User talk:Jameslwoodward

Jameslwoodward's Archives
Archive 1 (oldest) Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

---

[copied from e-mail -- the writer is User:Robert Ackermann]
Dear James Woodward,

I see a string of photographs of Kurt Aepli's creations have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons November 11 and 12.

This is my first project on Wikipedia, and I am keenly aware that I have a lot to learn in this respect. I therefore appreciate your patience with my limited technical know-how. That said, Mr. Aepli's successor at the School of Arts in Zürich, Switzerland, Mr. Peter Widmer, took months to track down Mr. Aepli's son, carry this material together from his estate and to prepare it for presentation with me.

This article, including its photographs, is an effort of Mr. Widmer and myself to keep Mr. Aepli's legacy alive. I myself was privileged to work with him during his last active years. I am sure you agree that this is about nothing less than cultural history of Zürich and the jewelry trade during the post-war years, which has been the object of envy in much of the world. Mr. Aepli was one of this city's driving creative and educational forces of that period.

How can it be that these photographs could have been tossed just like that?

How can these photographs be reinstated and the contribution be made less vulnerable to such manner of damage?

Your attention advice are much appreciated.

Yours truly,

Robert Ackermann, G.G.

-- This e-mail was sent by Robert Ackermann to Jameslwoodward by the "E-mail user" function at Wikimedia Commons.
[e-mail copy ends]

I am sorry that these images were deleted when they might have been kept. Commons works very hard to ensure that all of its images are free for use and therefore they are all constantly subject to review. You ask, "How can it be that these photographs could have been tossed just like that?"

They were deleted after public deletion requests which lasted a week. You received invitations to participate in the processes on your talk page. It is very understandable that you joined Commons to accomplish this project and have not been watching your talk page since then, but that is the way the process works. The two discussions took place at:

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christuskirche_Nürnberg-Steinbühl.jpg and
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kurt_Aepli_watercolor_renderings.jpg

There was no comment against deletion and every reason to do so, namely that they infringed Kurt Aepli's copyright in his work. We had no reason to believe that there was any permission for any of them.

If you had put the comments above into the deletion requests, we would have held the matter until you had followed our procedure for such things, namely that the current owner of the copyright send a permission as shown at Commons:OTRS.

You should probably point out to the copyright owner that such permission will, by our rules, include irrevocable permission to make and sell posters, postcards, and other reproductions of the works worldwide.

Once we have received OTRS permission, they can easily be undeleted. A note will go into each image file showing a reference to the OTRS record and a note will go into each image's talk page showing the deletion request closed as a keep. A subsequent deletion request, while possible, is unlikely, and would not last long unless there were good reason -- evidence of forged permission or something similar.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did suppress Léon Silbermann as out of scope of the project. This man is the well known author of "Souvenirs de campagne", an unique testimony of a private in the colonial army of France around 1900 (Dahomey, Madagascar, Vietnam, Boxers war). So I did create Category:Léon Silbermann to link his book (DJVU file for Wikisource project) to military in France. I hope to get a picture of him. If yo think it must be destroyed because there is a single image, go to Category:Marcel Bigeard (colonial army of France around 1950) and destroy Bigeard as well. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Galleries#When_to_create_a_gallery clearly says:

"A single image on a page is not a gallery."

Commons is a repository of images. I have no doubt that Silberman is notable, but a gallery is for "a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons". One image -- and that only the cover of a book -- is not a structured and meaningful collection.

Creating the Category, on the other hand, is a good thing, thank you.

The fact that there are other violations of the rule is not relevant. Fifty active Commons Administrators make about 27,000 administrative actions a month and we certainly miss many actions that we should make.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, it was not a single image, it was the DJVU book, with display of the Title page. But no matter. If category is OK, Silbermann and his book are now linked where somebody can find it. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A gallery does not help anyone to find an image -- that is the job of categories.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, can you do one more image upload set delete? They are all uploaded in sequence, listed at:User_talk:Tomruen#Help_batch_deleting. Tomruen (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check -- I think that everything there was gone at 13:07 30 November (UTC).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate? [[1]] Tomruen (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was open for two weeks -- which is double the required time. We have no mechanism for forcing people to make comments and it's probable that dozens of our editors saw the DR and chose not to make a comment. I think you will find that most Admins tend to close DRs that have no comments other than the nominator if it appears to them to be the right thing to do. That's particularly true when the nominator, Eusebius, is a senior Admin with tens of thousands of such actions under his belt.

The important question is, "Did we miss something?" -- should I take a special look at something?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The communication failure was that I uploaded files to en.wiki, and I think a bot moved to commons, so I had no watch there. Scondly there are about 50 such animations uploading (collected here: en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_solar_eclipses/SEAnimations), so deleting one without consideration for all is rather inefficient, although it got my attention! Lastly, I have some email contact with the author awhile back. If better permission is needed, then that should be attempted! Basically I saw some were uploaded, and I uploaded the rest and copied their licensing option. Tomruen (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you can get him to give permission -- see Commons:OTRS -- we can easily undelete. If not, maybe you should tag the rest with {{Delete}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I get around to it, I'll try to find the communication from a while ago, or as a second approach contact Fred Espenak from NASA and see if he has current contact. Tomruen (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this. Thank you again for your neutral assistance on this! I would appreciate having the date that those two photos were taken and the name of the photographer. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both images say:

• Author = Emil Eikner for Southerly Clubs
• Date = 2008-12

Note that that is the date shown in the description of the photos -- it is the same as the upload date, so it is possible that the uploader put the wrong date in the field.

Thank you for your polite acceptance of my bad news -- it is rare that an undeletion request, particularly one that had some friction in its history -- ends with such a polite response.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir for this very encouraging reply. Your kindness is greatly appreciated, especially with continuing new retaliation going on against me of this kind.

If someone would try to help Kuiper and me stay away from each other's work permamently, as I have asked officially, I would be very grateful. I'm sure other neutral editors can help me correct any errors I might make, or the Southerly Clubs might have made, without this constant, sickening persecution nightmare with Kuiper having to go on and on forever. Please let me explain that I have never once initiated any complaint about any of his work! I have only reacted when he has attacked mine or Southerly Clubs's for various more-or-less valid reasons, always with sarcasm, ridicule and personal insults from him leveled at me or other Southerly Clubs people. Truly yours, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Pieter Kuiper is not my favorite person by any means, he does do a great deal of good work. I agree with him about 95% of the time, which is about average for active editors. His attitude, however, leaves something to be desired. Without defending Kuiper, I have to say that when editors find problems with one of an editor's uploads, we will often look at all of the editor's work and mark other problems also. This can feel like persecution, but I'm sure you can see the logic of it. In this case I think Kuiper's tagging it with a DR was correct -- as he points out, the description falls short -- it is not just a Super-8 clip. Your explanation in the DR is good, and if you had included that information in the original description, you might have avoided the DR.

Kuiper has been blocked for his behavior from time to time, so he knows there are limits. Within those limits, I am afraid you must just put up with him. If he goes outside of them, several Admins will take notice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sir, but he just leveled an atrocious ethnic slur at a German user and repeated that he meant just that, but not one administrator took notice, that I can see. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? (Please try to always give links as it saves a lot of time.)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Thought you were aware of this discussion which is so disturbing in so many ways. I lost sleep over it last night and will probably do so again tonight (Stockholm time). SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're both a little behind the time -- Kuiper has been blocked for a month.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was blocked - but only for a few minutes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please tell me if I am way out of line here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all out of line, but perhaps quixotic.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment créer cette categorie ainsi que Catégorie: art? --Jeandefoix (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK:

• Category:X
• Category:Art -- que existe maintenant

Pas OK:

• Catégorie:X
• Catégorie:art
• Catégorie:Art

Les catégories de Commons sont dans l'anglais, voyez Commons:Categories#Category_names.

Aussi, les noms de catégories commencent avec une majuscule:

• OK -- Category:Art
• Pas OK -- Category:art

Enfin, je ne comprends pas "tag cloud script". Qu'est que c'est?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Concerned_about_Badzil_and_Whowiki please? I see you are deleting some of Whowiki's images and I have some concerns about that. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it an hour ago, undeleted one of the images to look at the issue and then deleted it again -- it is typical when an Admin looks at a deleted image that he or she will redelete it until a consensus is reached. It appears that Turelio actually deleted almost all of them.

Although your description --that a change in license is not permitted -- makes a strong case for undeleting them, both his comments and the wide variety of notable people suggests that these might not actually be Whowiki's images. They may not have been properly {{Speedy}}, but they would probably be a delete after a DR. Best thing is probably to take the whole list to Commons:Undeletion requests and see. Here's the list as I see it.

• File:Chirac7.jpg
• File:Giscard et moi.JPG
• File:Giscard et moi-crop.jpg
• File:Henri d'Orléans, Comte de Paris, Duc de France.jpg
• File:Jacques Chirac et Benjamin Kurtz 2.jpg
• File:Jean-Pierre Raffarin & Benjamin Kurtz.jpg
• File:Le Comte, la comtesse de Paris & Benjamin Kurtz.jpg
• File:Lech Walesa & Benjamin Kurtz 1.jpg
• File:Lech Walesa & Benjamin Kurtz 2.jpg
• File:Marcel Dassault & Benjamin Kurtz.jpg

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be honest I don't care about the individual images, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't an editor flouncing and throwing a hissy fit, asking for all their content as I have seen some do on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know how an in-use file is out of scope. You deleted the file referencing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Functional groups.jpg but specified nothing besides "deleted". Why was it deleted? I did not upload the file, but as an administrator on one of the sites using the file I could possibly have turned the content into text or LaTeX markup had I known the file was to be deleted. This is why I am continually frustrated that CommonsTicker is not functional. Now the book that was using that image is missing content. The books states "see image below" and I can not see the image to replicate it. – Adrignola talk 15:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it temporarily so that you can copy it. It is out of scope because Commons does not host images that consist solely of text that could and should be set in type, see Commons:Scope#Must_be_a_media_file.

"Wikimedia Commons hosts only media files such as photographs, scanned images, diagrams, animations, audio (e.g. music, spoken dialogue) and video clips, along with any associated metadata. Explanatory and other text is permitted on the file page only to the extent to which it advances Commons' aims and is not excluded educational content....

The following are not considered media files, and may not be hosted here:

• Files which are representative merely of raw text (e.g. ASCII files, raw source code listings as mentioned above, etc)...."

Although our policy is that media files are automatically in scope if in use on another project, that policy does not extend to files such as this, see Commons:Scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project:

"A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like." [emphasis added]

As for my lack of comment, the nominator's comment was complete and correct. Ten Commons Admins make more than 16,000 administrative actions a month and are not keeping up with the work -- we do not add comments to straightforward deletions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the file. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As i checked a wrong spelling of Rigde instead of Ridge, see http://here here, there a several ones. Now, i would like to rename the Files correctly. Can you advise me please, how to do that ? Thanks -- Gary Dee (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes an editor with Filemover rights to rename a file -- you're a little new to Commons for that. You can just add the template {{rename|newname.jpg|reason for renaming}} to the file to request it. In this case, I've done

• File:Vimy Rigde - captured machine gun fortification.jpg >> File:Vimy Ridge - captured machine gun fortification.jpg
• File:Halilim rigde3.JPG >> File:Halilim ridge3.JPG

The other misspellings are in the descriptions and you can change those.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I remember someone telling me a while ago that it is possible to rename things on my own, but as you say, he probably did not know that i was kind of new. Anyway, thanks once more ;) --Gary Dee (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today I uploaded some images that were not permitted. This image is from the same source as some of them but the permission is different. I think it is OK to upload, but I'm just checking before doing so.

http://www.ipmimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=5194019
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Image Use:(?) You must attribute the work in the manner specified (but not in any way that suggests endorsement).
Image Citation:(?) Florida Division of Plant Industry Archive, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bugwood.org

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. If I remember correctly, the five that I did not tag all had CC-BY-3 (which is CC shorthand for "Creative Commons Attribution Version 3.0"), which is fine -- it is actually less restrictive than the CC-BY-SA that Commons uses generally -- including all of your text contributions. "SA" adds the requirement that users share alike. "NC" -- non commercial and "ND" -- no derivatives -- are the troublemakers. Although Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses is not exhaustive, it's a good place to start looking when you run across a license you don't recognize. You might find this a little clearer, although it covers only the CC licenses.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not quite sure about the sense or the missuse of this file, as it is listed in several Illinois countys. Maybe that person, want to bee seen, and has a complex ?? Maybe you see a better sense in it (I mean there is an article of him as a personality, but what are these Cats in all those countys should be good for ??) :) THX --Gary Dee (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back in the history often helps with questions like this -- the counties were added by a bot -- I don't know why -- and I have removed them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jöpp, thanks ;) --Gary Dee (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your even-handedness in all this. I'm sorry to see them go, but if the authors are identifiable and dateable, then I guess it has to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you know, I'm a railfan myself, so it was just a matter of doing what our rules say we must, and no more.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to upload a small series of books by Procopius of Caesarea, and I'd like to create a gallery of files into that page... no matter, but I'll presume, I was not so wrong. I know that there's the excellent alternative of a page into Creator: namespace, but I thoght that a Procopius of Caesarea page could be a good intermediate step. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 12:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies -- apparently you got got caught in the middle of doing something that was OK. We see around one hundred new pages created every day and about 80% of them are out of scope, often short biographies like yours. There are three things you can do to avoid this problem:

• Put a short note on the top, such as {{Inprogress}} which adds this: In progress
• Do all the work using "Show preview" and don't click on "Save" until it is an OK page
• Do all the work in User:Alex_brollo/Sandbox or a similar user subpage and copy it when done.

Since there are several active New Page Patrollers, just telling me won't solve the problem.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions. I'll be happy to let all from you work efficiently. I'll build again the page after my uploads, and I'll post just a brie mention of author's biography and a good link. Really Commons is a complex project, I'm so happy about slow speed of wikisource! And I'd to study more Commons features and conventions... but time is always lacking. :-( --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember how much text was on the page -- if it would help, I can undelete the page and move it to User:Alex_brollo/Sandbox if you wish -- just ask.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you are making a serious mistake regarding the US Bureau of Prison photographs. I spoke at length with the person responsible for processing requests and permissions for use of BOP photographs. She said that some were taken by Federal employees in the course of their duties and others were taken by contractors. I sent her a list of the BOP photos in commons and she promised to research them individually, but she has not gotten back to me yet. The general inquiry email posted by KimChee is not reliable. The photo is in the public domain only if it was taken by a federal employee. Some photos on the website fit into that category and others do not. Please look at {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}, because we can't represent that the conditions of that template have been met, this is not presumptively a public domain work. Thanks, 66.173.140.100 23:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]