User talk:Jameslwoodward
Add topicThis 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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
My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"
.
[Ticket#2025071410001565]
[edit]The author of the photo is my father, who contacted the editors and released the photograph for free use. Why did you delete it? Ethan Hawley (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The record shows three deleted images uploaded by you -- I did not delete any of them. I am not a VRT member, so I cannot see the ticket you reference. I delete around 150 images every day, so I don't remember this one. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I see from your email that the file in question is File:Мамочка.png. I deleted it because the VRT ticket had not yet been processed. I note that you have uploaded the file again. That is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here.
I also note that Yann has allowed your action to stand so I will not delete the file again.
Please note that Commons emails should be used only for matters that should remain confidential. Matters such as this one must be handled in public, so your emailing information actually slowed my response as well as taking more of my time.
Finally, please note that raising an issue in three different places -- email, UnDelReq, and here is a waste of your time and that of Admins dealing with the issue. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I hope this message finds you in good health. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding. My activity was never intended to take away your time or energy for your own life. For me, it is a form of grief therapy and a way not to lose my sanity. It pains me deeply to see the memory of my mother being treated with such disregard. I am truly sorry. Yet it is very important to me that her eyes continue to look into the world — if only through the pages of Wikipedia. Ethan Hawley (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I reject completely the thought, "It pains me deeply to see the memory of my mother being treated with such disregard." Commons has strict rules intended to protect copyright holders from people using their work without permission and those who use images from inadvertently using an image without appropriate permission. Until the related email reaches the head of the long queue and is processed, an image has no place on Commons, so it is held in limbo -- visible only to Administrators. There is nothing disrespectful about this -- it is simply required process. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Respected Sir, The letter concerning the transfer of rights was already sent back in June/July. The correspondence with the editor has unfortunately led my father to a hypertensive crisis. I understand that there is a certain procedure to be followed. However, I cannot comprehend why a son should not have the right to use a photograph of his late mother in a publication about her.
- How does this situation affect the copyright of my father, who is the photographer and author of the image? It was his express wish that the photograph be used. And if he were to pass away, how would it then be possible to include this photograph?
- I kindly ask you to advise me on how to proceed. Ethan Hawley (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I reject completely the thought, "It pains me deeply to see the memory of my mother being treated with such disregard." Commons has strict rules intended to protect copyright holders from people using their work without permission and those who use images from inadvertently using an image without appropriate permission. Until the related email reaches the head of the long queue and is processed, an image has no place on Commons, so it is held in limbo -- visible only to Administrators. There is nothing disrespectful about this -- it is simply required process. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
File removal question
[edit]Hello, you kept file nominated for deletion, which is non-real fabricated flag with no sources, that was nominated for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Partnership flag.png. Your have given reason: file is in use. This file is used on personal wiki pages of private users. I can remove and change other users pages? ThecentreCZ (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
"This file is used on personal wiki pages of private users." is only partly correct. In any event, we do not delete files that are in use. The feeling on Commons is that the judgement of editors on the various wikis is likely to be better than that of one or two of us here. Also note that it is against the rules for you to remove the various uses of it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I have already nominated several files for deletion, that were in use too, nominated for same reason. These files were removed from Commons. It was removed even though they were in use. We didn't go through tens of pages to remove. What are you talking about usage removal? This is not against the rules to remove not real information. I asked about usage on private wikipedia pages, not usages that will be removed. ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you closed this deletion request saying there was no valid reason for deletion
, but I'm not sure I agree? The reason is that it's copyrighted, as it's very unlikely to be public domain in the Philippines due to their sweat of the brow. See for example the images listed in COM:TOO Philippines which have registered copyrights and are certainly simpler than the TV Patrol logo. Perryprog (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
ToO questions are highly subjective, particularly in countries where there is not a lot of case law. Not much sweat of brow in this -- I could create it in 2 minutes. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, TOO is super subjective, but there are registered copyrights in the Philippines for far simpler logos that are practically just a typeface in a polygon. (See the Sikwate example which has a registered copyright—I know that's not the same as a case law determination, but it's better than nothing.)
I'm also still a bit confused why you said there wasn't a valid reason for deletion. The reason for deletion would be a copyright violation, whether or not the community ends up determining if that's the case. Perryprog (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- If the logo is below the ToO, which I believe it is, then it is PD and there is no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hm. Fair enough on TOO. Regarding the close rationale—and I know this is splitting hairs, I genuinely don't mean this as criticism—but I still find that a bit confusing. If the claim is "I don't think this is freely licensed because XYZ" then closing the deletion request saying "no valid reason for deletion" (because XYZ ends up being wrong, whether subjectively or objectively) reads to me as saying "being not freely licensed isn't a valid reason for deletion". Does that make sense? Perryprog (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- "No valid reason for deletion" is the default reason for a KEEP decision. When the reason I kept the file is that the reason given in the nomination is not valid, I simply hit "Keep" and move on. If my decision is for a different reason, then I will amplify. In a sense, any keep decision requires that there is "No valid reason for deletion", so it is a good default. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ahhhhh okay, that makes a lot more sense then. I didn't realize that was a default, and considering the backlog of DRs... yeah, I can't blame you. Thanks for the elaboration! :) Perryprog (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- "No valid reason for deletion" is the default reason for a KEEP decision. When the reason I kept the file is that the reason given in the nomination is not valid, I simply hit "Keep" and move on. If my decision is for a different reason, then I will amplify. In a sense, any keep decision requires that there is "No valid reason for deletion", so it is a good default. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hm. Fair enough on TOO. Regarding the close rationale—and I know this is splitting hairs, I genuinely don't mean this as criticism—but I still find that a bit confusing. If the claim is "I don't think this is freely licensed because XYZ" then closing the deletion request saying "no valid reason for deletion" (because XYZ ends up being wrong, whether subjectively or objectively) reads to me as saying "being not freely licensed isn't a valid reason for deletion". Does that make sense? Perryprog (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I saw your note about the blue plaques in Johannesburg. Victuallers posted a message on my talk page here at the Commons pointing out that some of the plaques were manufactured in the UK and wondering if freedom of panorama would apply to those plaques. Regardless, the issue is likely more complex and time consuming than I am prepared to take on at the present time so I will not be nominating the rest of the photos for deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Please double check the DR. The delete tag is still in the file, and I think the keep decision is wrong because the screenshot creator is not the camera operator of the remote sides, so not copyright holder. --Krd 08:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see a delete tag on either file. As for copyright, all of the cameras are either built in or sit on top of their screens, so none of them have an operator or copyright. The arrangement of images on the page is done by Zoom, so even that has no human involvement. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what I may have see. Sorry. Krd 13:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
all of the cameras are either built in or sit on top of their screens
: as is mine, but I still choose where I aim it when zooming. And surely you are not making that claim for the photo of Angela Davis at lower right. Plus at least on of these users chose to blur the background. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
It is well established that images from fixed cameras do not have a copyright, and the fact that you choose where to aim it does not change that. If it did, then the hundreds of images using {{PD-automated}} would have to be reconsidered. The several images that show background blur are likely simply lack of depth of field. The Angela Davis image is probably de minimis. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. Most of us, when zooming, are making one or more specific framing decisions. The composition is no more a "fixed camera" situation than when a photographer uses a timer to be able to move around and place themself in frame in an image with a DSLR. Less so, actually, because there is nothing to prevent adjusting the direction of the camera at any point during the video conference. Have you never moved your computer/camera within a Zoom session or similar videoconference? - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I think maybe this one is ok. {{PD-Russia-1996}} says works published before 1941 have a 50 year protection period. A 1937 work would have been PD in 1988, which is before the URAA date. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Good catch, thanks. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Restaurar logos simples modificados por IA
[edit]@Jameslwoodward:Buenas, se puede restaurar el logo modificado por Gemini (Gemini usa watermark pero el logo es transparente color blanco) por ejemplo (File:Logo wordmark (AI) Alcaldia Municipio Rangel (Mérida) gestión Álvaro Sanchez 2013-2017.png) ,el logo es wordmark pero el nombre "Municipio Rangel" existe en Wikipedia,necesito saber si es posible restaurar este? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
_Alcaldia_Municipio_Rangel_(M%C3%A9rida)_gesti%C3%B3n_%C3%81lvaro_Sanchez_2013-2017.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I would say "No", but others may disagree. Try using Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ok,thank you. AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Sum of all paintings galleries
[edit]Thank you for your reply, I have created a post on the noticeboard where I hope I have represented the situation fairly
COM:AN
[edit]
Ostrea (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm confused why you closed this as "no valid reason for deletion". Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats is fairly clear that files which are "essentially raw text" - like this PDF - are not in scope on Commons. There is already a scan of this book on Commons at File:Maurine and Other Poems.djvu, and a transcription on Wikisource as en:s:Maurine and Other Poems. Omphalographer (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I likewise think that you missed the point of this DR. Or was the DR closed when it was still used at Wikisource? Wikisource uses now File:Maurine and Other Poems.djvu for s:Maurine and Other Poems which is a proper scan and not a printout of a scanned text. The file of this DR is now unused. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
AFBorchert & Omphalographer, I don't understand the problem here. Both files are scans of books. The DJVU is an earlier edition which contains more poems, but the PDF includes at least one poem that is not in the DJVU. Since it costs us nothing to keep both, why should we delete a work that contains at least one poem that we would not otherwise have? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, File:Maurine and Other Poems (1910).pdf is not a scan. It is a print-out of the Gutenberg text. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- AFBorchert -- I think you may be wrong. Looking carefully at the PDF file and at the Gutenberg book side by side, I see that the PDF is set in the same font, but a slightly larger type size and it is not quite as crisp. I think the PDF might be an original scan. But, that doesn't really matter to the issue at hand. The PDF has at least one more poem than the djvu and therefore should be kept. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- According to the metadata on the PDF, it was created using an online file conversion tool (Zamzar). It is certainly not a scanned document. The differences in the text are because it is actually a transcription of a different, later edition of the book ("Popular Edition, with many New Poems"). Commons does not appear to currently have a scan of this edition, but a PDF printout of a Project Gutenberg transcript is not an adequate substitute. Omphalographer (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, again this is not a scan but a printout of the Gutenberg transcription. The font Times New Roman did not even exist at that time. I am sorry that you do not see the obvious. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- This missing crispness is just an effect of Wikimedia builtin rendering. Just download it and look at it. You can also analyze it with the usual PDF utilities. Creator is Zamzar using three TrueType fonts Times New Roman, Times New Roman Italic, and Times New Roman Bold. It is as plain as a printout as it can be. You can trust me on that, I am teaching digital typography at university level. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- AFBorchert -- I think you may be wrong. Looking carefully at the PDF file and at the Gutenberg book side by side, I see that the PDF is set in the same font, but a slightly larger type size and it is not quite as crisp. I think the PDF might be an original scan. But, that doesn't really matter to the issue at hand. The PDF has at least one more poem than the djvu and therefore should be kept. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)