User talk:Jameslwoodward: Difference between revisions

Just noticed that you have deleted all pictures I have uploaded. Can you please explain this, they were taken by me, I deliberately kept the resolution small and removed the EXIF information to stop other people stealing my photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.61 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are User:Upsilona. Please be sure to log in when you make comments and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

File:Large2819.jpg is a screen shot of material that almost certainly has a copyright and is too small to be useful. The rest were deleted on suspicion simply because they were small and had no EXIF information.

I don't understand

"I deliberately kept the resolution small and removed the EXIF information to stop other people stealing my photos."

Uploading an image that is of deliberately low quality defeats the purpose of Commons. We are here solely to have other people, inside and outside of WMF projects, use Commons photos. Small photos will not be used, so what is the point in uploading them? -- it just wastes your time and ours. Since you licensed them as PD, there is no sense in which they can be "stolen" -- attribution is not required on PD images.

So, if you would like to have these images available to the world on Commons, please upload full resolution versions using the same filenames. EXIF is useful, but not required.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you deleted the image about the logo used by Disturbed... I cannot find any discussion or talk about the deletion so I'm wondering why you did it. Thanks --Viscontino (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disturbed Believe logo.jpg

As I said in my edit comment,

"Copyright violation: clear copyvio -- PD-text claim is nonsense"

Copyright violations must be deleted on sight. The logo is not, as claimed, text, but is a complex collection of religious symbols that is well past the required threshold of originality in the USA and elsewhere.

You may, of course, ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests, but I don't think you will succeed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decided in this sense. Of course, as you said, I expect no friends for that :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "no friends" -- it was the correct choice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;-) -- Blackcat (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that Commons:Deletion requests/File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-01.jpg will set a dangerous precedent. Certainly given the low threshold of originality in the UK, any picture of any train could be a copyvio on grounds of the livery, even on something fairly simple like File:158865 arrives at Ely.JPG or File:Willoughby Road Railway Crossing - geograph.org.uk - 423756.jpg could be copyrightable. And let's not get into the whole idea of racing cars. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A section heading like that is liable to attract interest :) Can't see anything wrong with that DR - it was a close-up picture of the "mural" on a train, and nothing like the other examples you give, which are images of trains in a context, so that COM:DM surely applies to whatever can barely be made out on the side of the train. Rd232 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you (Mattbuck) miss an important distinction. Liveries, whether of trains, planes, or ships, essentially serve the utilitarian purpose. I can't remember seeing a DR on an airplane, even though some airline liveries are fairly complex. That is very different from cases like these, where, as I said, we have a mural which happens to be painted on the side of a train. The mural is not part of the livery, but an independent creation that happens to be on a train rather than on a wall or canvas.

This is much the same case as a decorated food platter. The platter is utilitarian, but the painting on it may well have a copyright, see Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if the picture was a standard livery (however we define that, one which was applied to more than one unit?) then it's OK is what you're saying? That seems dodgy at best. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, a "standard" livery could have a copyright if it amounted to a mural, just as a "standard" dinner plate can have a copyright, but it has to be more than just a combination of colors as in your examples above. I agree that there's a line somewhere between the two, and that could prove difficult some of the time, but I think that these are clearly well over it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "amounts to a mural" means. Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects uses the phrase too simple to be copyrighted; but that means we're in COM:TOO territory, which might be a problem for some countries like the UK. Rd232 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one (right)? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably over the line, but not everyone will agree. I see a significant difference between a livery -- decoration of a utilitarian object to identify the owner of the object -- a bus, truck, train, airplane, or ship -- and applying an independent work of art to a surface that happens to be one of those. These images are essentially advertisements and I think we need to treat hem as if they were on billboards, even though the billboard happens to be a train. That is different from a livery.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really see no such difference, either all things you paint on a train are ineligible for copyright, or we need to delete all trains which aren't a single matte colour. The second image here is a standard livery, but it advertises about 1000 different places on it. The third image is a livery applied to all 30 or so trains of one operator, and it's a big advert for RBS. There is no distibguishable difference between a livery and an advert. Either it's all ok or none of it is. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-01.jpg_and_File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-02.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, User:Heyhello1234567 has been blocked for the second time on Commons for uploading copyrighted work and intimidating a fellow user. This is the time when suddenly people came heavily in his support and ensured one file is saved from deletion even though it is copyrighted work of the channel and serves no academic value and another deleted file of similar type is restored. These very people marked two of my uploaded files for speedy deletion File:Mike.JPG and File:Anna-T-Shirt3.JPG. While the first one was was falsely stated to be posted on http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/alaniamusic/smallmicrophone.jpg, for the second, the accusation of posting from a website does not arise because I took the photo of a T-Shirt when Anna's movement against corruption was raging in India. I removed the tags after specifying the reasons. But I wonder if these very people will suddenly rise in my support if I threaten somebody? Is Commons a safe haven for some people are threatening and settling some personal scores? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The closure as kept of File:IconEliminate.gif and File:IconImmune.gif appear to be entirely correct as they are clearly PD-text, far below the required threshold anywhere.

I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mike.JPG. There is indeed an apparently identical larger image at the cited location. You would do well to avoid comments like "first one was was falsely stated" -- calling colleagues "liars" (implied by "falsely") is not good, particularly when they are not. It would have been far better to have said "incorrectly stated". I do not know what happened when you went to the cited location -- a web glitch perhaps -- but on the face of it, you have removed a valid tag without cause.

I have also started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna-T-Shirt3.JPG. Your file is pixel for pixel identical with part of the file at http://www.tshirts.in/xtees/mens-tshirt_mt00589/i-am-anna-hazare-t-shirts.htm. I see that you have already commented there.

While I agree with you that the threats made by User:Heyhello1234567 are completely unacceptable, he has been blocked for them. I do not know exactly what you are trying to accomplish here -- whether you simply do not understand PD-text and have forgotten where you got your two images -- or whether you are just making trouble. In line with "Assume Good Faith", I am willing to assume the former, but I suggest you be more careful in the future.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, if you see the exchange of communication between me and Heyhello1234567 on the DR page, you will see my tone and his attitude. I am not worried about the restoration of the images, but the speed with which things taken place. File:Vehicle Insurance Certificate in India.pdf had DR marked on Nov 29,2011 and it was closed only on 16 March 2012‎. Why was there so much delay? Presumably for the no. of DRs but when the uploader is an intimidator should we restore his work with so much haste? Regarding the two files, I must say that while some of my uploads may have been deleted for some criteria, never was it because of it being on some website. Today also I uploaded a person's photos taken by me. Yet if some anomaly, however inadvertent it might be, it should be used to wash way the good work I've done and many of my uploads which are referred on many Wikis (langs which don't know).Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The two MTV DRs were very clearly PD-text -- if I had seen the DRs even before the seven day waiting period was done, I would have speedy-kept them. The insurance certificate raised several unusual issues so it took longer. At the moment, there is a significant problem with making deletions, so all DRs have slowed markedly. Some things happen more rapidly than others.

The two files of yours that I tagged with {{Delete}} above seem to be clear cases, is I'm not sure why you have taken the position you have. In both cases there is an apparently identical web image that is larger than the one you uploaded -- in one case more pixels, in the other case covering more area. They seem pretty clear cases of copyvio, but in deference to your protests, I have done DRs rather than simply blowing them away. Unless you can come up with a good explanation, I suggest you agree to their deletion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is a file on Commons I would like to request deletion: File:Brazil Gay flag.svg. For, according to Brazilian law, a crime to misrepresent the national flag of Brazil.And users of Wikipedia Commons and must comply with national flags, this is a clear disregard. What can I do about this? Gaban (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate it for deletion on those grounds, but keep in mind that as a rule, Commons ignores non-copyright restrictions, and therefore will probably not delete it.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can use Template:Db-f6, Template:Db-norat? Because the original picture used to do this flag, is the Brazilian flag, and Brazil (just like any another country) don't allow the use of its flag to do this. What i need to edit to propose to deletion?Gaban (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not correct that most countries would not allow this use of their flag. Certainly the USA and other free speech countries would protect this as a proper exercise of free speech.

Second, the templates you mention do not exist on Commons. Use "Nominate for deletion", which is the last link under "Toolbox" in the left margin of most pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't noticed the toolbox. Gaban (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to revert the File:Municipality_building_Knin.jpg to its old name, as both meanings are same as per a serbian user--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and support the principle, but I don't think we should apply it here. The current name is accessible to all Commons users who have even a little English. The old name is accessible only to those who speak Serbian.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. Can you explain why this file should be the exception to the official guideline? I understand your point and it's probably true that files named in English are more accessible than files named in Serbian, Croatian, German, French, etc. But, the guideline says: Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized (Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages). I think that we should treat all files and all languages ​​equally. If the author of the file decided that the name of the file should be in Serbian, if it was not contrary to the policies (including Commons:Language policy and Commons:File naming) and if the renaming was done contrary to the guideline, then why we should not return the file's original name? One file is not that important, but what if tomorrow somebody suggest 100 or 1000 files to be renamed guided by what you said (The current name is accessible to all Commons users who have even a little English. The old name is accessible only to those who speak Serbian)? I think we can follow the official guideline or not. If we agree that the principle in Commons:File renaming is good, then this file is somehow the exception? You probably know that I'm quite flexible and usually do not insist too much on formalities, but I think that in situations like this we should be very careful and follow policies and guidelines. User IvanOS has a history of removing Serbian language from files, removing and replacing descriptions in Serbian and changing licences. This issue with file renaming is just another way to continue with that. I know that I'm probably considered as involved, but I believe that I'm right and that we should send a clear message that those kind of contributions are not constructive, no matter what language it is. mickit 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm essentially a monoglot (eight years of French, but it was fifty years ago) so I am fairly careful not to offend in the matter of languages. I'm sorry that I may have done so here.

Note that I did not object to the suggested renaming or take an active position against it -- simply said that I would rather not do it. Also note that it is a guideline, not established policy. We are not completely clear on the difference between the two, but I take it to mean that policy is firm and should not be broken without community consensus. A guideline is just that -- a guide in the absence of a good reason to do something else.

I think we have a conflict in the guideline between

"Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays"

and

"Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English"

Users who edit WP:SR make up about 0.2% (2 in 1000) of all WMF project users. Users who edit WP:EN make up slightly over half. (Both numbers from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias -- they probably understate the number of English readers, but they're not a bad proxy). That means that the Serbian filename is useful to only a tiny fraction of our users -- to the rest it is a "completely meaningless name".

So, while I agree in principle that the guideline makes sense for major languages, perhaps those that represent more than 1% of our users and 90% in total*, I'm not sure it makes sense across the board. There has to be some limit -- we have, after all, 284 languages represented, some of which are read by only a few hundred users and are completely meaningless to everyone else.

I have no particular interest in trying to change the guideline, but just as I don't close DRs where I don't agree with the consensus reached by reasonable colleagues, I am not comfortable with making a move with which I disagree.

*English, Spanish, German, French, Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Arabic, Dutch, Turkish, and Indonesian. I might add Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, because, if I understand correctly, someone who can read one can do pretty well in the others and together they are over 2%.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you think that we should not accept at all file names in Serbian, Croatian, Czech and similar languages? Did I undestand you well? If that is a case, then I would just say that I don't agree with you because I believe that's not how wiki projects work and that's not really what is multilinguality mean. Anyway, I'm aware that you don't object to the suggested renaming, but still I wanted to hear your opinion as an experienced user or as a user which oppinion I really appreciate :) I know that any conflict of opinion between Croatian and Serbian users can easily be understood wrongly, and someone could easily say that I am involved as a Serbian user, so I'll ask another admin to make a final decision. Thanks for chatting. mickit 13:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milan: Yes, you have my thoughts correctly. I honor the fact that we are multilingual. I object when someone in a DR or elsewhere says "write in English" or similar words and I try very hard to get along with other languages, using Google translate, or asking for another editor's help when Google does not seem good. I have made edits on 21 different language WPs -- usually simply replacing an image.

With that understood, though, there are practical limits to our being multilingual. All of our Admins have at least a little English. Our categories are in English, including Category:Belgrade and Category:Serbia. I think that a user who did not have a little ability in at least one of the major languages would have trouble contributing here other than with simple uploads.

I am not a good person to say this, given that my only language is the largest one -- but as a photographer uploading images to Commons, I want my images to have the widest possible usage. An image is much more likely to be used off-WMF if it is named in one of the major languages.

As I said, I have no objection at all to moving this image back. I just don't think it is good for the project or for the image's potential use.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, about this: I might add Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, because, if I understand correctly, someone who can read one can do pretty well in the others and together they are over 2%. I have to say that we have a similar situation with Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian that are even more similar than languages you mentioned, and probably over 90% of Slovenian and Macedonian users can also easily understand file names in S/C/B language. mickit 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then -- the five together (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Slovenian and Macedonian) are just over 1% of the total.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mickit 14:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason why the discussion at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Class 487 DMBSO at LT Museum Depot.jpg" was somewhat extended was that the person objecting introduced a new factor: it was claimed that not only was there a contractual restriction on photographs being taken for commercial use (which we generally ignore as a non-copyright restriction), but that the agreement between the museum owner and the visitor had the effect of transferring the copyright in any photographs taken to the museum. Now, it appears that the legal formalities were not complied with, making the alleged transfer of copyright ineffective. However, if it had been properly done (the visitor was required to sign a contract), then the photograph would have to be deleted as the copyright owner of the photograph would not have been the visitor but the museum. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but ignored it, as the objector tossed around several invalid legal theories, including that you can avoid being a bailee by posting notice and the comment that there is no such thing as an oral contract in the USA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clear the objector wasn't actually very clear about the law. However, it seems that it is possible for museums (at least in the UK) to get visitors to agree to transfers of copyright if they get the formalities right. Perhaps that won't happen in practice since it is quite impractical to insist that each visitor sign a contract to that effect. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC at least one of the UK cathedrals required me to get written permission to take photos, paying a small fee for it. It was a while ago, so I don't recall the copyright details, but clearly such a transfer could have been part of the request for permission. I've never run into a similar situation at any American site -- either you can take photos (usually without flash or tripod) or you can't. Since cameras are now ubiquitous, I think it would be very difficult to enforce a no-photos rule, except at a fine arts museum where there are guards everywhere.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI Jim, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Public art - Diprotodon, Kings Park Perth sign.jpg and quoting http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s65.html but that specfically states The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. this is a perminent work, in a public place the same section of the act refers to artistic works which it defines in section 10 as "artistic work" means an artistic work in which copyright subsists. the work is perminently displayed in a public place, if its subject to copyright then it can be photographed, if not subject to copyright then it cant be a copyright violation, either way the photograph is fine. Gnangarra 08:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complicated piece of inelegant legal drafting. It happens to be very close to the British law, so I think I read it correctly. Read along with me carefully:

"Section 65 (1) This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." [emphasis added]

Since it is not a sculpture, if it is to be covered by 65(2) (the FOP exception, which you quote), it must be a "[work] of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10"

"Section 10:

"artistic work" means:

"(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;

"(b) a building or a model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or

"(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);....

Since "paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs are not listed in section (c) of the definition, they are not included in the FOP exception.

Also note that the text has a copyright which is not covered by the FOP exception -- only seven countries allow FOP for text.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since "paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs are not listed in section (c) of the definition, they are not included in the FOP exception.

they are listed in section a) section is c) whether mentioned or not so they are covered by FOP Gnangarra 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Rules of Construction do not allow you to read the law that way. Only "works of artistic craftsmanship" (in addition to sculpture) are included in FOP. If the legislators had intended to include paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs, they would have listed them along with sculpture. The Australian law mirrors the UK law and our reading of it should be the same.

Also, don't forget that the text also has a copyright and there can be no question that this image infringes that.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim, for your help in dealing with User:Surf100. It was getting so frustrating to find copyrighted photos on Wikipedia's "TheBus (Honolulu)" article daily and see the same copyrighted photos over and over again. I appreciate your quick block of the user in question. Aloha, Aoi (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome -- helping keep order is one of the several reasons I'm here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I have read the rules of the currency of France has a free license.([1]) My question is - can I upload images of banknotes from the same site? --Numizmat 675

Upload from what site? There are two copyrights to consider -- the banknote and the photograph. The banknote is apparently OK according to Commons:Currency#France.

Logic would say that {{PD-Art}} could be put on the images, but remember that Commons policy on this relies on Corel v Bridgeman which spoke only to old masters. The policy is

"... under Commons rules the {{PD-Art}} tag can be used for "faithful reproduction" photographs of 2D public domain works of art...."

According to Commons:Currency#France, the notes are still under copyright and they may not be "works of art".

Conclusion -- I wouldn't object to the uploading from any source, but don't be surprised if someone else does.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have Illustrations and engravings of Cambridge, to 1923 back, please?

I now have two series of engravings cleaned up and ready to upload, with several more to follow. Plus this page had very useful sourcing links for authorities, which I now have to dig out all over again.

Next time you feel like deleting something, it's considered common courtesy to first drop the page creator a message on their talk page. Jheald (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons rules allow (and require) certain kinds of pages to be deleted on sight. More than 650 pages every day are deleted in accordance with those rules -- about half of all daily deletions. There is nowhere near enough Administrator time available to give personal attention to all of those -- our backlog is steadily growing.

In this case, because of the {{Under construction}} tag, I gave the page a full week before deleting it. I suggest that the next time you start a gallery, either populate it quickly, or create it at User:Jheald/Sandbox1 and then copy it to public space when it meets the rules.

Also please note that Commons is not an encyclopedia and Commons galleries are for collections of images. Articles belong in Wikipedia. Neither Authorities nor References are typical features of a Commons gallery.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this should have been a category, not a gallery, so thanks for deletion. But could you perhaps convert it to being a category? (Or, if this is less effort, put the text on my talkpage?) Sorry for the hazzle, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Category:Kaulbach-Villa (Munich). I changed the spelling because policy (and consistency) requires category names in English, see, for example Category:München.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. English is fine, although there seems to be a tendency towards German place names whenever the category covers a specific object and in itself is not part of a globally named category tree. And there are some funny effects of the naming policy, e.g. with Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Munich and Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Landkreis München. (The logic behind this being that a translation exists for "München" as a city but not for "Landkreis München" as the respective district. "Landkreis Munich" would sound strange and "Munich County" would not be recognized by any local person...). But anyway: No actual problem :-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or later the gurus will figure out a way to have category names in multiple languages -- so that you will see them in German and I in English. Until then we do the best we can. I agree that "Munich County" is silly, even though "Landkreis" is not in my very limited German vocabulary. I could even agree on using "München" and "Roma", but "Москвa" and "東京" get a little more problematic.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, yes, please delete the file in question. I don't have rights to it. We've genereated a new image of the ship for the project using GE Sketchup and Kerkythea, looks pretty nice. Thanks for your work in keeping Wiki the best source of information in the world. G H Smith (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read both Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope carefully, as I have deleted or tagged for deletion all but one of your uploads as either out of scope or copyvio. You cannot simply grab images off the web and upload them here, even if you have some relation to the web site they are taken from.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, did you happen to notice I am the Interim Director, External & Social Media for Coalition of Hope? (http://www.coalitionofhope.org/about-us.html). How did you determine the images are out of scope, when they are uploaded as part of the Foundation's Wiki article? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Coalition_of_Hope)

I created the ship image. The logo and Mr. Keegan's image were supplied by Mr. Keegan, who asked me to create the article. No images need be deleted. V/r G H Smith (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did not see the COH masthead, the fact that your username matches one on the masthead is not conclusive. While I think it is very likely that Commons User:G H Smith is Glenn Smith of COH, we frequently have people posing as others on Commons and rarely depend on a similarity of names for final decisions.

Assuming your are Glenn Smith, you need to figure out who owns the copyrights to the various images you have uploaded. If COH has its act together, then it is not using images on its web site to which it does not have the rights. This suggests that the fact that you created the ship image is irrelevant, since COH owns the copyright. It is very unlikely that Keegan owns the copyright to a professional image of him and COH probably owns the copyright to the logo. Claiming "own work" when the image is not, in fact, your own work significantly reduces your credibility here.

Since there appears to be a legitimate plan to obtain and convert Nassau -- something not mentioned anywhere in her pages on Commons and WP:EN -- you are correct that the speculative image of her conversion is not out of scope. That should probably be better covered at both File:LHA as CoH Hospital Ship.jpg and USS Nassau (LHA-4).

The solution to all of this is a message, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS from a corporate officer of COH -- not you -- giving us permission to use the ship image and the logo. We will need a separate license for the Keegan image coming either from the photographer or from Keegan, explaining why he owns the rights.

Finally I should add that while this is not WP:EN and I have no authority over there other than as an active user, an article created by its subject is always problematic, particularly when it appears that the WMF is being used to advertise and raise money. I would not be surprised if you get some pushback against your article there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again, to continue discussion on copyrights, I informed Mr. Keegan of your comments, and he replied with this:

Glenn,

According to our (COH) organizational legal counsel, by using an image, photo (which we created) or design (which we created) in permanent form, our rights are protected. One does not have to formally copyright the work. A creative work is automatically copyrighted when it is "fixed" in a copy or other permanent form for the first time. The use of a copyright notice is not required under U.S. law, but it is a good idea to include the copyright symbol© , the year of first publication, and the copyright owner.

Copyright on Publication

A work is considered to be copyrighted when published. The term "publication" has a specific meaning, under the 1976 Copyright Act: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

Term of Copyright Protection

Copyright lasts from date of publication through the life of the creator plus 70 years (for works created on or after January 1, 1978).

With the above in mind, I do have a submission into the Copyright office for the COH logo which I created and began utilizing some months ago. My photo was taken at my request, for my use, paid for by me, personally and is expressly authorized for use by COH.

Best regards,

Tim -

Timothy J. Keegan

[redacted private information]

With the above in mind, where are we in terms of deletion/non-deletion of the images? Please advise, V/r G H Smith (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above is entirely unnecessary -- we have a pretty good handle on copyright law here. It is also entirely irrelevant as it does not meet the requirements I set forth above -- where I explained both what we needed and why. This is, after all, for the protection of COH -- if User:G H Smith is actually associated with the organization, he should realize that we have no way of confirming anything about the source of the message above.

With respect to the photograph of Keegan, it is very unusual for a professional photographer to transfer copyright. Since it is plainly not the work of GH Smith, as claimed, we will need permission from the photographer or a statement from him or her that the copyright has been transferred to Keegan, again using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, thanks for the guidance. I've send in the OTRS for the logo and ship image via official CoH channels to the required address. As for the image of Mr. Keegan, we're collecting the data to determine copyright on that. I believe Mr. Keegan has it, but am researching. I appreciate your assistance! G H Smith (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your patience and understanding -- many new users would be screaming by now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Read your bio page ... a world travelling railfan! A group in England built an A1 Pacfic in 2008, a type of steam locomotive last on English rails in 1966. Check out http://www.a1steam.com/ . When I was last in DC for corporate training, I made trips up to the B&O Museum (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PRR4876.JPG), and the PRR Museum. While stationed in Augsburg Germany, I took other railfan friends on a pilgrimage to Goeppingen to see the Marklin Museum (http://www.maerklin.de/de/service/erlebnis/maerklin_erlebniswelt/vorstellung.html), yes, I'm a train nut .. Still working the copyright stuff. Glenn

Jim, I see that this image was deleted. The source was a 1906 publication, accessible here. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sirio wrecked.jpg as well: I have a great interest in having these images preserved. Incidentally, there is no reason to believe that these pictures weren't first published in Argentina. I don't know if that helps or not. If it does, and there is reason to restore the one you've already deleted, please reconsider. Also, please see this discussion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more complicated than perhaps you understand. Although the ship was ultimately bound for Argentina, she was actually headed for Cadiz and the wreck happened in Spanish waters off Cartagena. There is no particular reason to be believe that the two images were first published in Argentina -- Spain, or Italy, the home country of many of the emigrants seems much more likely. The wreck happened on August 4 and the source newspaper is dated September 8 -- which is what I would expect because at that time the photographs would have to go by ship, not by wire. That leaves a month for the photographs to have been published in Spain and Italy.

Since it is very possible, even likely, that the images were first published in Spain or Italy, I think that it will be very hard to keep the images. The only way to do so would be to find the Spanish or Italian first publication and determine that either the photographer was anonymous or that he died before 1942. I am not willing to change my mind on this just because we happen to have an Argentine publication.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my mind isn't so feeble that I can't grasp this argument (no need to patronize me), and I know the history of the ship--if I hadn't written the article, hardly anyone would know it now. I can follow this explanation perfectly, but none of this was ever explained at the deletion discussion. Missing is the difference between Spain/Italy and Argentina: I assume from what you're saying that they have different copyright laws. I'm saddened that absence of evidence (your hypothesis) is taken as evidence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I seemed patronizing. I try very hard to be polite and to be seen as polite by all of our many-language colleagues. Therefore, I avoid saying things like "You're wrong" -- or worse. I probably went too far the other way here. As for the history of the ship, its partly there to help my thinking and partly to show you that I, too, know the history of the ship and that it is an important part of my reasoning.

As far as what was said -- or not said -- in the DR, please remember that Commons Admins delete about 1,300 pages every day. Half a dozen of us do half of those, so we work very fast and the backlog is still growing. There is not time to give this sort of detailed explanation on more than a very few of the 1,300, so we do so only when asked. If we had many more active Admins, that could change.

Aside from the fact that there is a question of what the law was in Argentina in 1906 -- there is some evidence for a perpetual copyright at that time -- the laws are very similar. So it is more the fact that this source is more than a month after the fact and 6,000 miles away that is the problem, not that it is Argentina versus Spain or Italy. The issue is that we do not know whether this is an anonymous image -- unlikely -- or of a known photographer, and only finding the first publication will solve that.

Finally, Commons is not like a criminal court. Every image is assumed to be covered by a copyright until it is proven that it is free. See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Still, it begs the question of "the first publication". The assumption here is that since it is a month after the fact that it is the first, but there's no proof of that. It seems more likely that we will never know if there was a publication that preceded this one, and so this will remain in copyright limbo. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately many things do end up in similar unsatisfying situations.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim. Unfortunately, it's seems to me that the problem isn't solved. The user again started harassment against me, he blames me in vandalism and continues edit warring, however there were a desicion on the issue. I don't want to write him smth, because he can't adequately react. Please, take any action. --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined the two points of view and protected the file. Neither of you will be perfectly happy, but I think it is OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim. When you have time, could you control A, B, C ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DelReqHandler, which makes closing DRs ten to twenty times faster than doing it by hand, has had a serious problem which was, I think, finally fixed late last week. Because of this, we have a huge backlog to work through. It is better to let us just work through it, item by item, which is faster than taking requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. (but File:Samsun2.png remains) Takabeg (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sreejith got it while I was asleep.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, Can you please reconsider User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive5#Non-educational_but_in_use. I removed the images from the Persian Wikipedia. Thanks Americophile 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you would like me to do. I think they probably should be deleted, but you can start a DR as easily as I. They are not copyvios, so they are not {{Speedy}}, they would need a DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. This is also a way to censor user protests... It would have been kind, if the deleted paper bags would have been replaced through a free one... Chaddy (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About 8,500 new pages, mostly images, are created on Commons every day. Commons Admins delete about 1,300 pages every day. Six of us do half of those and the backlog is increasing. Find us more active Administrators and we can pay more attention to individual images. Until we have more help, though, copyvios will be deleted, but replacing them is up to others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious, who are these 6 admins? --Sreejith K (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the last thirty days:

Morning Sunshine - 10%

Fastily - 10%

Túrelio - 9%

Sreejithk2000 - 7%

Martin H. - 7%

Jameslwoodward - 7%

See http://toolserver.org/~vvv/adminstats.php?wiki=commonswiki_p&tlimit=2592000 -- the number on the end is the number of seconds back. 2,592,000 seconds is thirty days.

Obviously you and Morning Sunshine are new to the top six, but the other six of the top eight last month are all in the all time top ten. See the all time records.

I hope you and Morning Sunshine will keep up the pace -- because of the DelReqHandler problem, the backlog is huge.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page, sorry not to have got back to you sooner.

I do have to say that it seems to me that to take a position against thoroughness, proper annotation, sourcing, referencing of relevant authorities etc seems to me to be going against the tide of progress seen in projects right across Wikimedia.

I can see the point of strongly encouraging people to put their research references on Wikipedia itself where possible, because WP has far the higher visibility for them to be findable by people. So I can see that pushing people in that direction might make sense for eg links to sources listing the complete works of Turner, or the complete output of Ackermann & Co. But it seems to me that a subject like the various engravings of Cambridge [and/or insert arbitrary place here] is not really fodder for an encyclopedia article; instead as an attempt to lump together a collection of primarily visual material, albeit in as thorough and systematic way as possible, its natural domain (it seems to me) is here on Commons -- where the collection would sit and be presented, and so where people might most naturally find links to further information and/or authorities indicating what further items were still missing, to be sought out and uploaded.

The page, particularly as it fills up, will still overwhelmingly be a presentation of visual content. But it seems to me that a relatively small amount of external references at the end would not go out of place.

I appreciate that this may go against the letter of COM:GALL, but per WP:IAR and similar, the letter of policy can only be the first word, not the last word, if there are reasons which make good sense to bend the policy slightly, as I believe I have brought forward above. I hope therefore you find this convincing, but if not then perhaps you could suggest an appropriate venue for wider discussion that could allow the views of more editors to be gained and evaluated.

All best (and my appreciation to you for stepping up to do so much vital admin work, even when so often under-resourced and under-thanked),

Jheald (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very persuasive and my first inclination is to shrug, remembering that we are way behind on DR closures because of a problem with the tool we use. I have better things to do than to argue about one page which will undoubtedly be useful in its entirety.

I also agree that there is a hole in the middle here -- WP:EN won't allow you to host a gallery because they belong on Commons, so how do you put together a page that has directly or indirectly all of the images on a subject?

The problem, though, with your line of reasoning, is that it could be applied to almost anything. Why shouldn't London have a list of external links at the bottom to other sources of good images? The need is not unique to Cambridge.

However, my next choice of examples was Panthera tigris, which, as it turns out, has such a list. Similar links exist elsewhere in animal galleries. So, I'll go with my first inclination.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, can this statue be considered free? Its author died in 1959... -- Blackcat (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) maybe uploaders can't read English, thanks :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or any of 14 other languages on the template?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ഭാരത_വിലാസം_സഭ.jpg was not having a source, no first publication date and no author details, is it necessary to nominate the file for deletion even if there is no source for PD status, Please advice..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a DR. The date of first publication is essential for both Indian and US copyright, and a DR might well find someone who could figure that out -- perhaps even the uploader. The PD-India tag would apply only if the image were actually anonymous and "unknown to us" does not necessarily mean that the image was anonymous. Also, it is a featured picture on WP:ML, so we owe it some consideration.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exact publishing date is AD 1909 and it is clearly mentioned in the photograph. This was taken when Bharathivilasam Sabha, a literary organization was inaugurated in 1909. I do not see why we should doubt about the age of the picture. The persons in the picture are writers of highest dignity in Malayalam literature and it is quite obvious that this photo will not wait another 30 years to be published so that it is not in PD. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith, the English image description says only that the image was taken 1909, not that it was published then. I see no reason to doubt the age of the picture, but I still don't know whether or not it was published. That's what matters for both Indian and USA PD status.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captainofhope is also stressing on that point, as far as I understand. To me, publishing is jut not printing it in a magazine or daily. If the literary organization called Bharathivilasam Sabha took a picture on its inauguration day somewhere in 1909, printed it and placed it in their office reception, I would still consider that as publishing. May be it was published in magazines, articles or even notices at that time, may be they gave away copies of it to whoever was interested; who knows! We cannot obviously furnish online links of something that's 100 years old. Being adamant for an online proof all the time does not help the overall purpose of this project. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If such proof's are not available this picture can be accomodated in local wiki's for the article pages--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Captainofhope. We make the distinction between creating and publishing an image all the time because the law in several countries requires us to do so. "Publish" under the old US Copyright law, which applies here, required the sale of the image in some form -- either as a photographic print or in a book, periodical, poster, etc. Simply posting it or handing it out to a few friends would not suffice. We never require an on-line link, but we do need to know that it was published, within the meaning of the Indian and USA law. Without that, we have to assume that it is under copyright in the USA until 2029 and in India in 2073, assuming it was first published this year.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have preserved this photo in the same building and the publishing year is given below it. See File:Kerala Sahitya Akademi DSC 8800.JPG --Sreejith K (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the picture that way is not publishing under the USA law and probably not under the Indian law. As you know, I can't read the caption -- does it actually say that the image was published in 1909 -- or just that it was created then?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text and its translation is given in the image description itself. The text does not say whether it was published in 1909 but it says the photo was taken in 1909. I do not see a reason why I should doubt whether the image was published for 30 years to be outside of PD. This argument is tiring. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, frankly, it is tiring. As an Admin, even a new one, you are supposed to be able to read and understand the law. In India and the USA, the date of creation does not count, only the date of first publication. There is no evidence that this photograph was published before now. We regularly see images in DRs that were clearly taken in the USA before 1923, but if we cannot show that they were published, we delete them. This is exactly the same.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala_Sahitya_Akademi is started (inagurated) on 1956, Also the publication is not when it started "hanging on the wall". Picture is showing description only but that doesn't mean that it's published in 1909 or 1956 or even taken on the same year.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala_Sahitya_Akademi is a government organization and they took over Bharathivilasam Sabha in order to preserve it. If there is a copyright for this image, Kerala_Sahitya_Akademi will have it.

Jim, Indian copyright rules can be found here (pdf) and it says 3. Meaning of publication.' For the purposes of this Act, "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. in page 5.--Sreejith K (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thank you for that. I suggest you add that to COM:L appropriately as it is very different from the meaning of the word in the USA and other places. Since this is a discussion of an image, not a DR, I don't think more action is needed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin closed the DR discussion by mentioning "Publication Date" which was not yet proved, What action i should take now, As his Keep is one sided and trying to protect an copyrighted (controversial) image by not providing the required informations..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the image on display constituted publication for Indian law, as Sreejith explained above. It would not be so in the USA, but that is not the problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we calculate its initial publication date from 1956, Then also this image is not in PD and moreover its only precautionary principles that this image is available on the "wall" of an organisation established on 1956 and i don't think upon inauguration of the organisation they hanged the image on the wall and made it available to the public.If its as per indian law, Its 60 Years after the first publication, i.e 2029 (If we believe the initial date as 1956)25. Term of copyright in photographs.-In the case of a photograph, copyright shall subsist until 60(sixty) years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is published Page 16 Since the author is unknow the rule 37A (Page 17) also applies 31A.Compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works.-(1) Where, in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 2, the author is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to publish such work or a translation thereof in any language--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR Raised, A similar DR request is running here with a question of first publication--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my table [2]? I want make a table like [3]. First version last table [4] similar my table.Alex Rott (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both tables are out of scope. Commons galleries are for collections of images or other media files. Lists such as this belong in the appropriate Wikipedia, see for example National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston, Massachusetts.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim. My name is Tatyana Grice. The uploaded photographs which you have reviewed (date 31 of March) have been recommended for the early deletion by yourself. My husband and I bought those paintings of this particular artist and others (from their studios directly), and would like to promote our collection (The Grice Collection). Could you be so kind as to explain to us how to claim the image rights as we are new to Wikimedia Commons and we are not experts on copyright law. If you could give us a clear path of instruction to enable us to proceed to the satisfaction of Wikimedia standards we would be eternally grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatyana Grice (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

First, Please 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). Thank you..

Second, "promote our collection" suggests that you may violate our policy against promotional material. Simply showing your collection to the world is very welcome, but attempting to sell part or all of it by advertising it on Commons or Wikipedia is prohibited.

Most important, though is the fact that with few exceptions, none of which apply here, in order to show images that are still under copyright, we need permission from the copyright holder, which, in your case, will be the artists. Please have the artists follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note also,that we have OTRS volunteers who read Russian and Ukrainian -- this does not have to be done in English. For each artist, the permissions should specify the Commons File name or names to which they apply.

If you have more questions or need an alternate way to do this, don't hesitate to come back here with your questions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, Thank you very much for your expedient reply and the important information you have furnished us with. I would like to assure you that the idea never came into our minds to advertise or sell any of the artworks in our collection through Wikimedia Commons or any other source for that matter. What we would like to do is to showcase the work of "The Grice Collection" to the public worldwide. Having read carefully the information given by yourself, we would like to ask you to kindly help us with the following matter: My husband and I would like to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons for the general public to be able to use them for personal usage, but without altering them in any way. Would you be so kind to specify the type of license the artists(copyright holders) should invoke in their letter of "given authority" so as we may get them to sign as proof of copyright, that should in turn allow us to upload the images in a way suitable to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for your help. Tatyana Grice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatyana Grice (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Again, Please 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). Thank you.

We would be very happy to have images of the works you own. Thank you for offering them. However, in order for Commons to accept images, their license must allow commercial use and derivative works -- alterations. We do not accept either a limitation to personal use or "without altering them in any way". There is a full explanation of our requirements at Commons:Licensing.

If you are adamant about either or both of those restrictions, I suggest you use Flickr -- it will take anything and will not trouble you for a license from the artists.

If, on the other hand, you and the artists are willing to give Commons (and the world) a free license, including both commercial use and alterations, then please have the artists follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS which specifies both the permitted licenses and the mechanics of doing it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you have a look at it. Thank you so much--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is no general restriction of freedom of panorama in Slovenia, so some of the images you have deleted should be restored, unless they contain copyrighted work(s) of author(s) who died in 1945 or later (see commons:FOP#Slovenia). The images that should be restored are the following:

• File:Studentske_demonstracije_v_Ljubljani_1.jpg - should be verified whether it contains any copyrighted architecture; if not, it should be undeleted
• File:Janko_Kersnik_plaque.jpg - the plaque erected in 1937, unknown author - therefore 70 years from the first public disclosure of the work
• File:Josipina_Urbančič_bust.jpg - work of Franc Ksaver Zajec, who died in 1888,[5] therefore public domain
• File:Litija_statue.jpg - please tell me what the image contains so that I may verify whether the work is still copyrighted? The title itself does not explain much.
• File:Slatenegg.jpg - See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slatenegg.jpg. The user should be contacted, because the claim is actually not so unbelievable - an OTRS confirmation would be needed. Probably not free, because the copyright is owned by the author, not the owner of the image, but it could be verified who is the original author.

Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Studentske_demonstracije_v_Ljubljani_1.jpg - modern architecture -- clearly still under copyright
• File:Janko_Kersnik_plaque.jpg - unknown to Commons does not mean anonymous for copyright purposes. It is hard to believe that this sculpture and plaque were actually anonymous when created.
• File:Josipina_Urbančič_bust.jpg - restored
• File:Litija_statue.jpg - the sculpture looks very modern, see http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55089558
• File:Slatenegg.jpg What you say is true, by all means try. Until we know when the painter died, though, this can safely stay deleted.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I agree with your decisions. The plaque by Kersnik was erected in 1940 by a student group (the actual creator is not listed), and was renovated in 1952.[6] The Litija monument is work by Drago Košir (1921-2010),[7][8] therefore copyrighted. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I noticed that files like File:Typographic Architectures.jpg are still open. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Typographic Architectures.jpg has no conclusion, but Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01 doesn't list it any more (or an anything that was submitted on January 31), while Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01/31 clearly does exist and has a lot of unhandled request. It looks like there is some sort of systematic failure by which all of the unhandled requests from the second half of January are hidden from the overview of January and have become invisible backlog. Not sure who and how I should alert to this. Whaledad (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well known problem -- there is a limit on the number of transclusions that can appear on a page, so that when a monthly log calls for more than the limit, those daily logs over the limit are not displayed. From the middle of February through the end of March, there was a problem we had with DelReqHandler (the script that Admins use to close DRs) which slowed closures by a factor of ten, so the backlog grew very large and the transclusion problem surfaced again (we last saw it around nine months ago).

As DRs in January are closed and archived by the bot, those later in the month will appear and be handled. Although we've have discussed several ways of eliminating the problem, we've concluded that since it will work itself out, there is not need to do anything.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I just wanted to make sure that those items hadn't completely vanished. That's quite a backlog. Is this due to the number of Mods/Admins? Anything regular users like myself can do to help? Whaledad (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem basically was with DelReqHandler. See User:Jameslwoodward/Commons_notes_for_administrators#DelReqHandler for a description. When it is working (fixed last week), you don't have to wait for any page loads to close a DR -- just click on the appropriate link and write a reason, if needed. This is very fast, particularly on multi-item DRs. Without it, it takes ten to twenty times longer to close a DR (literally -- I'm not exaggerating). So instead of being able to go through a full day's closures in an hour or two, it might take ten to fifteen hours. Now that DelReqHandler is fixed, we should be able to work it out.

As for the number of Admins, yes and no. We have plenty of Admins. The problem is that half a dozen of us do about half of all Admin actions and the other 260 do the rest. We do have a couple of new Admins who seem to have joined the active group.

Known users like yourself can always help by going through DRs and making intelligent comments. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I certainly will spend less time on a DR when one or more editors who I know have commented on it. Thanks for your concern.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jim, sincerilly.--Milartino (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize -- it's a common mistake that I have made myself more than once.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these and ones like this the "provided by" info (& most of that template) looks a bit much? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree -- although he is not, apparently, a professional photographer, so they don't quite violate COM:ADVERT, they are over the line for self promotion. I'm not sure whether I would put a note on his talk page or simply hang {{Delete}} tags on the templates, but you found them, so that's your call.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim. "Joaquin Jimenez" "8 mars 2012 à 18:03‎ CommonsDelinker (discuter | contributions)‎ m . . (5 218 octets) (-61)‎ . . (Retrait du lien Revers_euro.png, supprimé sur Commons par Jameslwoodward ; motif : Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (France))". On 8th March, you deleted a photo 'projet pour l'euro'. My friend Joaquin Jimenez himself had given this photo of his project to me for wikipedia. We liked a photo of the project better than a photo of the definitive euro because : 1.the project is more interesting for coin collectors ; 2.the definitive euro is everywhere on the internet. Please, to install/put this photo once more : 1.do you need the authorization of/from Joaquin? 2.How can we send it to you? Sincerely yours, Thoutha PS:Please, excuse my poor quality English-speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoutha (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Have you changed your name? I do not see any deleted contributions by you. I do see deletions of File:Projet pour l'euro.jpg and File:Revers euro.png, uploaded by User:Thouta, which are probably the files you ask about.

As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (France), the problem is that French Euro coins are copyrighted and the images infringe on the copyright, so we cannot keep them on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your concern about the right to license. Artist Tsvaygenbaum allowed me to use photos of his paintings for my article about his art. His does not have any problem with it. Boxes12 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case he will need to send a message with a license, following the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Unless he does so, the images will be deleted. If you have any question, I will be happy to help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) as you requested it. Thank you for your help. Boxes12 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found his message. Unfortunately he says:

"I agree the use these above photos of my paintings for any articles about my art on

Wikipedia or related sides. For any other uses of the photos of my paintings, permission must be obtained via email."

A license which applies only to Wikipedia or related sites is not sufficient. As set out at Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS, we require a CC-BY or similar license, which allows use anywhere, for commercial use or otherwise, and allows modifications. Please ask Artist Tsvaygenbaum if he will grant such a license. If so, please ask him to send a new message and refer to ticket #2012041210013997. If not, we must delete the images of his paintings.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with the subject: ticket #2012041210013997 Boxes12 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After listing all the images of his work that Boxes12 has uploaded, Tsvaygenbaum says:

"I agree that the image "DrIlizarovFragm.jpg" from my painting can be used for any articles

about my artwork on Wikipedia or related sites and for any other commercial purposes."

This is still not an acceptable license, as it does address modifications (derivative works) and it at least suggests that the image cannot be used for any non-commercial purpose except Wikipedia. Please tell Tsvaygenbaum that rather than try to write his own words, he must use those set forth in the box in the middle of Commons:OTRS.

Also note that he gives permission only for File:DrIlizarovFragm.jpg and explicitly withholds permission for all the others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tsvaygenbaum is concerned for his work, which it is understandable for me. At this point in time he allowed only the “DrIlizarovFragm.jpg” image to be used under the free license policy. I would like to ask you if you know how to protect the copyright of Mr. Tsvaygenbaum’s pictures and at the same time to be able to use the images from his painting for my article about him? Thank you. Best wishes. Boxes12 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at least so far he has not allowed any of his paintings to be hosted on Commons, so even File:DrIlizarovFragm.jpg will be deleted soon. As far as using the others, there is no way that they can be on Commons without his permission. Some of the Wikipedias allow fair use -- Commons does not -- so I suggest you read WP:FAIRUSE and go from there. I am not sure that these paintings will qualify, but I am not up to date on the rules there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with the subject: a new ticket #2012041210013997

Please delete all images, except for the following images that Mr. Tsvaygenbaum allowed to keep in his contract. Here they are: (DrIlizarovFragm.jpg, NailedMenThumb.jpg, BlindMenThumb.jpg, ThePenanceDanceThumb.jpg, BrideThumb.jpg, AliyahThumb.jpg, ShohetWithRoosterThumb.jpg and PeopleOfDerbentThumb.jpg) Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest OTRS message gives an appropriate license for keeping all of the images. However, it comes from a domain owned by Warner Brothers. Isreal Tsvaygenbaum has his own domain, IsraelArtGod.com, and lists his e-mail address there as israel@IsraelArtGod.com. I have sent a message to that address asking for confirmation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tsvaygenbaum sent you the reply to your email. I would like to remind you to delete all images except those that Mr.Tsvaygenbaum listed in his contract. Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the recent deletion of pictures of works by Jurgen Bey, how about this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ngv_design,_jurgen_bey,_st._petersburg_chair,_2003.JPG? Whaledad (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure -- the line between utilitarian and artistic is a difficult one and this chair is somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't oppose deletion, but I wouldn't support it, either.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me _one_ minute?!? Thansk for your cooperation... --Markscheider (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You were just one in a long line. I think it's OK now.

Generally when you create a new Gallery, it's best to create on a User subpage -- User:Markscheider/sandbox1, for example -- and then copy it to mainspace when it's ready. We delete more than 100 new galleries every day, and we aim to do it fast, to discourage vandalism, so out-of-scope galleries are usually deleted very rapidly.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim. I uploaded an image (Amadeo de Souza-Cardoso, Cozinha de Manhufe), to replace an older, low quality one, but I don't know how to do ir properly, and the old image seems to prevail over the new one; I need the image for the new expanded portuguese page on Amadeo I am preparing... Can you help? Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, your new image is in place, exactly as you expect. The problem is very common.

Images and other Internet data are cached on your computer. That is, they are stored locally to avoid downloading them twice, improving response time and saving bandwidth. This works fine almost all of the time, but when you upload a new image over the old one, the software that controls the cache on your computer does not know that there is a new version and it may take a a while before you can see it. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for more details and how to deal with the problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, you'd closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:2011 census of India sticker retouched.jpg, but I'd also nominated the derivative images. Can you take care of those too? Also, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amala-paul13.jpg has been hanging out there for a really long time (I've also linked a discussion we had on the OTRS board reg that). Can you take a look at that too? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paysonville CA Plaque.jpg request to delete a photo I took of an historical plaque on Samoa Peninsula, Humboldt County. I left the source of my confusion on your deletion request page. Please enlighten me? I've taken dozens of photos of plaques up here as have my friends and at no time have any of them been marked for deletion. I am utterly confused, especially as the original request to find this plaque came from a member of a Wiki historical committee years ago! We finally found the thing, covered in plant detritus, cleaned it all off and photo'd it, only to be told "delete"! Eeek! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

See also a previous discussion in German before, where I mentioned this case already: Commons:Forum#wikipediocracy.com in Blacklist? Greetings --Geitost ^diskusjon 22:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with the subject: New additions to the ticket #2012041210013997. He sent a new contract for additional images that I loaded for my article about him. Here they are: (Bride1Thumb.jpg, BoyLeadingTheAngelThumb.jpg, DuetThumb.jpg, AbrahamAndIsaacThumb.jpg, GoldenJarThumb.jpg and RosesThumb.jpg) Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy frowns on having two pages on the same subject. Please put a redirect on one of Исраил Цвайгенбаум or Israel Tsvaygenbaum, see Commons:Galleries#Redirects. That saves you and other editors the nuisance of having to maintain two identical pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a pest, but I've made two nominations of images for deletion, and neither has seen any action. In the past, the process here seems to move relatively quickly. This one is almost two weeks old, and this one is 4 days old. I'm not as familiar with the dynamics here as I am at the English Wikipedia - maybe too many requests and not enough people? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are always welcome -- the only way you can be a pest is to waste time by not asking for help when you need it.

There are several factors. First, and most important, is that DelReqHandler, a script which makes closing DRs ten to twenty times faster than doing it by hand, has had a serious problem which was fixed late last month after being down for about six weeks. Because of this, we have a huge backlog to work through. Normally February would be completely clear by now, but it still is less than a third done and January is less than half done.

The other major factor is that, as you suggest, we need more active Admins. Six of us do about half of the 1,300 deletions every day, while the other 260 Admins do the other half.

I have closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abhay.jpg. On the other hand, while you are probably right about the Parsons image, the DR has only been open four days and our rules do not allow closure before the seventh day unless it qualifies as a {{Speedy}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the detailed explanation, and I'm truly sorry for all your extra work. Good luck with the backlog, and don't forget your non-Wiki life. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closing_discussion_about_CU_misuse – Can you please review the comments and concerns in this discussion? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is closed. It has never been open at a time when I was on Commons, so I have not commented there.

I think that under the circumstances it would have been better if I had simply ignored Niabot's request. My intentions were good, but sometimes good intentions are not enough.

With that said, I did not break the rules in any way. CUs are certainly permitted to make checks whenever they see activity that looks suspicious. It is silly to suggest that you, Michaeldsuarez, can request a CU based on your suspicions, but that I, as a CU, cannot initiate a CU based on my own good reasons. As you have seen in the closed discussion, Herby strongly agrees with me. It is also obvious that most of the Checkuser activity discussed on the CU mailing list is unknown to the community outside of the CUs and Stewards.

I did not reveal any non-public information about Saibo or Niabot. The fact that I myself have seen some IP addresses is not of any importance. The community, including Saibo, who voted for me, apparently trusts me to keep such information private. I can't imagine breaking that trust.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Saibo seems to be unhappy: de:Special:PermanentLink/102279391. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my note in the history there. You had good intentions, of course. :-) --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, sadly I am not here to discuss the merge of the admin handbook(s) but your CU action related to my account. I assume that you did query my and Niabot's IPs and browser details in the following (to prevent any misunderstanding - please correct if wrong). While I honor your good intentions this CU action simply went totally wrong (I am not mentioning all bits – like self-request and useless result – here again). The bad thing is: apparently (based on your answer above) you are not acknowledging/understanding that several basic principles/policy bits were not respected with your query. You violated my privacy without being permitted to do so in any way. I had send you two emails - I got no answer (did you receive my mails at all?). I am also very disappointed that you did not comment at the COM:AN section although you were notified two times here and you were active (were you not?). All that does not mean that I do not trust you to keep that private infos confidential - I do.

All (or most) those issues Geitost brings up (which surely involved quite a lot time writing that up) are valid. Most importantly for me:

1. Why was it justified to query my personal data?
2. Did you query the IP addresses which were used by my account?
3. Did you query which other accounts used the IP addresses (which were used by my account)?
4. Is any personal data from me (IP addresses and browser versions, more is not available in the CU interface) stored on your computer?
5. Is the queried data (the list of IPs) saved permanently on the servers (for future reference) or is the CU query just displaying the data while you viewed it?
6. If I am informed correctly the IP addresses are deleted after three months. Will my IP addresses also be deleted after three months or will that period be prolonged due to the CU query?
7. I hope you learned that using CU to prove the opposite is not useful.
8. I am confused that you see 50 % chance. Based on what?! That is a very high number although it is clear for nearly everybody that both accounts are unrelated. I really hope that did you did not guess that based on browser versions.
9. Do you regard the issued Geitost brought up (similar to mine here) as unimportant?

Please do not publish any private information of me here (also do not send it via email); if you cannot answer without - please do not answer.

Please read the sentence above again. :-)

Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will say that I regret having done this, but I don't think it was a violation of our rules.

I did respond to both of your messages. I will not say here what I address I sent them to, but they were sent at 1415UTC 4/16/2012 and 1626UTC 4/17/2012. If you like, I can send my responses, and your e-mail address, to another CU -- Herby -- and have him try to send them to you.

To answer your questions:

1. Because, even before Niabot raised the issue, I thought it possible that you and Niabot were the same person. CUs are allowed, even encouraged, to act on their own suspicions, and I and other CUs do it frequently.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not anymore (except, of course, insofar as nothing is ever completely deleted from a computer without taking extraordinary measures -- I have no doubt that a forensic technician could find it).
5. I don't know
6. I don't know
7. CU rarely gives a completely clear answer. It is in fact easier to prove a negative that a positive (if the two IP addresses are farther apart physically than the user could have traveled in the time between two posts and no proxies are involved, then you have proved the negative. On the other hand, even identical IP addresses proves only that the two users connect to the Internet at the same point -- they might be at the same school or business, but not the same person.) I have learned to take more care in cases that are inconclusive.
8. I can't respond to this
9. Important, certainly, but perhaps a little off target. I do not believe that a CU check on any user harms him or her in any way. It does not even invade his or her privacy, except to the very limited extent that I will know where they connect to the Internet. Certainly I see IP addresses, but an IP address tells nothing except location, ISP, and type of connection. My IP address will tell you that I am a customer of Comcast, which has millions of customers and names a location that is not where I live, but is in the city where Comcast actually connects to the Internet. Of course, for some people, it will be thousands, not millions, but it will still be a large number. They only way you could actually get a name from an IP address would be to get a court order and take it to the ISP.

So I simply do not understand why you think that the check itself violated your privacy. I recognize that the difference in our thinking may well be cultural. In the USA we are less concerned about certain aspects of privacy than in Europe. In the USA Google shows Streetview images of everything their camera passes. Commons will publish images of people taken in public places in the USA without their permission. And so forth. However, even understanding that difference, I cannot see that my seeing your IP addresses has invaded your privacy.

With that said, I have already said that I agree that giving an inconclusive result, as I did, was not a good idea.

I should add that, as I said above, and in my e-mails to you, I was not on Commons at any time when Geitost's complaint was open. Several of my colleagues had rather forcefully closed it and I certainly had no interest in reopening it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, thank you for you answers and comments. I have again searched through the spam folder but found nothing. Apparently there occurred some rare mail loss then. Could you please just send them again via Special:EmailUser/Saibo?

1: I think it would have been easy to determine from our edits and from the fact that both accounts are very old and active SUL accounts (started at dewp) that both are not belonging to one person - no one would do such an effort. Therefore, even if you would have found out that both accounts edits would constitute misuse in case both were belonging to one person there would have not been a need to check the IP addresses. Please see en:Proportionality_(law)#European_Union_law ("the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it").

6. 7.: Please get the information to enable you to answer question 6 and 7. You are using that tool, you should know what consequences it has. Please do not continue to use CU until you know the answer.

9. Sad that I need to tell you (a CU) the consequences of CU. A CU check harms the privacy insofar that that you potentially know where I live, where I work, where and when I've been traveling, ..., which ISPs I use, which browsers and OSes I use, which other legitimate accounts I may use, which non-logged-in edits are from me, although all that info is not public and you would not have known that otherwise.

Regarding Geitost's discussion: You state that the discussions have been closed "rather forcefully" but refrain from doing anything in this important (you agreed) discussion? Well, well...

Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail sent.

9) -- I don't at all know where you live, work, or travel, except for the place(s) where your ISP(s) connect(s) to the Internet. In my own case, that narrows me down to about a fifth of the USA. Your Babel profile strongly suggests where you are from and calls out a smaller area and number of people than my IP address does. As I said, the only way I can know more than that is to get a court order, and, of course, no court would issue one under these circumstances. Besides that, if it had not been for the fuss over this, I would have forgotten all of the data by now -- I certainly can't remember IP addresses at all and I don't remember other details of CU checks for more than a day or two. You give my memory far more credit than it is due.

And, again, so what? I don't remember the details now and none of the possible choices tell me anything more about you -- it is not as if your choices could tell me that you were a bad person of some sort. It seems to me a little like complaining that I temporarily knew that your house is painted blue. (I hope it is not actually blue, because I don't want anyone thinking that I somehow found that out from your CU data.)

1)"there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it" -- even if I agree that this rule is applicable here, it proves my case. Actually going through and matching edits and times for the two of you would have taken days. The fact that both accounts are of long standing proves nothing.

And, to your final comment, I had responded to your e-mails. A number of our respected colleagues, at least one a CU, had said that the Geitost discussion was closed and that the CU check was within our rules, albeit ill-advised.

Where is this going? It is clear that you are angry -- I'm sorry for that. It's also clear that most of our colleagues think that the check was a mistake -- and I agree -- but that the check was not a violation of our rules. I think that perhaps it is time to end the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, you deleted this picture File:Cygnus X-1.jpg. The licensing details are wrong at this time, but we need only changing to CC-by/3.0. Reasons: As on the source [9] you can read credit the site spacetelescope.org (the source site), clicking on footer left-side you can see at http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/ that all pictures belong to ESA/Hubble are under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. So we need only to relicense the file and it can stay here. So I request undeleting. Greets from Germany! --Quedel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the terms that you cite, there are two things that concern me:

"Q: Do I need to send you a physical copy of any products I have made using your imagery or footage?

A: No, an electronic copy (e.g. a photograph or a PDF) is fine."

This requires that they receive a copy. We do not allow that.

"Our basic intention is to encourage the use of our material and we take a common-sense approach to crediting: our only concern is that you credit clearly, visibly and unambiguously and that the credit is not separated from the image/footage/text." [emphasis added]

This precludes use on WP, where the credits are always separated from the image.

Others may disagree with my reading of this, so I suggest you post a Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, hope you're well. If you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. Do you think that you could have a look at this RfA and tell me whether it has been canvassed? The subject of the RfA just posted this, but it doesn't appear to be representative of clear cut canvassing (user spams other users with requests to !vote). Thanks in advance, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it would fall outside the WP:EN rule as canvassing or not. I plan to raise -- and would happy to join you in raising -- the issue after this RfA is closed. I think that any off-Commons announcement should be forbidden. This one may well be great, but I'm not interested in hearing what WP:DE users who have never been on Commons think about him/her -- I'm only interested in what Commons users think. So I think we should have a rule against this sort of thing.

I don't think it's fair to raise it now, because it is not now against our rules. Sreejithk2000's RfA had much the same thing -- a note posted (not by him) on his home Wiki. He got a lot of Malayalam votes -- people who had little knowledge of Commons. That turned out fine, because he had a lot more experience here than AleXXw. And, of course, he's become our fifth most active Admin without many problems at all, so the canvassing didn't hurt in that case (speaking of which I see 7443 actions for the last month for our most active Admin).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the wrong way to do this I apologize but it said to no longer make edits to the deletion request page Commons:Deletion_requests/File:My .357 Mag S & W model 66-2 (5).jpg. In the future how do I use the OTRS ticket you provided to me. I am trying to not make anymore mistakes in the future. Thank you for any help - Mesinge2

This is exactly the right way to ask for help from a specific user.

You can put the following template on any image page that fits within the permission you gave in your e-mail to OTRS:

{{OTRS permission|2012042010008013}}

That will produce a message box identical to the one at File:My .357 Mag S & W model 66-2 (5).jpg.

Please give us more images of similar overall quality, but if possible, with more pixels. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]