User talk:Jameslwoodward

Archives
2009-10 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

I like to keep discussions in one place, so:

• I will respond on this page to everything left on this page.
• If I leave a message on your talk page, I will look there for a response.
• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page.

My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

Some ancient deletion request(s)

Hi, I'm currently working through Category:Media needing categories (Cyrillic names) and came across a file that was nominated for deletion in 2016: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Яблочки.jpg. You were the admin who closed the request as "kept", which is perfectly understandable given the nomination rationale. However, I've noticed that it was the uploader who nominated the file for deletion, and they did so within 7 days after upload, so maybe the file should have been deleted after all no matter the invalid reason for deletion? I haven't checked all files of that ulooader yet, however, they nominated at least another one of their then recent uploads for deletion and yet the files were kept. I don't know whether the files should be deleted retrospectively or not, just thought I'll bring it to your attention for consideration since there appear to be several affected files if you look through the uploader's contributions. Nakonana (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If I might chime in, my personal approach is that in cases where COM:CSD#G7 would have been applicable anyway and the uploader "mistakenly" filed a regular DR, I process the DR as a G7 case, that is, the uploader's wish is enough. But after so many years... - the image might now be in use by external users, I would rather keep it now. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not in use, but it is a perfectly good image of apples, so I think we should keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much agree with the two of you. It probably should have been handled as G7, but after so many years and with it being a decent photo, it's tricky. I wasn't sure how such a case should be handled that's why I asked. But it looks like there's consensus to keep it. Nakonana (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SkyWest, Inc. logo.svg

@Jameslwoodward:Hi,its should be deleted or kept?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Borderline. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:SageBravura_and_Lexi_(Minecraft_Character_Render)_USING_Mine-Imator_2.0.png

@Jameslwoodward I explained why the image is in scope and no counterargument as to it being in scope was provided. The deletion reason was not valid. We were discussing the copyright status of the image and the block of the uploader. Please unclose the request, I did not get the chance to reply to the last message from Bedivere.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The big issue is that the uploader is a self-promoter, and as such this file is anti-educational. As said, I agree that there probably isn't a copyright issue. Our projects are not here for SageBravura to promote themselves. Abzeronow (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

As I explained and no one contested, the image has educational use. If there was no copyright issue, we can edit out anything "self promotional" from the page. But I don't know with who you are "agreeing" that there probably isn't a copyright issue, because it was me who brought it up.

I understand the user did self promotion, but please understand, it's not uncommon in social media to post links to other social media, and I think clearly the user is not too old and probably didn't read much rules before doing those edits. But they were not given any warning before being indefinitely blocked. This image is clearly in scope and I don't see any reason the user couldn't produce more useful contributions.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a waste of your time and mine to argue issues in two places. There was a significant consensus that the image was out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, you threatened to block me if I open another UDR. Did you even read past the file name, or did you assume I am the uploader of the file and immediately close the request? Because it's not me who uploaded the file, but I am a contributor on this project, so even if this image was not in scope, I am allowed to use it as my personal image if I want. Again, nothing about the image itself is self promotional and it has a clear educational use. Just claiming that the image is not in scope won't make it true.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The image is a Minecraft rendering of the uploader and their significant other, it's by definition a self-promotional work. The uploader is not notable and therefore this is out of scope. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

So if an image is self promotional it nullfiies all other educational use of the image?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   19:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Chelle-Lis-2024.jpg

Hey James, I mentioned that the artist licensed the picture under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license on her Facebook, and I saw that you supported my response. However, some of the others still have concerns. What do you suggest I do next?

ToPSURJ4311 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I myself wondered about the subject's claim that it is a selfie -- it does not have the feel of one, but I took her word; my colleagues did not, feeling, perhaps, that she may simply not understand the issue. The only thing to do is to have the subject send a note to VRT. There is nothing you can do and, in particular, you may not reload the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Logo Movimiento al Socialismo (Venezuela)

@Jameslwoodward:Buenas ,en que año estará al Dominio Público (Venezuela) el logo de Movimiento al Socialismo de Venezuela (este partido fundado en 1971) según Commons:Venezuela dice que son 60 años después de la publicación?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Google translation: "Hello, in what year will the logo of the Movement Towards Socialism of Venezuela (this party founded in 1971) be in the Public Domain (Venezuela) according to Commons: Venezuela says it is 60 years after publication?"

In this case you must remember that the URAA applies, so the USA copyright will expire 95 years after first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:In Venezuela (in 2031 a PD image) but in USA?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

95 years after first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:Ok, the logo of MAS is PD in USA (2066).thank you AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

AbchyZa22 it is actually PD on 1/1/2067. Almost all copyrights expire at midnight December 31. Note that you don't need to ping me on my own talk page -- the system does it for you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

DR:Pergamon World Atlas

Hi, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Pergamon World Atlas. Did you attach the note for Undeletion in 2039? --Enyavar (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

No, feel free to do it if you wish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Never did this before, so is adding the Undelete category all that needs to be done? All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the URAA applies, so they will have a US copyright until 1/1/2063 (95 years after publication year). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If the URAA applies, then someone needs to urgently redesign the Help page that explains it, because the logic that is explained on that page says that the URAA does not apply. --Enyavar (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Right you are -- the atlas was simultaneously published in the USA, so the URAA does not apply. However, the US edition has a copyright notice, so the expiration date is the same, 1/1/2063. (bottom of left hand page at https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~205342~3002366?qvq=q%3Apergamon%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY~8~1&mi=4&trs=250) .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Copy from email to me

I have numbered the four questions below for convenience.

[begins]

Hi. You removed this image a few years ago: User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive_2019#File:Freeciv-2.1.0-beta3-sdl_slack11.0.png

I was using it on the Minicarte article, and this has lead to its automatic removal by CommonsDelinker : https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mini-carte&diff=prev&oldid=165388435

The end result is that a free game SC with maybe a copyrighted map has now been replaced by a fully proprietary software SC on the current version : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-carte

This brings a few questions.

1. - It is not illegal per se to have SC of proprietary content as long as it is within the right to quote. It certainly is for a video game.
2. - But maybe Wikipedia has a policy to favor libre content (that would make sense) ?
3. - In this case, would a libre map of a libre game be accepted?
4. - If this new image has been accepted so far, has the policy changed ?

To speak plainly, the OG SC was better to illustrate the point, I picked it then as it shows a clear sub-frame, with the main screen showing undiscovered areas and fog of war.

Regards [ends] User:Dalc'husted

First, email is reserved for messages that need to be confidential for one reason or another. Email is a time consuming nuisance for both of us. Requests of this nature need to be public.

Second, the reason I gave in answer to the talk page question you cite above is complete and correct. While the software is free, works created with it have a copyright.

As for your questions:

1. "The right to quote" is Fair Use which cannot be permitted on Commons. See COM:FAIRUSE
2. I used Libreoffice as a simple example of free software that allows the creation of copyrighted works. Nothing more was implied.
3. see #2
4. What new image? The image you cite is from 2008. It was created on software that explicitly allows downloads of works created with it under GFDL.

You may, of course, request undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests, but I will oppose it.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Batteriestraße (Neuss)

Please restore this gallery and inform me on my disc. I create pages for the streets in Neuss (Germany) and could find and correct some errors on media description pages already. I will add on that page more pictures. Thank you. --Paintdog (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Please understand that galleries with only one image are not allowed and will be deleted. I will delete this one again tomorrow unless you add to it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. By the way, I didn’t receive a notification about your answer through MediaWiki's notification function. --Paintdog (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Invisible Force-Between Heaven and Earth 2022 Kirishima Open Air Museum 01/02.jpg

Hi, Jim.
You've helped me before, thank you again!
TAQUEDA, Atsuo (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Painted tomb walls from Thutmose III’s tomb.jpg

Dear Admin Jim,

I uploaded this image because I think it is 2D art and not 3D Art. If you think I am in error, please let me know and I will ask that the image be deleted. The tomb walls are painted and written but not carved...so it should not be a 3D relief. If it is a carved relief, obviously it is 3D art. But what do you think? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Here is another example of a written or painted hieroglyph text from this tomb: File:Egypt.KV34.05.jpg. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind analysis Admin Jim. It is always appreciated. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tavola-desco di Pietro Cascella

Hi Jim, I'm writing you because I've seen that you have deleted these two images: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tavola-desco di Pietro Cascella 1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tavola-desco di Pietro Cascella 2.jpg. The issue of the validity of the WLM authorizations has already been discussed at lenght, the last discussion if I remember correctly was this one. The consensus, as summed up by @Rosenzweig was that for these older types of authorizations we assume that the cities in these cases meant to give the authorization also for what regards the copyright issues. In this case I haven't seen so far proofs that contradicts the municipality's claim... Please consider also that a third DR on the same monument was closed keeping the image by @Pi.1415926535 Friniate (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The municipality may well have meant to authorize a free license, but it is extremely unlikely that they actually had the right to do so. While they may have a license to sell photographs of the sculpture, which would be a common license and one that any museum might have, creators very rarely give licenses that allow the licensee to freely license the work and there is no reason why the municipality would have requested such a license and paid for it.

Please remember that the license we require would allow anyone to make actual copies of the sculpture as well as photographs without any payment to the sculptor. While this would be a more likely problem in the case of cast sculptures rather than stonework, the same mindset applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

In italy it's actually quite common. For works commissioned by the public administration it's actually always so per law. In this case I've no proof of the fact that the municipality commissioned the artwork to the artist, but nevertheless I don't see why we should assume that the municipality is lying either, with no proof whatsoever... The authorization is a public act, it's actually very unlikely that it has a false assertion in it, since there would be legal consequences. Friniate (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

PS: if you answer me on your talk page, please ping me, otherwise I can't see your answer...--Friniate (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

See the yellow box at the top -- if you start a discussion here, I will continue it here.

I don't for a minute assume that the municipality is consciously lying. Even museums, who should understand copyright, often make incorrect assertions, and I have no faith at all that the municipal officer who wrote the cited document understands the difference between a license from the sculptor that allows them to sell photographs and perhaps miniatures of the sculptures and a license that allows them to freely license the works for any use anywhere. As I said above, there is no reason why the municipality would need the more comprehensive license and certainly no sculptor would allow others to make full size copies of their work without their being paid for it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The museums are actually a good comparison. We generally assume that a statement made by a cultural institution is valid, unless proven otherwise (we use this principle for example towards the LoC, I've found only this example, but I'm sure that there are many others). I don't see why we should behave differently here, where a mistake by the municipal employee who wrote the document could lead to legal consequences for the mayor who signed it. Even more so, if a community discussion has already decided that we assume that these authorizations are OK, unless something contradictory shows up. Here I see only your doubts, but no actual proof, or even hints of the invalidity of the authorization... Anyway, Wikimedia Italy had published a legal opinion on the matter some months ago, that in the meanwhile was deleted, I've asked them to publish it again somewhere so that I can show it to you.

PS: I'm fine with discussing here, I only asked if you could ping me... Friniate (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Friniate, you miss the point -- museums deal with copyright every day and certainly every time they upload an image of a work of art, so we expect that they will get it right. Mostly, but not always, they do. A municipality, however, will deal with copyright very infrequently - perhaps only once -- so I have no expectation at all that they will understand it. The general understanding of copyright in the world is poor. Please remember that we delete around 1,000 copyvio images per day uploaded by people who are supposed to understand copyright and who have been warned that they must respect copyright. Further, as I have said several times above, there is absolutely no reason why a sculptor would give a municipality a license that allowed the municipality to freely license their works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There are cases in which sculptors have given free licenses to Wikimedia Commons, why should it be impossible that they did the same with a Municipality? Perhaps they wanted publicity, there are many reasons that could have lead an artist to do this choice, without seeing the actual contract how can you assume something about it? Friniate (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Friniate, each of us is making an assumption about the contract, so the same question applies to you. On my side is the Precautionary Principle which requires you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the work is free. I have raised a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm making an assumption based on an actual piece of evidence (and, as you'll see, on a legal opinion), you are not... You are raising only a generic doubt about the whole thing, I don't think that that is significant enough to ensure that we have to apply the precautionary principle, otherwise anyone could doubt any authorization ever received by Wikimedia Commons or any other organization... Friniate (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

COM:DIGNITY

Hi Jim. Just saw your close of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2001_Low-rise_jeans_and_thong_whale_tail.jpg (and surprising threat for anyone renominating? -- perhaps that was just for OP). Since the discussion didn't revolve around identifiability, but rather COM:DIGNITY, which says The way a photo is taken may make it permanently unacceptable, in the absence of consent, regardless of how it is edited. In particular, such photos remain unacceptable even if the subject is made unidentifiable.. Could you modify your closing statement to explain why that guidelines should be ignored or why it was outweighed by something else? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

For info, I did delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whale tail.jpg which I now notice there were other discussions for similar images going on at the same time...Not sure if we wish to discuss these in bulk instead, or if we should let the dead dog lie. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I probably would have come down to the same conclusion here. There was an attempt to make sure no person is readily identifiable in the photograph, the photograph itself is not prurient or sexual, and do we really want to be the arbiters of what women are allowed to be photographed wearing in public? I agree with Jonatan's deletion because the Flickr uploader was shown to have prurient motives. It's a delicate balancing act, and I think Jim made the right decision. Abzeronow (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

do we really want to be the arbiters of what women are allowed to be photographed wearing in public. This is egregious spin, pretending that taking away this girl's agency is actually empowering her. She has not requested to be "allowed to be photographed" such that we would be denying her that allowance. She played no role in wanting to be photographed here. If it were about fashion, there would be an easy workaround: just, you know, ask permission. Instead, perhaps knowing no permission for a candid mid-burger underwear shot would be granted, a Commons photographer surreptitiously focused on her underwear and snapped a photo without consent. We're not "being the arbiters of what women are allowed to be photographed wearing in public," we're deciding that whether to allow someone to take a photo of one's underwear should be up to them. This closure says it is not up to them. It's not a fashion image; it's a straightforward creepshot. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

BTW, lest I give the impression otherwise: I know this is a very difficult issue, and that bright lines are hard to draw. What I'm advocating for is erring on the side of consent. (And when consensus falls on the other side, to explain why the guideline I quoted above doesn't apply, preferably without using arguments like the one above). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have included such a flippant phrase, I would have done better not to include it. And as an amateur photographer, I wouldn't have taken that image for similar reasons as consent is important to me as a photographer even though it is not legally required. I do believe the uploader when they say that their intentions were to document a fashion trend of the time. Abzeronow (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

My decision was entirely based on the fact that the woman (not "girl", people, speaking of dignity) was unidentifiable. The image records attire that is worn in public and therefore is in scope for us. Also, I think that some of this is cultural -- in the United States, if you go out in public, you are fair game for photographers and your image can be published editorially without your consent. It's different elsewhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's based on identifiability and legality, you are explicitly not addressing COM:DIGNITY, which doesn't require the subject to be identifiable and is only relevant where a photo is technically legal. As for not "girl", people, speaking of dignity - I thought the photographer used that term with regard to the age of the subject, but it was "young woman" so fair enough, mea culpa. But yes, quite progressive for us to ensure the correct word is used while keeping a creepshot. It is disappointing that these COM:DIGNITY cases seem to vary not with photos or discussions but which admin happens to close the DR. I don't intend to follow up again, FWIW. I would appreciate it if you could amend your close to at least acknowledge that identifiability and legality weren't the issue for the delete voters, and explain why arguments against applying COM:DIGNITY were stronger than those in favor, but obviously I cannot compel you to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Read the last paragraph there. Consent is very difficult, usually impossible, to prove. The uploader can say they had consent, but believing it in every case stretches Assume Good Faith beyond reasonable bounds. I can't think of a practical way to actually prove consent that a deceitful uploader could not get around -- perhaps have the subject meet a VRT volunteer in person? So if we want to have a photograph of this kind of clothing, this is the best we can do.

And, by the way, how do you apply Com:Dignity to the thousands of nudes, bikinis, and underwear shots that we have. Why is this image of an unidentifiable woman a Dignity problem and all the nudes are not? Surely you don't believe that they all (or even most of them) actually had consent?

As for your assertion that the result often depends on the closing Admin, I agree. As I noted above, cultural norms are vastly different across the Atlantic. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Deleted or kept?

Hi Jim,

in the deletion discussion of the File:Colourful Troughs, you put down your decision as "deleted per nomination", but added the template kept to the discussion page. I am a bit confused, did you want to delete or to keep it? Kritzolina (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I hit the wrong button. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us ;). Thanks for fixing! Kritzolina (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up question about two DR

Hello Jim,

I have an inquiry about 2 DR, A and B. Especially your reasoning in case B spikes my interest. On the uncropped old versions from 2017 in File:第五屆遠東建築獎 張俊雄 李祖原 20050702.jpg, you have a prominent logo-like drawing, complete with shades and of a quite complicated shape, which in my opinion has an intricate relation to the subject of some architectural award ceremony. I cannot reconcile well your saying of "nothing there has a copyright" with our texts in COM:TOO Taiwan and COM:DM Taiwan, could you eventually help me out in understanding? I still have a feeling that this case B is really similar to case C, where you actually complied with my request of RevDel. Case A feels indeed closer to some "keepable" borderline though, there, I can understand why the globe part in older versions of File:國民黨立委王育敏針對經濟部再生能源目標值提出質疑.jpg is not seen as really critical. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Case A. The test of de minimis is "Would an average observer notice if it were missing?" -- the partial world map is so inconspicuous that I can't imagine it's a problem.

Case B. Purely a judgement call -- I don't think the red shape is above the ToO.

Case C. The deleted version had a photo of a woman's face which was prominent and clearly a copyvio.

Does that answer your questions? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Barker picture

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mark W. Barker - Interlake Steamships - Credit Matt Lance.jpg. I don't understand the justification for deletion. I have no quibble with the nomination, but doesn't the information I provided show that the photographer uploaded it themselves? What does the image size have to do with it? Ganesha811 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Small images with no EXIF are almost always lifted from the web. If a photographer uploads their own image it is almost always at a much larger size and has EXIF. The easiest way to deal with this is for the actual photographer to upload the image at full camera size with EXIF. Alternately, the actual photographer can send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why the photographer chose to upload it that way, but they did.... as shown in the screenshots I posted. You say "almost always", and fair enough, but this is the exception to the rule. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately your screenshots do not satisfy Commons requirements -- you would be surprised at how many forgeries of works like that we see, done by people who want to upload unlicensed works. See my note above for the only ways to get it restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's not more AGF here. I'm not a regular Commons contributor but I'm a regular on en.wp and I'm really not trying to sneak a fast one past y'all! I wrote the Wiki article on the ship and kept an eye out for suitable photos and went to a bit of trouble to convince the photographer to upload it, so it's a pity to see it deleted for essentially circumstantial reasons. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF applies only to own work. It's too bad, because it makes it harder for contributors like you, but the bad guys are very smooth. All the photographer has to do is either send a message using VRT or upload the image again at full resolution with full camera EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I sent them a message on Reddit, but who knows if they'll respond or do anything about it. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Create a new template

@Jameslwoodward:Hi,how to create a new template for example this {{PD-textlogo}} (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You create a new template like any other page, except that it begins with Template: .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg

@Jameslwoodward:Buenas, cuales tu opinión con respecto a este tema,eso se puede borrar o quedarse, según el comentario de Bedivere indica que el logo pasó al Dominio Público por leyes anteriores (50 años después de la creación) osea Acción Democrática creo en 1941 antes de URAA? AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the local law well enough to comment there, but it appears that in 1996, the logo had been PD for several years, so it should be OK here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:OK,pero como creo nuevo template (plantilla)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said above -- like any other page. What template do you want to create? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)