User talk:Jameslwoodward
Add topic| Archives
| |
|---|---|
2009-10
2011
2012 | |
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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
My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"
.
Hi Jim, just for clarification, why don't you see an URAA issue in this case? Gestumblindi (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Good catch, thank you. I kept it because I was keeping all of the DRs from Walid wadjai and I didn't look hard enough at this one. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Planche botanique de Heliconia Rostrata (Héliconia rostré ou Pince de homard).png
[edit].png){kind=link}
I assume you meant to close this as "deleted per nomination"? Omphalographer (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks -- working too fast. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hi, Jim. You've claimed that you kept second version, but entire page has been deleted. Юрий Д.К. 11:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Thank you. It looks like I hit the button twice, once correctly and then again. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Thank you! Юрий Д.К. 14:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Slovenian municipal coats of arms
[edit]Hi Jameslwoodward,
I hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to apologize for having uploaded some Slovenian municipal coats of arms in the past that later turned out to be problematic on Commons. I understand and respect Commons’ standards on sourcing and licensing, and I’m sorry for any extra work this may have caused.
Recently, while making edits to pages about Slovenian municipalities, I noticed that many coats of arms I had been using were deleted. I had previously discussed the topic with a few Italian sysops (you can see some of that background on my Commons talk page), but only after these edits I realized how many files had been removed.
What I’m trying to understand is this: looking at my own upload history, there are still other similar coats of arms that remained on Commons. Could you please explain why those files were kept while the others were deleted? I’d like to learn what the key difference was (source type, evidence, license template, “own work” vs. reproduction, etc.), so I can avoid repeating mistakes.
Also, is there a recommended way to re-upload/restore the missing coats of arms while strictly following Commons rules? I’m happy to do the work properly, file by file, with strong evidence (e.g., official gazette/municipal ordinances, archived sources, clear rationale for PD-Slovenia-exempt where applicable). If the best practice is to redraw from an official annex or to request undeletion only in certain cases, I’m willing to follow that.
Thanks for your time, and for any guidance you can provide.
Best regards, Dario .snoopy. ✉ 16:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
We have over 100 million files on Commons. My wild guess is that at least several million of them ought to be deleted for one reason or another. The problem is, we have no systematic way of finding problem files, so while some files are found and deleted, other similar files may stay on Commons for a long time even though they ought to be deleted. With 10,000 new files every day, it's a losing battle.
As far as Slovenia goes, I am going to stay away from its files. The law we quote speaks only of "texts", which does not include images, but the PD template specifically says CoAs are PD even though the source clearly says they are not.
It is entirely possible that some or all of the files which I deleted are PD. I can only say that if that is the case, I am sorry, but that was my honest reading of the law. I also note that I put a warning note on the UnDR saying what I thought was the proper course of action and did the deletion only after that warning had sat without further comment for about eighty days. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Hey!
I see that you deleted the file here even though I refused to delete it. I've seen dozens of files with autographs of people that were taken from photographs with autographs literally on eBay and Amazon. And the users were given the links to these products as a source, half of the links were not even accessible.
I don't understand your reason for deleting it. Even if Alfie Williams signs a blank piece of paper, he'll still have the exact same signature (people don't usually change their signatures every time, remember?). So if he has the same signature everywhere, then how can the non-free photo from where I got the signature influence it? -- Nurtenge (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I deleted it because it was extracted from a copyrighted work and I think that it is beyond a significant doubt that the copyright goes with the signature even with the photo removed.
However, I also note that the UK ToO for signatures is very low and therefore this is certainly above it, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom/en#Signatures. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- So how does this file make sence? This is just one of dozens of such files that I have seen. Nurtenge (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Cillian Murphy is Irish, not British, so the UK low ToO does not apply. We have no guidance on the Irish ToO for signatures. Remember, also that my best guess is that at least a million files on Commons ought to be deleted, so the fact that you find something similar means only that you might nominate it for deletion, although that is not true in this case. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
I am the photographer of this image.
The building appears as part of the urban landscape of Athens and the photograph was taken from a public space.
The purpose of the image is documentary and encyclopedic, showing the contemporary built environment of the city.
I believe the building is depicted as part of a broader cityscape and not as an architectural reproduction of plans or artistic details.
--Apaleutos25 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Since the copyrighted building is almost the only thing visible in the image, it is hard to see how you can imagine that that the image does not infringe on the copyright. About half of all countries exempt such images from copyright, but Greece is not one of them.
Note also that reloading an image second time after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mall Athens.jpg and please use exact same verbiage as last time, for the lore. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know there was a second DR open -- I deleted it as reload of a previously deleted image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Why did you delete my redirect?
[edit]Bit confused about this. I created a redirect on Grey seal to Halichoerus grypus, and you deleted it? How come? According to Commons:Galleries#Redirects, redirects are fine, and even encouraged. Sorry if I've made a mistake. LetmeEditit (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Commons policy is contradictory here. At the top of the page you cite, we have, "Galleries without media are not galleries at all. They are considered out of the project scope and meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Then later, as you say, there is discussion of directs on gallery pages. I take this to mean that only essential redirects should be allowed, which means that redirects to galleries are usually not needed since a Category Redirect serves the purpose. Since categories are much more important tools than galleries, I wonder why you haven't created category redirects for Category:Gray Seal and Category:Grey Seal. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- My interpretation of this policy is different. I agree that "Galleries without media are not galleries at all", but I feel that if a page only contains a redirect, it is functionally not a "gallery page" at all, and is instead a new type of page, the "redirect page".
- I made the redirect to help new users of Commons, people who doesn't understand the category system yet. I have tried to use Commons myself as a casual user before, and having to use the scientific names of animals in order to find the correct page felt unintuitive. I feel like making common name redirects might help to reduce confusion.
- Overall, we could do with a rewrite of the policy, as it is contradictory as you mention. That would allow the community to figure out which one of our interpretations is the correct one. LetmeEditit (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh also, I hadn't thought about making category redirects. Thanks for the advice! I'm still learning :) LetmeEditit (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
OK, you make sense -- I restored Grey seal. Please feel free to do others. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
|
File:Trio-Stempel crop.jpg has been nominated for deletion at
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
