; however, I understand your stance even if you don't. I'm afraid people care mostly about collection, whereas the free part is ignored per the reasoning that if there are no or a low number of court cases, we don't have to care about free. However, the number of court cases is irrelevant, what counts is the principle of respect towards people and their rights as well as to help Wikimedia projects spread free content rather than illegal material. Unfortunately, it will always be so that the number of inclusionists will be greater than the number of the ones who do care about this. The imperative is to build an encyclopedia that looks good and is rich with information no matter what. Besides, people are often emotionally attached to the images they upload, so they take it personally, or think they have to fight for as rich as possible representation of their nation and the cultural monuments because this is patriotic or helps preserve cultural heritage or sth ... However, this is not the proper venue for doing so and the intent of Commons. It is to help prepare material that is free and may be freely used by other wikiprojects as well as anyone who needs it. I'd rather see an encyclopedia and other wikiprojects that promote freedom and respect of the law and the rights of creative individuals and which anyone can use for any purpose, even if they're not so illustrative. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this case has been proposed for undeletion. See [10]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jim, I’ve been concerned by the inconsistent handling of deletion requests related to models on the Commons, so I've attempted to gather support for what I believe to be “the right answer” here: User:Elcobbola/Models. In researching the issue, I noticed that you've participated in related deletion requests in the past – and even held what appear to be conflicting stances (e.g. here and here) — so I’m wondering whether you’d be willing to offer feedback on my essay; for example, whether you think it makes the case; whether you think it doesn't; any other thoughts/comments/etc. Эlcobbola talk 23:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I commented on its talk page, but to answer your question here, I think it makes a good case. The case seems so clear that I wonder at the inclusionists keeping so many, but I wonder that with FOP cases as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I've responded there as well. The keep discussions I found were actually largely closed by one admin, so I hope the "inclusionists keeping so many" are not too numerous. In a previous version I had a rather lengthy background section explaining why I think people were tending to get the wrong answer. Essentially, I'm seeing an over-reliance on colloquial language and Commons' summaries instead of actual statutes and case law. Эlcobbola talk 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been considering your comment ‎and I almost wonder whether you might have missed (or I failed to make explicit) an important distinction: a model is, by definition, a representation of something else. A block of wood might be carved into a generic plane; it’s a model because it’s a sculptural depiction of what it is not. An RC plane might be styled to look like an F-14; it’s a model because it’s a sculptural depiction of what it is not. A UAV not based on an existing aircraft, however, is not a model; it looks like a generic plane because it actually is a generic plane (i.e., there’s no separability; the sculptural elements are there for reasons of aerodynamics – utility – not portrayal of appearance). That UAV, therefore, is not within the purview of the essay. That UAV -- with or without camera -- may still be a copyrightable toy, but that is separate from being a model and indeed a topic for a different essay. The line, then, for this essay, is perhaps described as whether the object is a representation of something else. Is that distinction clear? Эlcobbola talk 18:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the distinction. But that doesn't eliminate the problem. I've seen photographs of a beautifully done large (six foot wingspan, maybe more) RC model of a C5A, complete with jet engines. Without a camera in it, it is clearly a model, for fun, no utility, and therefore copyrightable. But if you put a camera in it and started using it to take real estate photos, does it lose its copyright?
Or, a couple of years ago I saw a team from a startup present a business plan for a company that was going to make RC planes that could fly fairly slowly, with a camera, to take photographs of cruise ship passengers while they were looking over the rail at the plane. In order to better attract attention and get more people looking at the camera, they were going to make the planes good models of well known aircraft. I don't know if they ever got going, but would their planes have a copyright? The fact that they would be models says yes, but the fact that they would be utilitarian says no.
This may seem like little more than an artificial debate, but I guarantee that the subject will come up as more UAVs are built, some of them as scale models. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we might be talking past each other a bit. I made the above comment regarding the distinction here on your talk page merely because there seemed to be some conflation of "RC plane" with "model RC plane"--or, alternatively, "UAV" with "model UAV". I also responded on the essay talk regarding the addition of cameras to sculptural works. I think my comment there at least begins to address the C5A and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the start up. In any case, it's certainly a good debate to have, even if artificial, and we can indeed continue there. Again, the comment above was just to ensure a focus on genuine models. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlackJack2.jpg

You closed this as "delete", yet the file hasn't been deleted. Could you check this? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I did delete it. User:BuickCenturyDriver uploaded it again. I have deleted it a second time and warned him with {{dont recreate}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any previous deletion at Special:Log, although it says that a new file was uploaded today. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Aha -- right you are. I saw the new upload and assumed he was uploading over the deleted file. Sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Another thing: Maybe you could delete User:BuickCenturyDriver's revision of File:Hal Steinbrenner 2009.jpg? That file appears to be a copyright violation. It appeared on Commons in 2011 but it was already here in higher resolution in 2008 with EXIF telling that it is a photo taken by the Associated Press ("AP Photo/ Louis Lanzano"). --Stefan4 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I readed....

the Commons:Image_casebook#Trademarks like you asked. --Starship9000 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I have left a response re. your deletion of User:Atdheu's uploads on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Atdheu. Thanks -- KTC (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology of Kosovo picture deletion

Greetings, I would like to understand why the pictures of the article - Archaeology of Kosovo were deleted and why they constitute a violation of the copyrights when they were released upon the public domain by the Government of the Republic of Kosovo. They were part of a guide called Archaeological Guide of Kosovo and it was released as a pdf file on the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports website: [[11]] and also on the website of the Museum of Kosovo: [[12]] . According to the website of the Prime Minister of Kosovo: [[13]], all documents published on the government websites are part of the public domain and can be used freely. Both of the abovementioned institutions are components of the Government of Kosovo and therefore should be able to be used freely. It is also stated under law No.04/L-065, [Article 53], approved by the Kosovo Parliament on October 21,2011, that:

Article 53
Works placed on public places 
1. Works placed on public spaces/places and other places where general access is allowed (the web being one), can be used freely.

or specifically [Article 12] where it states that:

Article 12

Creations without protection
1. Judicial protection of the author does not include:
 1.3. Official materials, and publishing of parliamentary, governmental, and other organizations that provide public functions.
 1.6. Official materials published for informing the public.

According to these articles I have not performed anything illegal, or subjugated anyone's copyrights, but just used resources readily available on the government websites, which is allowed by the Kosovo government. I could not have cited these works as part of the {{PD-KosovoGov}}, because I did not know such a Public Domain category did exist at that time. Could you please inform me on how to act because I am in a dilemma, since without the deleted pictures the article is a bit dull with too much writing and not much interactive pictures. Is there a way that the pictures could be reverted, or do I have to upload them again? Thank you for you time --Atdheu (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, I had already created the relevant category and licensing tag. See {{PD-KosovoGov}}, which automatically places any files using it in Category:PD Kosovo official. -- KTC (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you KTC for everything that you have done for the young wikipedians of Kosovo. Your help is priceless and much appreciated. It is true that you have created the category but in the rush of things, I had not noticed. Humble apologies. --Atdheu (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have responded at ANB. Debating an issue at two places is not useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the pictures? Isn't the law stated clear enough? I have gotten no answer and the discussion has been archived from the administrators notice board. Can you give me an answer? I have been waiting for almost two weeks--Atdheu (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a dead issue, since none of our colleagues have chosen to restore the images. Note, please, by the way, that it would be a serious violation of our rules to upload them again. You may, if you wish post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackjack image

I uploaded a new version of the image: File:BlackJack2.jpg. No ace of spades and no face cards. Let me know if this verson is okay. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I added you as author and source and removed the redirect, which is unnecessary. Since no copyright is possible in the cards, it's fine. Much better quality, too. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Palestinian infobox v2.jpg

Jim, could you close this deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Palestinian infobox v2.jpg? The image has been modified and no longer includes the picture with the bad license. I think the version of the image dated November 29, 2012, needs to be deleted, as it includes the picture with the bad license. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


If I am reading the second discussion correctly I think you closed it as deleted, but the file remains. Please help my confusion? Timtrent (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes -- maybe 1 in 500 -- DelReqHandler, the script that Admins use to close DRs, hiccups and doesn't do its job. That probably happened here. Or, I may have just missed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


You always revert people without discussion? I gave a sound valid reason for my decision. That you disagree is no excuse for your action. PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your stated rational of "we do not keep personal art works of any sort that are from non-notable artists", you need to delete: File:Child's drawing.jpg and god knows how many other such media on commons. Your reasoning is flawed and such a revert when you are a admin+CU is appalling. I realize I'm a persona non grata here, but that is no excuse. PumpkinSky talk 18:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
When a closer of a deletion debate makes a decision, they are required by policy to weigh the arguments given in the debate to reach their conclusion - i.e. act as an independent arbiter of the issues. You have not only overruled another admin who closed the debate, but you have substituted your own arguments - previously unmentioned in the debate - as the reason for your decision. That is well out of process and I would have expected you to know better. This might be understandable if your reasoning was clearly supported by the deletion policy, but "we do not keep personal art works of any sort that are from non-notable artists" is your new invention from fresh cloth. If you wish to make a point about notability of the artist, the place for the argument is in the debate. It is discourteous to the participants in the debate to substitute your own reasoning after the debate has finished. Should you feel that the deletion policy is deficient, then you should seek a consensus to have it amended at that page. I expect you to reflect carefully on this issue and the sensible action to take thereafter would be to revert yourself at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hole Russia.PNG. I can see that you do a lot of work at Deletion requests, for which we are grateful, but please try to ensure that you don't lose sight of the principles that we have agreed to govern the work you do. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
My humble apologies. I certainly did not intend to overrule or revert PumpkinSky's closure of this DR. I suspect what happened was that I was working my way down through the deletion log for March 2, took a break to do some other work, and then resumed working on the DR log without refreshing the page. In the interim, PumpkinSky had closed the DR, but my screen did not show it. It was certainly careless on my part to let the screen get that old without refreshing it. This sort of thing happens much more often shortly after 0000UTC when several Admins are working on the log -- we often see double closures with times in the first couple of hours of the day.
If I had objected strenuously to the closure, I might either have reopened the DR or promptly opened a new one. I don't think I have ever simply reverted another Admin's DR. You will see that even on UnDRs, if I think that the deletion should be reverted, I usually drop a note on the deleting Admin's talk page -- or by email -- and request that he or she do the undelete. We must respect each other's decisions as much as possible.
With that said, I think you were wrong on this one -- my closing comment sets out my opinion. We are not a repository for personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think your call was in the wrong here. I have to point out two things 1) you not refreshing the page would have caused an edit conflict as I'd edited that page in the meantime and 2) why haven't you deleted File:Child's drawing.jpg and a bunch of other "personal" art? PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you do not understand the way DelReqHandler works and that you are, in effect, calling me a liar. I have offered my apologies, which I mean sincerely as it was a stupid mistake -- but I won't be called a liar.
It was not the DR that I had not refreshed, it was the log page. I never opened the actual DR page -- using DelReqHandler you never see the actual DR page, only the transclusion in the log, which, in this case, predated your closure. I told DelReqHandler to close the DR as a delete and leave my comment. There was no edit conflict because DelReqHandler opened the DR page (without showing it to me)after I told it to delete it, which was after your closure. As I said above, this sort of double closure happens several times every week, but usually at the beginning of the UTC day when several Admins are working down through the log. None of us refresh after every action because, with 150 or 200 transclusions on the log page, it takes a while to reload.
As for File:Child's drawing.jpg, it is in use and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyvio. There is probably other personal art which ought to be deleted, but we delete about 2,000 images every day. Ten of us do 80% of that, so there is plenty to do without looking for new things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the del req issues, sorry. But your answer on Child's drawing question is a cop out. You said "we do not keep personal art works of ANY SORT that are from non-notable artists" (your words, my all caps). PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No cop-out. Policy is clear that "in use" trumps everything except copyvio. I'll throw the cop-out back at you. "Other stuff exists" is not an excuse for keeping anything. My best guess is that at least 1% of our images should be deleted for one reason or another. That's 160,000 images. If either of us cared to do it, we could certainly find among them an example of every kind of image in today's DR log, but that doesn't mean we will keep them.
Why do you say "I'm a persona non grata here"? You may not be quite as mellow as we hope for, but I provoked you pretty hard with my mistake. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Jim. I'm happy to agree to disagree about notability of the artist being a deletion criterion, but you've far more experience than I, and it's certainly not worth falling out over. I hadn't imagined that the business over the DelReqHandler could cause such problems, and I expect that somebody will have to look at that issue eventually. I do appreciate your self revert at that debate, and I'm pleasantly encouraged by the collegial atmosphere here - it's my own fault I spend far too much time elsewhere. Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jameslwoodward was absolutely correct, when he deleted the image. It's just common sense. Where would you use this personal artwork on the WM projects? In respect of the aforementioned child's drawing, well, in my mind, it can actually be used (as an example of child art on various language sections of Wikipedia). --glossologist (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok to disagree, and quite helpful at times. May I point out to you the the purpose of Commons is not to simply act as an media repository for the other WM projects. The reason Commons outlaws "fair use" is that all of its content should be available to any re-user without restriction. Of course we have to have inclusion criteria or we'd become host to everybody's holiday snaps, but we try to keep media that may have educational value to somebody. I can certainly see that notability of the artist may be a useful criterion to be applied, but my point is the word "notability" does not appear on the Commons:Deletion policy page, so I don't think there's any consensus to apply it without a debate. Just my humble opinion of course (and thanks to Jim for hosting this meta-debate on his talk page - I'll shut up now). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the PumpkinSky's rationale for keeping the image ("There is educational content as it shows Russia without borders") is just so embarrassingly flawed. --glossologist (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The comments on the DR itself were a 50/50 split and this thread is a 50/50 split. There's clearly a fundamental disagreement on this. I'm dropping the issue and moving on. Everyone one else do as you wish with the DR and image. Thank you to all for participating. PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Museo de la Memoria

Hi James! I'm Osmar, current Executive Director of Wikimedia Argentina and former president of Wikimedia Chile at the time of the agreement with the Museo de la Memoria in Santiago. Yesterday I received the notice that most of the images uploaded as part of this agreement were in a deletion request and now I see that have been speedy deleted before I was able to comment about it.

I agree that most of the files have been tagged erroneous and that is something that should be corrected, but a lot of the deleted files were licensed by the Museum or the authors. Also, the posters are in public domain (take a look at Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_'El_Rodriguista') where we have agreed that publications made colectivelly by illegal organizations (at the time) are under public domain. This is different than the "anonymous publication" that has 70 years after its release before entering PD.

I would like to correct the erroneous tags marking those that are under public domain, those with the author's permission and those that are incorrectly uploaded and should be deleted, but the images were already deleted. Can you restore them temporarily so I can assess which one should be kept and which one should be deleted? Thanks a lot for your help. --B1mbo (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Since your are working with the museum, wouldn't it be much easier to go to the person who calls himself User:Museo de la Memoria Chile and ask what they are?
Also, I think that the reasoning in Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_'El_Rodriguista' is badly flawed. The usual reason for anonymous works is because the author fears being known. On the one hand you have John le Carré and others who worked anonymously because they were afraid that their employers would object to their work. On the other side, you have revolutionaries like Thomas Paine who actually feared prosecution or even death. Their works are almost certainly illegal under their country's then current law and they may well have been branded as terrorists. Almost all countries, including Chile, have copyright laws which recognize the need for copyright protection for such works. It seems to me clear that the posters all fall directly into that group -- anonymous because signing them certainly would have meant imprisonment, and likely death. To say that they are somehow PD because it is hard to find out who they are denies the courage of their makers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
We are doing already that in any case. For us, would be much easier to correct the tags instead of uploading all the pictures again, but we are doing that anyway. At least, those images taken by Kena Lorenzini were licensed by the author after it was contacted by the Museum.
About the PD clause, IANAL but the Chilean law explicitly says that are under PD those "images by unknown author". The problem in this case is not that the author remained anonymous or used a pseudonym (as in the Thomas Paine case); here the works were produced collectively by a group so nobody can claim ownership nor as an individual nor as an organization (because it was illegal) and certainly the "unknown" clause applies, or at least is what the Chilean lawyers have said. And I think nobody is denying their courage; in fact, totally the opposite, because they made those works to be disseminated as possible and that is what are we doing. --B1mbo (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if I was unclear. There is no need to upload the images again -- in fact, it is a bad thing as it wastes both your time and Commons resources. If you could give me a list here of the images that you think are OK -- just take the list from the DR and add "OK" or "NO" to each line, I will restore those that you think are all right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll probably do that next week. I'm travelling back to Chile for a week and I'll try to talk personally with the people of the Museum to have everything clear. --B1mbo (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be undone but could you restore the October 2011 version of the proposed Ontario green ensing flag

Thanks for removing that thing on File:Flag of Ontario (Green Ensign).svg. I was a bit frustrated with the copyright attribution I selected, but have settled with this. However you deleted the original version which verifies that I was the original author of the file. I don't know if you could restore the original version of 2011 which is the same as the one the other user reverted to. Sorry for all the trouble.--R-41 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything -- I just hid the one image that had your rant about flamingos. Fastily did the rest -- you should make your request of him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Hey Jim, hope you're well. When you have a moment, could you take a look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Kim-Long07? I suspect we may be dealing with an underlying sockfarm. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 10:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"if a work created by a UK government employee is not under Crown Copyright, then what is?"

I don't really know. But, to provide you a comparison, {{PD-USGov}} crearly talks about a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. What I was questioning in this specific case is not whether Cunningham is a government employee, but whether Cunningham made his paintings as part of his official duties. I assume that everything done by Cunningham as part of his official duties is Crown Copyright, but not the rest. And that's the reason to question, again, whether "war artists" were official posts in the British navy or just nicknames. And such a question remains unanswered. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thank you for clarifying that -- perhaps I was just being dumb, but that wasn't clear to me. What confused me was
"Unlike the {{PD-US-Gov}}, where makes all the works from any federal employee be in the public domain, the Crown Copyright seems to work in a different way."
It seems to me that they are exactly parallel, although stated a little differently. In the US, it is stated as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". It seems to be less clearly stated in the case of a Crown Copyright, but obviously the "Crown" cannot create anything, the actual work has to be done by a person and that's got to be a government employee, also in the course of his or her official duties. Of course, Crown Copyright runs for fifty years and the US is PD immediately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Koons Portrait Deletion OTRS Assistance Request

Hi Jim, Chris Fanning sent a letter to OTRS ( on 3.7.13/11:56:40 AM EST to confirm that he is the copyright holder of his portrait of Jeff Koons as per the advice Lymantria ( 2/15/13. I hope that you can be of assistance in reviewing the letter since you are an OTRS volunteer and participated in the original discussion. I appreciate your time and efforts with this request. If there is anything else I can provide, please let me know. Please note that Jeff Koons and Chris Fanning are in support of this usage. Here's the original deletion debate link for your reference: Thank you, Lauranrothstein

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for reviewing. much appreciated. lauranrothstein

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabriel Silva Lujan Signature.svg

Hi Jim,

I saw that you have decided to keep the signature of Gabriel Silva Lujan citing the 'when to use Signature Tab rules'. These state that the file can be kept if it follows US and local law and mentions that the US does not protect personal signatures but that if local law does protect them then it would be a candidate for deletion. In Colombian law personal signatures can be protected by law, and that is why I solicited that it be deleted. Can you advise me as to next steps to nominate the signature once again for deletion given the Colombian law?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisse Yanovich (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 March 2013‎ (UTC)

I do not read Spanish, but my closing the DR as kept was based on the fact that there is nothing in the sentence you quoted from the law that would cover signatures. All countries copyright rules have a threshold of originality, below which a work is not eligible for copyright. Ordinary scrawled signatures such as this one very rarely reach above it anywhere. Such a scrawl is neither "expression manifested in a perceptible way" nor "original", both of which are required for Colombian copyright to apply.
It is possible that there is a subtlety in the Spanish that neither the translation you gave nor Google has correct. If that is the case, I would be happy to consider it here.
You are also within your rights to open a new Deletion Request on the subject image, but Commons editors are not particularly tolerant when a DR is opened a second time without any new reason or information. The previous one was open for ten days, three days beyond our minimum, so it had good exposure. I doubt that a repeat will change the outcome.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning sockmaster

Help, please: The "New Rochelle sockmaster" (aka ChucksBike-O-Rama) is back. User:Jerrybase21 was blocked here a little while back. User:Nassauforce is showing the characteristic behavior; I think some of this user's uploads may be recent photos that were previously deleted and are now converted to monochrome to make them look old. I've re-opened the Jvolkblum SPI at EN Wikipedia, where the only sock I've seen recently is User:Tourjourslamour (not active here). --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I have blocked Nassauforce as a likely sock of Jerrybase21. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock problem

Hi Jim. Can you please take a look at this: User talk:INeverCry#Deleted images restored? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Elaniqa and Texasprofessionalpowerlifting (and four other accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Todd25/Archive with no edits on Commons) are very likely the same person. I'm going to block Texasprofessionalpowerlifting as a sock -- I'll leave Elaniqa to you, as you know more about the case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. Seeing that Elaniqa uploaded the same copyvio images that Texasprofessionalpowerlifting uploaded, I've blocked that acct as well. INeverCry 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your close on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Werner Erhard.jpg, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DR question

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:KS_Egnatia_Rrogozhinë.svg - you don't think this qualified for PD-textlogo? —Mono 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think we have any evidence what the threshold of originality is in Albania. It would certainly have a copyright in the UK and might have one in the USA (50/50 I think). Unless someone can show that Albania's TOO is high, COM:PRP says we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Leachim 1

Dear James, thankes for your comment concerning the images from the article ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier. How can I prove that all the uploaded files are from the office ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leachim 1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)

I do not understand. The problem is that the images are from and there is no evidence there that they are freely licensed. So you do not need to prove that the files are from ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier -- you must prove that ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier wants to freely license them. If that is the case, then ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier must send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your fast respond. Your answer is a great support.

Hi Jim, I'm a little curious as to why you struck [14] File:Rahmenplan zur Stadtgestaltung Leonberg.jpg as PD-textlogo. Do you think the white building/city outlines are too simple, or was this a mistake? I deliberately didn't nominate images in the uploader's stream that appeared to be PD-textlogo (e.g., File:ISA Logo vektoren schwarz.jpg) -- the Rahmenplan image seems quite different to my eyes. Эlcobbola talk 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'm embarrassed to say that I did not look closely enough at the book cover. You are correct about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image?

Hello Jim. Have you noticed that you have not deleted this image? Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. Occasionally DelReqHandler, the script which Admins use to close DRs, doesn't do what it is supposed to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of image

re: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Back_from_Samoa_-_thumb.jpg

Somehow or other this image wound up being transferred from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, where I have no account set up, and was never informed about the deletion "debate". This image has seen no use in Wikipedia; however, it was part of a userbox design (see [15]), and might potentially be used as such.

Just to note: Wikimedia Commons does not allow me to log in using my Wikipedia account ID and password, since supposedly there is no account associated with my Wikipedia Username.  ???

Sincerely, bonze blayk 28 March 2013

… Thank you for restoring the image, James!
And have a great day…
bonze blayk 28 March 2013
(edit conflict)
I have restored the image since, as you say, it was in use and apparently some effort was made to get OTRS permission for this tiny version of the image.
All new account have been created globally for several years, but your 2007 account predated that. To create a global account, read and follow the instructions at
Since your name is not in use anywhere except WP:EN, that should be straightforward.
Since you are rarely on Commons to check your Watchlist, I would suggest that you check two items under Preferences > User profile on Commons:
  • Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed
  • Email me when my user talk page is changed
That will give you notice of any changes, provided of course, that all of the files you are interested in are on your Commons Watchlist. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Birgit Õigemeel, 2007.jpg

Hi, please restore this image File:Birgit Õigemeel, 2007.jpg. See also my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birgit Õigemeel, 2007.jpg. --WikedKentaur (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I read your comment before I deleted the image. As I said in my closing comment, the site has an explicit copyright. There's no evidence that the image has appeared anywhere with a free license. If you can find such evidence, I'd be happy to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the author has changed his username in Anyway new source url is --WikedKentaur (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for your persistence in saving this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

DR for 12 or 14 of 15 files of Category:Port-Grimaud ...

Hi there. You deleted the pics I asked for. Thanks. But can you explain what means your sentence "moskept the aerial shots, as DM applies". As a Frenchy, I'm not very good with some american words. "moskept" ? "DM applies" ? Strange ... Some explanations will be good for my future in Commons. Have a nice end of week. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 00:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your English is much better than my French, which I haven't really used in the last fifty years. My apologies -- it is a typing error. I meant to write "Deleted most, but kept the aerial shots as DM applies." For DM, see COM:DM -- the copyrighted architecture is not a significant part of the photographs from the airplanes, so we can safely ignore it in those images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I undesrtand now, thanks. For DM I know that and I wrote it for the two last files as I'm not sure. But I may give you more details for File:Port-Grimaud Luftaufnahme.jpg and File:Port-Grimaud - Vue aérienne.jpg. As I said ALL the town was crated by François Spoerry and now the copyrights of this town are owned by some real estate companies. It is a private town with postguards. Where he did that there was nothing except a swamp area and he built it with making his islands in the best way using the natural existing islands. I don't know if you read the links so I translate for you the sentence of the Court : "The companies promoting the real estate transaction had been grant the rights of this urban complex. They had asked the capture of leaflets reproducing two aerial photographs of the city. For their Defence, advertisers have said that "it is argued that intellectual work could invest in a site, otherwise go unheeded the principle that nature belongs to all." But the Draguignan Court rejected this objection for a reason quite surprising: "The establishment in the Gulf of Saint-Tropez, where there was nothing, combining the sun and the sea, a lakeside including water bodies and irregular masses less built, volumes and colors contrasting and varied, causes surprise and maintain curiosity and expectation, constitutes in its entirety by the harmonious combination of its elements, original personal creation in this case, it is the totality of Port-Grimaud considered as a work of art that enjoys the protection of the law and not as or as determined building ... "... / ... Copyright supports the dream of the artist: "imagine" nature so that it is absorbed in the whole work." (I helped myself with Google Translator for some terms ...). The second link : "New jurisprudence recognize that there may infringe the rights of ownership. This is a city, but a private city, Port-Grimaud is a pure promoter's invention. Therefore it has no right to film in, or reproduce photograph of this city. When it has been trial, the Port-Grimaud promoter said: "I ​​have an absolute property right, and I forbid reproducing an aerial photo of the city." The Court agreed with him."
So no DM here. Draguignan Court said. DM could be OK for the two files but I'm not sure (File:Port-Grimaud - Vue aérienne (2).jpg, File:France Port-Grimaud.JPG.
Thanks for your time. Have a nice week-end. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If I understand correctly, you are saying that a French Court has found a copyright in the arrangement of the land and water? As far as I know, the only country that has an explicit copyright for landscape architecture is Slovenia. France certainly does not, but I suppose one could find it in

"7° Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie ;
8° Les oeuvres graphiques et typographiques ;
9° Les oeuvres photographiques et celles réalisées à l'aide de techniques analogues à la photographie ;
10° Les oeuvres des arts appliqués ;"

Perhaps it is sculpture on a large scale, perhaps applied art. If I understand you correctly, then I think we must delete them.

On the other hand if the court simply found that it was OK for the promoter to forbid photography, then we have a different situation -- the same sort of case that is described at Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. The promoter may have a cause of action (a reason to bring a lawsuit in court) against the photographer, but that is not a copyright, so that the images are usable anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't say nothing, I've just translated what is written in the links. You do what you think is the best, with aknowledge of this jurisprudence. I was really surprised too when I read that the town and the place where it's located are considered as a sculpture, a 3D artwork. I made 150 pictures of Port-Grimaud under a wide blue sky and a high shadowless sun and 100 with urban night lights last summer and wanted to upload some on Commons but ...
Now, because of some (stupid) laws I only shoot old buildings, lanscapes, flowers and bees for Commons !!! --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, you could always go across the border to Switzerland, Germany, or Spain.....     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Switz and Germany are as far as Spain from me. I go there next week. I can go to Spain twice a year : I have two flats in a ski village at 20 km of the border but when there's snow the tunnel to Spain is closed. When it's open I just go through to fill the car because gas is cheaper there ... Easter was fine ? I hope so. See you Face-smile.svg. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

About my Paint brush versions of these images

Some of my images have been deleted here:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marcric

Specifically about these files: Zenit satellite platform shapes-01.jpg, Dnepropetrovsk Sputnik satellite platform-DS-1 DS-2.jpg, Kosmos 8 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 6 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 4-7 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 3-5 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 2 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 1 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos failed satellites shape.jpg. I have decided not to discuss about it, and waste my time in weekend creating and uploading my Paint Brush versions of each one, I have used the same names with _PB_ in the middle (Dnepropetrovsk_Sputnik_satellite_PB_platform-DS-1_DS-2.png for instance). just to realize today they were all deleted with no warnings. What happens??? in fact all the paint brush files I have uploaded simply disappear. --Marcric (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You were certainly warned that these were going to be deleted. In fact, you deleted the warning from your talk page shortly before you posted the message above. I have reverted that action because we generally much prefer that warnings remain on your talk page for future reference, or in an archive. BTW, I have reverted your reversion, because I prefer all that warnings archived in a specific place: User:Marcric/Pending Files. --Marcric (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
All of the files were deleted because the images appear in many places on the web and there is no evidence that you actually created them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Sorry but I need to disagree. We are talking about two different set of files: the first one which I have been warned still listed in my user page. Only grouped in a specific place for my "pending / deleted files User:Marcric/Pending Files. After receiving the warning I spent the entire weekend creating Paint Brush versions of these files with the "_PB_" in the names. But yesterday I have realized that all my paint brush versions of that shape images have been deleted also. And I have put in the description a warning that each new version was created by me with paint brush. If there is any doubt, you just need to compare the versions. --Marcric (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If I understand what you are saying correctly, the fact that you created these particular files with PaintBrush is irrelevant. They are copies of copyrighted works, and while your files may have a copyright of their own, they are derivative works of the original files and cannot be kept on Commons without the permission of the creators of the original files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have gone through some of your contributions and deleted almost all of the ones I have seen because they are either blatant copyright violations or lack any sort of evidence of permission from their creators. Everything on the Web has a copyright. Commons can accept only the small portion of the images on the Web that are freely licensed. Please stop uploading copyright violations. If you do not stop, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I'm getting out. sorry for so much inconvenience. Best regards. --Marcric (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem user

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at User talk:INeverCry#Panoramio? This user has uploaded copyvios from Panoramio, and even placed fake OTRS tags on some that were cleary marked ARR, and were from atleast 2 different Panoramio accounts. I've blocked him for a week, but the fake tagging and volume of copyvios may justify a long block, and if he's a sock of User:Sefer ibrahim, as Takabeg thinks, the week block should probably be changed to indef. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Left a question for Takabeg on your talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
His answer makes me think he's probably right on this, amongst other quacking from the suspect (there are very similiar images from both accts). Here's another suspicious file from this user, (taken from an ARR Pano acct) with an OTRS ticket: File:Palace of Happiness.jpg. Is this ticket valid? INeverCry 23:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I can't really wrap my head around the source of this photo. The source information points to a now-removed *.gif file as the source, but without being clear on the creator of the image. I have to defer to your expertise here because I am not sure if this image should be here or not. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. We sometimes do not handle transfers from WP:EN as well as we might. I see two things here. The description says that the author is Ben Manski, an early WP:EN user with 201 edits there and none elsewhere. It is certainly possible that he is the photographer and that the CC-BY-SA is legitimate.
On the other hand, it appears on the subject's web site, with an explicit (c). That means that if it is Manski's image, Cobb is violating Manski's copyright by using the image without attribution.
It is possible that there is more information in the now-deleted description on WP:EN. An Admin there could look and see for you. Failing any help there, I would be inclined to hang a {{delete}} on it and see what the community thinks. I'll leave that choice to you, but I were to tag it, I might include almost all of my first two paragraphs above in the nomination -- it is perfectly legitimate to use {{delete}} to start a discussion when you aren't sure.
Have you thought about becoming an Admin? I see you are doing a lot of routine category maintenance -- essential, but it eventually gets a little stale. Admins are also maintainers, but the work has a lot more variety. If you wanted to do that, you might spend some time reading and commenting on DRs. Comments are not make work -- the closing Admin can work much faster when he or she has thoughtful comments from known colleagues. I hope that having been burned by my fast work when we first met, you might like to support a gentler approach. The need for more active Admins is great -- we are now seeing about 8,000 new images a day, of which about 2,000 are deleted. Staying ahead of the avalanche are about ten Admins who do 80% of the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could look at the old description and see what it says. And after that, depending on what it says, I think your suggestion of {{delete}} is a good one and yes, I would use your comment above for clarity.
For admin work, I would be most honored, my only fear is that I do not know enough. But if you would point me in a way to get started, I would be delighted to do my best at it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
As for the first, if you don't know any WP Admins, try User:Nyttend and tell him I suggested it.
For the second -- as I said, start going through deletion request logs -- see Commons:Deletion requests/2013/03/27. I'd suggest going through the one that is six days old, so that you will see the maximum number of comments before they are closed on the seventh day, but can still be helpful to the closing Admin. Those that you understand, comment one way or the other. Those that you don't understand, ask a question. Much of the time someone will give you an intelligent answer. After you've done that for a couple of months, you'll feel more confident and unless I miss my guess, I'll be happy to nominate you. Here are some helpful templates:
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I poked through a few questions while waiting for class to start. I'll do more later. Amazing process. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Erasing the flipped classroom

Hi James! As I understand, one may have portals on Commons. I chose to not call this page a portal as I want it to be Supereasy for teachers in Sweden, Denmark and Norway to find it by searching for Flipped Classroom. There is a great interest from teachers here in Scandinavia to use Commons as their place for flipped classroom movies so I suggest that we embrace this by making it easy for them to use Commons. Something that they suggested is a page on Commons with information on how to upload, why to use Commons as a teacher and what other flipped material they may find on here. I would be very happy if you would find this project to be worthwhile and therefore accept the page 'Flipped Classroom' here on Commons. I understand that Commons is primarily for files and filepages but if this may help support teachers and others to contribute with their videos, don't you think it's worth it by having this page? Sophie Österberg (WMSE) (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't judge its merits, but I'm not sure we have a place for it. However, I am always willing to learn.
"Namespace" is the technical term for the leading word that tells the user the purpose of the page. "User", "User talk", "Commons", "Category" and "Template" are the most common namespaces on Commons, see Help:Namespaces. There is also the "Gallery" namespace, which is the only namespace without a prefix. There is a "Portal" namespace in WP:EN and probably in other language Wikipedias ("Projekt" on WP:SE?). If you were to create this page on one of them, it would have to begin with the designator "Portal:". There is no "Portal" namespace in Commons.
Information on how to upload and why a person might find Commons useful is already available, linked directly from the main page. It is by no means perfect, and if you were to help improving it, in either Swedish or English, that would be a good thing.
Although I see that "Flipped Classroom" is a term of art, it certainly has not yet reached general use. If you wanted to improve the short WP:EN article Flip teaching on this mode of teaching, you certainly could do that. I don't see any reference to the Commons resources there. You might also create an article on WP:SE if one does not already exist. You are also free to create a page in your own namespace, perhaps User:Sophie Österberg (WMSE)/Flipped classrooms. But I don't think there is a place for it in Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Jim, thank you for providing me this information. I do however, question a few things, but primarily I question why this would be so bothersome. I understand that my last message must have been of a rather confusing kind, but the point here is that plenty of Swedish teachers want to upload their flipped classroom videos and we have suggested Commons as a place for them to put them. They do, however, suggest a page with specific information for them about this. This would be a page about why they, in their role as teachers, would and should upload their flipped classroom files as to let more teachers use them. To expand an article about flipped-classroom has nothing to do with this in any way. I do not understand your issues with this. My belief and hope of the Wikimedia sphere is that we are happy and willing to provide space for these teachers as they are excited and enthusiastic to provide their videos on mathematics, biology, astronomy, English etc to many other teachers who may use them in their classrooms. I would suggest that this is in great accordance with what the Wikimedia sphere stands for, and something which should be encouraged rather than restricted. To have a page under my username is to create unessecary issues for these teachers who have never before used Commons nor Wikipedia. Why would you want to give them such difficulties to contribute? If their will is to have one single page on Commons which is called Flipped Classroom with information directed to them as teachers for them to provide films for their pupils so many more pupils can see these flipped classroom videos, wouldn't that be fine? I do not understand your issue with this and would hope that you would find this interesting enough to accept one single page on Commons called Flipped Classroom. I would also be happy to hear more about this not being a general term of usage. According to whom?

--Sophie Österberg (WMSE) (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sophie, the problem is that fundamentally a Commons gallery is for a gallery of images, not articles of any sort, including articles on how to use Commons. The "Commons:" namespace does have such articles, and I did suggest above that you could work on improving them. I am afraid that I do not at all understand why a Flipped Classroom video is fundamentally different from any other video and requires different instruction from that given at Commons:Contributing your own work.
Also, please remember that we have thousands of different constituencies, including teachers at all levels and all types of teaching, in 42 main languages and about 230 additional languages. We have 16,000,000+ files on Commons and are receiving about 8,000 new files every day, although about 2,000 of those are deleted, usually for copyright violation. I am afraid that I find it difficult to understand why it is a good idea to make a significant exception to our rules to accommodate the special needs of a constituency that, at the moment, has 13 images on Commons.
I would not oppose it if you created a page in the Commons namespace with a name such as Commons:Flipped classrooms, but I make no guarantee that it would succeed. You might also raise the question at Commons:Bybrunnen or Commons:Village pump. Somebody there might have a better idea -- or, you may find that the community disagrees with me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2 license

If you ever decide to propose the GFDL 1.2-only license for deprecation on Commons (as has been done on and let me know. Kaldari (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


Dear Jim, the file File:Krugovanje 1978-1987 by Dejan Stojanovic.jpg already exists at sr Wikipedia. It was created on September 5, 2010 and there is no problem with it. To clarify the things, you can incorporate the information from that source. The file is at [16] The same thing is with the file File:Krugovanje by Dejan Stojanović (Second Edition).jpg, although this file doesn’t exist on the mentioned Wikipedia. You can be sure that there are no problems with these files since they are properly sourced and licensed and, in my opinion, the tags should be removed. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please make your comments at the DRs, not here. The tags will be removed after seven days when the DRs are closed. I note, however, that the image you reference at WP:SR is there under Fair Use, which is not permitted on Commons. There is no evidence there of a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BatumVelo.JPG

Dear Jim,

Julien Cabardi made connections with the sculptor, Jean Dupuy, through his agent in Batumi. The sculptor agreed to have his sculpture been pictured and distributed under a (pretty restrictive) CC BY SA ND NC license. Shall I upload once again the picture taken by Julien Cabardi? Thanks. Christian.Mercat (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

First, please never upload an image that has already been uploaded once. We never actually delete anything -- the process we call "deletion" simply hides it from view of all users except Admins, so if we do get a license for a "deleted" image, we can easily just restore it. Uploading it a second time is against Commons rules and wastes both your time and Commons resources.
Second, Commons does not permit either NC or ND, so the image will have to remain hidden unless someone can get a license from the sculptor that is CC, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DelReqHandler issue

Hi Jim. Any idea on how to get some attention on this issue? I don't want the DRs to pile up, but this problem has been going on for about 6 weeks now. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No -- I have no contact at all with the people who actually do coding. We had a similar problem about this time last year -- maybe it has something to do with the equinox or April Fools' Day..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we're in the same boat...and there's no paddles. Face-wink.svg I've asked a few tech savvy guys, including Dschwen and 99of9. Hopefully someone can get the Bugzilla people moving. INeverCry 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jim: Thank you for at least being kind. Many other editors are actually quite 'rude'. I'm not sure why that photo was deleted? It's been in use for years on Wiki. It's my property and I have the ownership. Is there something I'm missing? Thank you. Jackryan733 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The immediate problem is that you reloaded a file that had been deleted. That is not permitted. The correct procedure is to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests where the community can consider whether the deletion was correct.
However, now that we're talking, perhaps we can solve this here. You say, "It's my property and I have the ownership." Were you the photographer? If not, who was the photographer and why do you believe you have the right to license it on Commons? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim. The photograph was taken 13 years ago. I rounded up the photographer, Tom Story, that took the photo - which I purchased - and have email documentation that I am legally entitled to use them. I will send the email. Thanks again. Jackryan733 (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lenin Mausoleum

Hi Jim. I just saw this on my talk page (I obviously don't check it often enough:

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask
a question at the  Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may
re-nominate this file or ask for it to be  undeleted.
[edit] File:Lenin_Mausoleum.jpg

The comment on the request to delete is this:

No FOP in Russia 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. What is FOP?

The file in question is Lenin Mausoleum.jpg. I can't say for sure (because the image is not there now) but I believe this is my own photograph.

--CaritasUbi (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the image is that the mausoleum itself has a copyright, which will expire on 1/1/2020, which is seventy years rounded up to the following January 1 after the death of Alexey Shchusev, the architect. Any photograph of the mausoleum is a derivative work and, until the copyright expires, such photographs infringe on the copyright. So, even though we have the photographer's permission to keep the image on Commons, we would also need the permission of Shchusev's heirs.
Freedom of Panorama (FOP) is a special exception to the copyright rules which is available in some countries, but not Russia. Although the exact provisions vary widely from country to country, generally the exception permits copyrighted works that are installed permanently to be freely photographed. Unfortunately we have gotten into the habit of saying "no FOP in X" as shorthand for "this image is derivative of the copyrighted work portrayed, there is no FOP in X, and therefore the image cannot be kept on Commons". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I wasn't clear on how to add more pages and while I was surprised to see my other page gone - I totally understand -

"22:13, 28 April 2013 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) moved page Pia jensen Photography to User:PJ2013/Pia jensen Photography without leaving a redirect (User galleries must be sub pages of their user page.)"

Thanks for moving it and leaving a note as to what that was about. :) time for me to study! One question for you: at my primary page - how do I locate a link to the next page which you moved? I see no access point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJ2013 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Yes, you may certainly put a link to your gallery sub page on your user page. You may also create User:Categories to organize your images. Take a look at User:Jameslwoodward -- I use both. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RevDel own IP address

Hi Jim. I've deleted the two connected revision texts that showed your IP: [17]. INeverCry 20:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Berne Convention and scale models

Hello James!

It is always the scale models problem ;-)
Today, this DR has been started which follows a known COM:DW-argumentation of the copyright protection of scale models. Since this image depicts an US aircraft model from the 1970s, another participant on the discussion brings the Berne Convent in this debate. What do you think about this? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really the Berne Convention, but rather the lack of it in the USA then. In order to have a copyright, it had to have notice, which would have been very much automatic for someone creating it at that time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Enfant Jean-Paul Bélanger par Charles Gill 1911 (detail visage)/(detail mains)/(details pré et ore de boisé)

Hello Jim! You are right, these files are crops. Nevertheless these details of the paint allow a small focused description, which seems usually accepted on Commons.I hope this explanation to be usefull to the discussion. Thanks! Laurent Bélanger (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Cropping for detail is very useful in a book or magazine because it allows the reader to examine an enlarged section very closely. It is much less useful on screen because it is far easier to download the whole painting and then pan over it as required. Descriptions can say, for example, "Look closely at the hands".... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Thank you! Laurent Bélanger (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FSPS street pages and gallery columns

Thanks for helping with the Fremantle Society Photographic Survey pages! :-) I'm just wondering about the removal of the columns parameter, because we're printing these pages for use in the physical archives of these photos. Would it be possible to make an exception to the rules in this case? (e.g. Fremantle Society Photographic Survey — Silver Street‎). Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The problem is that it doesn't work. I use two screens -- 1280x1024 and 1680x1050. On the smaller screen, the page came up with three images per row, not four. On the larger one, it set the way you wanted it, but wasted screen space to the right. The whole point of allowing gallery image sizes and per row to default is that the user (or the user's software) will set the size and per row to most efficiently use the available screen space on anything from a mobile phone to a screen 2,000, 3,000, even 5,000 pixels wide. Even more in the future....
I'm not sure I understand the need for printing. Is this a one time thing? If so, go ahead, change the pages to 4 per row, do your printing, and change it back. There's software (which you may be using) to create a PDF of WMF pages -- you could use that. If it's not a one time thing -- if you want to be able to print a 4 per row page on demand -- I'm inclined to suggest that you don't try to do it from Commons. I don't like creating precedent for breaking rules that have a sound basis. However, it strikes me that since you would have a very good reason that it won't sink the project to make an exception. Just be aware, though, that you would be making your pages less accessible to most users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You're quite right, it's easy to just set it to four columns, print the required index sheets, and then change it back to the default (unspecified) number of columns. :-) The printing requirement exists because all of these photos (there's another couple of thousand of them to come) are being moved into proper long-term storage folders, and I'm using the streets pages as index sheets and dividers (printing on archival paper etc.). Thank you for helping think about this stuff. I shall carry on with the slow, slow task of uploading... :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 11:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Commons:Commonist -- I haven't used it much, but it allows for repetitive uploads of the sort you are doing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I've used it a bit. It's good, but sometimes I've only got a couple of photos to do at one time, so just use special:upload. I've also had a couple of occasions of Commonist crashing on me just after I've entered the details of ~50 photos! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoax creations by the same user

Hi Jameslwoodward.

After a year of you deleting fakes dominican flags create by user Cvkfekjf238, he reuploading the hoax flags and coat of arms. Please verify that and excuse my english.--Inefable001 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You delete and he upload them again using this puppet user Dfjfedfub
Tú las borra y él las vuelve a subir utilizando este usuario títere Dfjfedfub--Inefable001 (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the new uploads, blocked the puppet indefinitely, and blocked Cvkfekjf238 for a week. I will continue to delete Cvkfekjf238's January uploads when I get time. Thank you for your help on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but this case needs more attention. The person has created another puppet CMMM34 and uploads many others hoax flags.--Inefable001 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you for your attention to this. I have mass-deleted the new uploads and blocked the puppet indefinitely. I hope that sooner or later he gets tired of this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that, but left many files to delete. Also remember the uploads from the others puppets. I think you may need some help from other administrators to delete all.--Inefable001 (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
? I see no remaining flags uploaded by any of CMMM34, Cvkfekjf238, Dfjfedfub. I don't think I need help from other Admins, but I do need help from you -- please do not say things like "I see that, but left many files to delete" without giving examples. We have more than 16 million files on Commons and more than 25,000 editors each month -- I cannot read your mind as to where to look for more problems. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You can see all the remaining flags in their each contributions. If you don't delete quickly and stop this person then it becomes annoying because the user include all these flags and coat of arms in many Wikipedia articles.--Inefable001 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you must provide examples. Broad statements are not at all helpful -- I cannot delete what I do not see. What I do see is thatnone of the three users we are discussing have any files containing flags that have not been deleted:

  • User:Cvkfekjf238 -- no undeleted contributions after June 26, 2012. He contributed a number of Coats of Arms in 2012, but they have never had a DR and remain as active files.
  • User:Dfjfedfub -- except for one map, no undeleted contributions after 2012
  • User:CMMM34 -- no undeleted contributions at all

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now i understand you. You only are deleting the flags and coats of arms that were previously deleted. But it must delete all their remaining flags and coats of arms because all that are hoax creations too. There' no reference to indicate these files are real or belong to Dominican Republic. I hope you understand me this time.--Inefable001 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That is correct. Files that have been deleted before may be deleted on sight, which I have done. Those that have not been deleted before must go through our standard Deletion Request process. I suggest that you start a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request on those that you believe are a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've created the first deletion request for user Cvkfekjf238. Do i need to create another request deletion for the others puppets?
I hope you can help me in this because is my first time and i don't know if i'm doing right.--Inefable001 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you did a perfect Mass DR on your first try -- well done! I'm not sure I understand your question. There's nothing left to delete for CMMM34. For User:Dfjfedfub, the only files remaining are maps -- if those are OK, then there's nothing there. If they are not OK, they should have a separate DR. On Cvkfekjf238, if you have listed everything that is bad, then that's done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jameslwoodward. This person continues uploading the files you deleted by using another puppet. This person don't get tired.--Inefable001 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the files and blocked the user. Do you know there are still lots of inclusions of these files? / He borrado los archivos y bloqueado el usuario. ¿Sabes que todavía hay muchas inclusiones de esos archivos? Jcb (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No right now but i'll be alert.--Inefable001 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, i still found these [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].--Inefable001 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
For inclusions see e.g. here: Special:GlobalUsage/Bandera_Provincial_de_El_Seibo.PNG. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated File:Flag of La Romana Province, Dominican Republic.svg for deletion, but to get it deleted, you will have to remove the usage within a few day. I'm pretty sure you are right these are fake flags. I've never seen them in the Dominican Republic. Such a flag would e.g. be present in front of a gobernación, but the governor's offices I have seen, only had the national flag. Jcb (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe two or three of them are real but is hard to find out what is really true and what not. I'm sure that Dominican Republic municipalities don't use these flags and coats of arms officialy, so they're irrelevant. Only Santiago de los Caballeros use a Coats of Arms officialy.--Inefable001 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've found another ones [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].--Inefable001 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hatero27 appears to be a sock of Cvkfekjf238. I have blocked him and removed his contributions on this subject. However, Metrónomo is probably not a sock of Cvkfekjf238. Please use a DR on those of his contributions that you think are hoaxes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Metrónomo an explication why he uploaded those flags, but i didn't get a response yet.--Inefable001 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he made SVG versions in good faith. He couldn't know the original was actually fake. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, probably.--Inefable001 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Books by Dejan Stojanović

Dear James,

Please restore Books by Dejan Stojanović. The permission has been received, OTRS ticket 2013050810010397. Best regards, --Mountlovcen8

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


Mmmmm, I've got no idea of such template. Thanks! --Ganímedes (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Hi Jim, User:Jcb recently advised me to not to appeal for blocks against group usernames here. Since I have invoked a block action by you in the discussion, will you please comment in the discussion? TIA Rahul Bott (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I initiated discussion related to User:Deutz-Fahr at COM:AN/U. Will you please provide your views on the matter there? Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry -- I try to avoid discussions in which Penyulap is an active player. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg I understand. Thanks anyway Rahul Bott (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Jim, if you have some time, will you please have a look at the second discussion thread on File talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG. I removed,with this edit, a gallery of photos which were not other versions of the file but simply different photographs from the other_versions entry of the file description. User:Roland zh reverted it soon enough with edit summary "potentially vandalism reverted, next one will be handled as 'Commons User Problems'". I tried to start a discussion with him on the file talk page, since he has made clear on his talk page that he does not like the messages to be posted there and erases any such message zealously saying he is too busy. He replied saying that "forced discussion" is a "personal attack" and frankly, it might also be a bit about language problem as English is not the mother tongue for either of us!

I know it is not a big deal but for future purposes, I would just like to know

  1. Whether putting all of these files as the gallery on the file page was correct? Please evaluate each individual file entry if you can.
  2. Is there some limit to what can be put in the other_versions entry in file description?
  3. Was I so wrong in removing them that it should be called "potentially vandalism"?

You may please consider commenting on the File talk page or my talk page. TIA. Rahul Bott (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the other versions from the file. I have never seen "other versions" used for anything except
  • different versions of the same image -- crops, tilts (or removals), the original from which this crop was made, color corrections, and so forth.
  • occasionally different images of the same painting or other flat work.
Showing different angles and lighting of the same subject can easily be done in a gallery. Putting such files into one or more of the related files seems silly and a maintenance nightmare.
His suggestion that your actions were vandalism and his threat are both inappropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for the timely intervention. I've copied your comments above to the related file talk page hoping that you won't mind. Admins like you are reassuring about the value of this endeavour to people like me. Cheers, Rahul Bott (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
You deserve it! Rahul Bott (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG


Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington

The OTRS ticket on File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG has been received and accepted (by User:Jcb)

This ticket, which the sculptor Thomas Marsh submitted with my encouragement, covers the right to photograph the statue and several related copies, by anybody as long as he is acknowledged as the sculptor CC-BY.

I am just horrified by the multiple attempts to delete pictures of this sculpture and its daughters - which was violently censored in Tianamen Square in 1989 as a symbol of freedom, and continues to be censored in China.

Could you help to put this to rest?


Smallbones (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

After your message above, while I was sleeping (it is now 06:00 local time), MichaelMaggs closed the subject discussion as a keep. That's probably for the best, as I am not sure that I agree with the closure -- it seems to me that Marsh's work is clearly derivative of the original sculpture and therefore infringes on that copyright. Since the question is moot, I haven't read anything like all of the 2,200+ words of argument there, but I am troubled by the tone of the argument that seems to rely more on the fact that we deplore the Chinese government's actions and less on the question of whether that government both can and actually has eliminated the original sculptor's copyright.
It also troubles me that only the Washington, DC version is actually entirely Thomas Marsh's work. As he sets forth carefully in his OTRS letter, all of the other versions had one or more other people doing part of the work -- enough probably so that there is a joint copyright, even in San Francisco where Marsh believes that he did 95% of the work.
Both of these concerns would probably have led me to close this as a delete, particularly with respect to the sculptures other than the DC one, based on the fact that there are significant questions about the copyright.
However, we have a huge backlog at the moment and very few really active Admins (a group that I am barely part of), so I tend not to spend a lot of time on any one issue -- and a renomination of this would surely take a great deal of time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket check

Hi Jim. I've had a question from a fellow admin on concerning an OTRS ticket and image. Here's the diff from The image is File:Tricia Walsh-Smith.jpg, and the ticket # the person is giving is 2013041310011781. The image isn't tagged with the ticket, so we don't know if it's valid or not, etc. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 01:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see -- in what order do I take this?

  • The ticket 2013041310011781 is an e-mail from a hotmail account which does not give an explicit license, but merely asks that the image be put on the WP page for Tricia Walsh-Smith. I am not inclined to accept hotmail as a good source for OTRS, as it is obviously possible to fake. I also would not accept this one because it does not contain a license, but merely claims that Tricia Walsh-Smith "own[s] the copyright to the above image to be uploaded onto my wiki page". That's not a general license of the kind we require.
  • There is only one OTRS queue -- the same OTRS covers all WMF projects.
  • As a serious and very active Commons Admin, you ought to apply for OTRS permission. The OTRS people are reluctant to give it to people who are not going to active help with OTRS, but they will do it -- I was very honest when I applied, saying that I did not expect to do much, if any, OTRS work that was not directly related to my Admin work.

I have hung a {{delete}} on the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure about the difference between permissions-en, permissions-commons, info-en, etc. I had the OTRS flag for all of 2 or 3 days. I resigned it when they started talking about releasing personal info on a list. In the end, I'm so busy with deletions here and on that I really don't have time for OTRS. INeverCry 17:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tricia Walsh-Smith.jpg

This is tricia walsh smith. here are links to my my website and twitter account where the image is used. If you still have a problem you can email me personally through my website and I will reply. Wiki is incredibly important as a lot of people come onto my site from Wiki so after having a page for 5 years I felt it was time for a pic. Whew! It's complicated! Thanks, Tricia Whiterabbitinuk (talk)

The fact that it appears in several places on the Web does not mean that Tricia Walsh-Smith owns the rights to license the image freely and, in fact, she has not done so. Commons gets about 8,000 new images every day. About 2,000 of those must be deleted, for various reasons, including lack of a license from the copyright owner. 75% of that work is done by 10 Administrators. We have procedures in place to try to deal with the great volume of work in an orderly fashion. As it says at the Deletion Request, the problem with this image can be solved only if we get a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jameslwoodward/Translate test

Hi. Have you done it? --BaseSat (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? I created the page to see if I could delete a page with the translate tag on it -- I found that I could. See my comment at Commons:Village_pump#Allow_admins_to_assign_this_right .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean that its now in Special:PageTranslation as proposed for marking. If you have done - remove translate tags, please. Thank you :) --BaseSat (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you please explain the sequence here?
  • I created the page with <translate> tags.
  • I could, immediately after creation, delete it.
  • It appeared later on Special:PageTranslation.
  • I could not delete it this morning.
  • I blanked the page this morning.
  • Even though blank, and my own subpage, I still cannot delete it.
Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Crystal the Monkey

Thanks for deleting the wrong site, but could you please copy the content from the deleteed page to Category:Crystal the Monkey? Thanks.--CennoxX (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Triple Bridge

Please don't forget to delete File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square at night (6).jpg. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1985-079-31, Verhaftung von Dönitz, Speer und Jodl.jpg

Hello. You deleted the file, but didn't unified as it was requested (categories, inclusions in Wikipedia articles, e.g. w:Flensburg_government#Dissolution, German subscription etc.) Could you please make a redirect and copy the useful information as it would be if the file had been considiered a dupe? Ain92 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. Nothing was requested in the DR. You put a {{speedy}} on the file -- which means that you wanted it deleted immediately by an Admin who was going through speedies. Even after a DR, the closing Admin does not generally do any cleanup with a dupe -- that is the nominator's job. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll say in other words. When I'm requesting duplicates to be deleted, I'm used to merging details, but you did nothing like this, just deleted the file from BA, even without a redirect (see lower). And I can't recover lost information because I'm not a sysop so I can't see the description of deleted file. So please merge details just as in example. Thank you in advance. Ain92 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No. sorry -- when you put a {{speedy}} on a file, you should expect that it will be deleted, nothing more. There is nothing in the file description that is not already in the file description of the remaining file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually there's not nothing. I distinctly remember that there were some other personal categories than in the remaining file (Speer, Jodl and probably something else, I'm not sure) and also there was description in German. Ain92 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you the whole file description. As you will see, my statement was correct. The only cats were

all of whose names appeared in the title of the file. The description is essentially the same, using the word "Verhaftung" rather than "in the custody" -- since it was not the moment of the arrest, "in the custody" is more accurate than "Verhaftung" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I copied categories, description (I don't know German so couldn't translate it from English to German; also I haven't changed "Verhaftung") and {{PND-link}}s. Regards, Ain92 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know German either, but Google Translate seems to do a pretty good job, at least for German > English. I don't know about German > Russian. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2013050410007827

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Robert_Joseph_Greene_Press_Phto.jpg. The uploader has forwarded an appropriate statement of permission from the copyright holder (as of about an hour ago). --UserB (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aviso sobre pedido de restauro

[32] Leandro Rocha (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


Dear Jameslwoordward, I have a remark about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europa1234.png. I understand the reason why you kept this file, but maybe it's useful to give you some more information. Firstly, I wasn't trying to insult the creator, but I know this person and he said himself that he can't make proper SVG-files. His own words, but again: I can understand that you thought that I was not polite (well, English is not my mother language, so I'm also not always very capable to say the things in the way I want). But the file: the user created this copy of the file because he wanted to update this map. Indeed: it's different than the original one, which is being changed at least every week. The intention of the user was to give an update, but he uploaded the file as a new one (reason: see above). His intention was right, but the file itself is now completely obsolete and the original one has now been updated several times again. I don't blame you, I should have given this information earlier. Stupid of me to think the person that deletes the file would and could (many things happen outside the Commons project) check the full background. Kind regards, --MichielDMN (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I too am sorry -- I probably should not have made the remark about your not being able to see that they were not the same. We must all be very careful in this multilingual project, as it is possible to give offense through misunderstanding even tough none is intended.
Please remember that Commons gets around 8,000 new files every day and must delete around 2,000 of them. Ten Admins do 75% of that and we work very fast. When closing a DR, if the reason is that the file is a duplicate, then it must, in fact, be a duplicate, or we will usually keep it.
Your explanation is helpful -- I will now delete the file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. I understand why you've made the remark, and honestly, maybe I would have done the same. Things are said and misunderstood quickly. Thanks for the extra feedback, it emphasises that I should give a better description than "duplicate". Also thanks to remove the file. Kind regards, --MichielDMN (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1985-079-31, Verhaftung von Dönitz, Speer und Jodl.jpg

Hi, wy do you delete this file with more than 30 Global Usages. The other File:The Second World War 1939 - 1945- Germany- Personalities BU6711.jpg (duplicate ) has no usage. The Delinker is broken! Now all Aticels are in Categorys like en:Category:Pages_with_missing_files. Cheers --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a redirect --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


You should delete the following images, too, as they were taken at the same location and therefore are not under FOP.

Bye - Eva

This email was sent by User:Eva Kröcher to Jameslwoodward by the "Email user" function at Wikimedia Commons

You are probably correct. However, since they involve FOP questions and were not included in the original DR, they must have their own DR. We do not do speedy deletes on FOP cases.
Feel free to nominate them.
And, by the way, e-mail should be reserved for conversations that must be private. This should be on my talk page, where I will copy it (with appropriate links).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Igorjanev.JPG

Permission letter has been send to relating to File:Igorjanev.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republika.Makedonija (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 June 2013‎ (UTC)

This image and the permission you sent has three problems:

  • Igor Janev is the subject of the image, not the copyright holder.
  • The OTRS e-mail comes from an anonymous e-mail account.
  • You have made at least three different claims as to the source and copyright of this image.

You are very close to being blocked from editing on Commons. That will happen if you take any further action on this or similar images unless you can prove who the photographer was and that you have his or her permission to license this freely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OK to undelete

Regarding the closed discussions Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atcace and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atcace - 2:

I'm an OTRS volunteer handling ticket #2013060410008066, which is an email message from Austin Calhoon, from an email address bearing a similar name, stating "I am confirming I am the owner of the images posted to commons under the user name ATCACE."

I have asked him how he wants the license, although CC by SA would be safe to assume unless he specifies public domain. Amatulic (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: OTRS permission confirmed. He agrees to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License.
The images are OK to undelete. Amatulic (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request

File:PENGUIN LIFECYCLE H.JPG was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. However, it appears the image author was an NSF employee,[33] so the image's PD status should have been valid. Several derivative works of the image have also been deleted. Can you take care of those as well, or should I ask the closing admin? Thank you.--Paul_012 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ All done. Although we don't usually undo other Admin's work, this one is pretty obvious. Thank you for your research on this. It's always a pleasure to restore interesting images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bridge or artwork

Hi Jim, some doubts were raised at IRC about this bridge: File:Bridge of Glass (Tacoma, Washington).jpg. As far as I understand COM:FOP, a picture of a bridge should be OK in the USA. But I'm not sure if we can apply this to this specific bridge of parts of this bridge. What's your opinion on this? Jcb (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I sent a message via OTRS to the artist whose work is reproduced in the images asking for permission to use these images or for better-quality images to be provided. LFaraone (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not a question of FOP at all. In the USA, bridges do not have copyrights -- "architecture" does not include them, so the bridge itself does not have a copyright. (That's not true in some foreign countries that specifically include bridges in the copyright law.)
There is, of course, the question of any copyrights on the works in the compartments. Some are utilitarian, but I suspect that some have copyrights. I think that they are de minimis to this particular image, but it would be an issue for other views. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Marcric flickr images

Marcric (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi. I found where you had interacted with Marcric before and so I wanted to check with you. Since getting a ticket at OTRS saying that one of his uploads was a copyright violation, I have looked through them and found several that were incorrectly claimed to be PD works of government or incorrectly (but in good faith) attributed to flickr users, but obviously not the work of that flickr user. There are a whole slew of drawings from his own flickr page. In your previous discussions with him, were these images where he is claiming that he actually authored them? Because he has colorized them, google image search is mostly not helpful in identifying other copies ... but the rightmost rocket at File:UR-100 200 700 900 shapes.png, for example, I found at crediting (c) Mark Wade. So I have very little confidence that he actually drew these rockets.

Can you take a look? Were these previously resolved in your discussion with him? --UserB (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the ones above are obvious matches for anything deleted before, but they are all done in the same style and are clearly related. For example, the lower 3/4 of his File:Soyuz-L rocket shape.png. is identical to all four of the rockets in File:Soyuz rocket family shapes BW.jpg -- not just similar, but pixel for pixel identical. These certainly need a DR and are close to meriting a {{copyvio}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Images from MarcRic's flickr. Note that there's a whole slew of them ... I have only gone through the first page (150) of his uploads and nominated a whole bunch of them ... but there's a lot more to do. In addition to the flickrwashed ones, there are a lot of them where something depicted is a NASA rocket and he assumes that it's therefore PD-USGov, but just because it's a photo of a NASA rocket doesn't mean that NASA actually took the photo. It could be a news media photo or just some guy with a camera. --UserB (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Or even more likely, an image made by the manufacturer. Go to it. And, thank you for your effort. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kategorie Völkersbach

Du schießt schnell! Ich habe die Seite nicht umsonst angelegt, ich bin gerade dabei die Bilder fürs Hochladen mit Koordinaten zu versehen. Etwas mehr Geduld bitte. Danke. --Martin (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. We get about 100 new gallery pages every day, almost all of which are empty, out of scope, or errors. Since it is a favorite area for vandals, we patrol them frequently and delete on sight.
It is best to either build new galleries on a user subpage such as User:Martin-D/Sandbox 1 or at least put a note at the top of the new gallery that it is under construction.
Also note that "Kategorie Völkersbach" is not a good name. If you intend to create a Category, you must use that word, in English. If you intend to create a Gallery, then "Kategorie" will simply confuse people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Der Name der Kategorie war "Völkersbach" nicht "Kategorie Völkersbach". Der Inhalt war "Category:Malsch (Landkreis Karlsruhe)". Wenn das falsch war, dann weiß ich es nicht besser und lasse die Finger davon. --Martin (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry -- you said "Kategorie Völkersbach" in the section heading above. I see now that you created (and I deleted) a Gallery named Völkersbach. Either that or Category:Völkersbach is OK. They have different purposes, as explained at Commons:Galleries and Commons:Categories. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My photos

Hello. You have deleted several of my photos:

File:Absheron Hotel.jpg
File:Eurovision 2012 billboard.jpg
File:Fikret Amirov monument in Baku.jpg
File:Khojaly genocide poster in Baku.jpg
File:Kamil Aliyev home-museum.jpg

But I have lost them. Could you restore them so that I can get a copy? Then you'll delete them again. --Interfase (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Please let me know here when you are done with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And this one please:

File:Monument of Bakikhanov.jpg

--Interfase (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Thalassia testudinum.jpg

English: Hello Jameslwoodward just put this image but not this safe with the issue of the license. You can see if it fits our parameters, but please delete it. Gracais for your help, greetings

Español: Hola Jameslwoodward acabo de cargar esta imagen pero no esto sugura con el asunto de la licencia. Puedes ver si se ajusta a nuestro parametros, sino por favor borrala. Gracais por tu ayuda, saludos --Veronidae (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion request

Hi Jim --

I'm teaching an editing class after work, and uploaded a sample picture as class demo; could you please delete? File:A sunfish from Michigan.JPG. (Disclaimer:not part of my work duties). The class says hello! Thank you, Bdcousineau (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Looks like Mono beat me to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Jim. Nice to meet you again :) What do you think of {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} ? I think that this tag cannot be suitable to Wikimedia Commons. Probably it can be used in Japanese Wikipedia. Formerly I've nominated this DR. According to the Japanese copyright law, his photographs seems to be public domain in Japan. But his heir claims his copyright, and normally others accept it outside Japan. I want to use many photographs as possible as we can. However can Wikimedia Commons claim that they are public domain ? See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the template's reference to 1946 -- there does not appear to be any reference to 1946 at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#Japan. However, the rest of the template is OK and I don't see a problem. It is true that many works made before 1956 will have copyrights in other countries -- particularly those made by people who died after 1942 in 70 year countries. However that problem exists for many countries that have rules that are not pma 70.
Since (in the case of this template) the only countries we are concerned about are Japan and the USA, I think that it is all right. The only exception would be for images that were published in the USA with notice and renewed, so it would be good if a file with this template also had a no-notice or no-renewal template, but I don't think it is essential in most cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)