User talk:Jameslwoodward

Archives

2009-10 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015
2016 2017 2018
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


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

Deltatation

why are you nominitaing these files for deletation ? Davidbt2000 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is polite when you ask a question to link the file or action you are asking about. In this case, I assume it is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Davidbt2000.

As I noted in the DR, they are all copyrighted signs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is also polite to tell me why do you want to delete it because i dont grant you permission to delte something that i put on my page i already warn other users to not do that and it is writen on my main page. Davidbt2000 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
and the DR sign can be copyrighted i made them from photos Davidbt2000 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
can't* Davidbt2000 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
If you put a copyright violation anywhere, including your User:page, it will be deleted. I suggest you read COM:L and COM:DW. You need to understand that a photo of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright, so it cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
you also deleted photos of a priest from 1940 because it "didn't have camera exgif data". You are a wildly disingenuous actor and I pray for every unfortunate soul that has to deal with you. ~2026-17083-12 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I have made almost a quarter of a million deletions over the last 18 years, so unless you link the file in question, I cannot possibly respond. I note that very few of those deletions have come to Com:Undeletion requests and even fewer are restored there, so my actions are almost always correct.
talking to me ? Because i have no idea what are you talking about Davidbt2000 (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, perhaps you shouldn't be wasting your time and ours on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
i was talking to the other User Davidbt2000 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Gallery: Peter Oloche David

Hello there, I noticed you delete the gallery for Peter Oloche David. Please take a cross-examination once again. Not all the images on the gallery are nominate for deletion. At least two images in the gallery are not nominate for deletion. Even those images that were nominated for deletion, since the time have been modified to meet and address the No-use, notability and verifiability policy concern raised by the editor that nominated. In further review you will realize that I contest the nomination and since don't receive any response from an administrator. All the images on the category:Peter Oloche David with a stable wikidata item successful linked. The wikidata item contains verifiable independent Identifiers, independent news mentioned, government registration and other valuable reference sources that prove the subject to be notable but academical and business setting.

I demand you take a diligent review and consider restoring the gallery and remove the DR tag.

Thank you for your corporation. NatHaddan (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not open the DR, so I cannot close it before one week. Since I agree with it, I won't do that. If the DR succeeds, the gallery will not remain, so there is nothing to do now except see if our colleagues agree with the DR. That will be several months from now, since the DR backlog is large. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Redeletion of Galery Cypronia and MEDIEVAL

Dear James, I would like to ask you for redeletion of galleries:

As whole content of galeries (6 screenshots) is now cleared by VRT team under VRT Ticket:2026032810006405 as CC-BY 4.0 license

Stefanpavelka (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Timmylegend

Hi. Can you please remove the DR request from the file pages if the files are kept? See also: User:Krdbot/lost deletion requests Thank you! --Krd 06:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Krd, as you probably know, Mass Process sometimes glitches and doesn't do what it is supposed to. It is easy to see when it fails to delete files -- they remain blue -- but you can't see those that it failed to save properly. I think we need to accept that -- otherwise I for one will never close a DR such as the one you cite, that requires a Mass Process save. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I cannot follow, what is your suggestion, to keep the DR in the files forever? Krd 05:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I know it is far from perfect, but I can't see any of us going through a long list -- hundreds, sometimes thousands -- of files to check to see that Mass Process has done its job correctly. If we insist on that, then big DRs that ought to be kept will simply stay open forever, which has the same result. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khartoum Place2.JPG

Given you closed this one would you like to close the related Commons:Deletion requests/File:NZ AK Womens Suffrage Memorial (1).jpg? Thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh and File:NZ AK Womens Suffrage Memorial (2).jpg wasn't properly nominated itself but the same reasoning applies. Thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
? I don't see anything to do there. ?? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
What do you mean? Its the same work in question as the other two deletion requests. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Sorry -- slipped a brain cell. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Reuploads?

Hello Jim, I came across a number of uploads by this user today, none of which seemed to have a proper permission or even name the copyright holder (which would have to be a natural person, not a political party). Just now I saw that you had deleted a whole bunch of uploads by this user in 2025, and I wondered if the current ones might simply be reuploads. Would you mind checking? Thanks, --~2026-21567-91 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Violation of policy

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rappresentanti degli "Otto delle Condotte" della Repubblica di Siena In Consiglio.png you wrote "In Use" does not apply when the uploader wrote the article and placed the image. This is objectively false. You have violated COM:INUSE with this deletion.

It's a matter of opinion but personally I value and respect and consider the use of a file more, not less, if the person who wrote the article placed the image there since the person probably has some expertise/knowledge in that particular area/topic.

Additionally the person has volunteered their time and effort to benefit the open knowledge and Wikimedia ecosystem so instead of editorializing their work from another project due to an arbitrary taste judgement, it would be good to give positive feedback to those who do that. Thanks for creating the image and article, Roberto.Amerighi don't hang your head and keep up the good work! Prototyperspective (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

However, it's unclear if AIIP also applies to this and if it can overrule in which case it would not necessarily be a policy violation but you didn't name that. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. If we allow people to create articles and then populate them with their own images, we lose any ability to control quality. The In Use rule assumes that there is an active constituency on the WP that will not tolerate bad images, but that's not true in cases like this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
1) that is a non sequitur fallacy where "we lose any ability to control quality" does not follow from the former 2) we do allow people to create articles and then populate them with their own images – COM:INUSE has no exceptions for whether or not people created the image themselves 3) I'd like to reemphasize what I already said regarding legitimacy and due respect for when people add images to articles they wrote themselves assuming those articles aren't hoax articles. The INUSE rule does not assume that and that the image is of bad quality is your subjective opinion and people can disagree with it and in this case do (eg I do; your assumption that face details are of critical importance is your subjective opinion which you may please separate from the wider world, rules, and reality where you don't have any right to enforce your opinion onto using your admin powers). Now the article has no image at all; I agree with the article creator that the image with the image was better than the dry entirely nonvisual article. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I would like to ask whether it is possible to recreate the gallery for Robert Durec:

There are now two VRT-approved images of me available:

I am asking you due to a possible conflict of interest, as I am Robert Durec. RobertDurec (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

SeeCommons:Deletion requests/Files on Robert Durec where my colleagues and I think that you are out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you reconsider making a "not delete" decision into a "delete" decision?

Hi Jim, I was part of a deletion discussion for two maps back in October-November 2025: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe 1740 en.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe 1783-1792 en.jpg. I appreciated your retaining them at the time, as I thought they were the originals of maps that had been carefully created.

The reason for my request is different than the original one that initiated the request, which was not understanding how the Holy Roman Empire was represented on the map. My request is based on more a more subtle issue. A comment on the Talk page of the English Frederick the Great article made me aware that a sockpuppet user with a for generating false maps had created false jpg files by modifying the original .png versions of the maps with the modified .jpgs above. I hadn't caught the switch in file types in the Frederick the Great article that I keep an eye on.

For example, if you compare File:Europe 1740 en.jpg to File:Europe 1740 en.png You'll see the jpg inserts the word "German" inserted into Holy Roman Empire in a completely different font. It also makes Moldavia and Wallachia separate political entities and adds "Ozia", which isn't a political entity listed in the source maps used to create the .png files.

Since the two jpg maps above were created by a sockpuppet account associated with a user who had falsified many maps, would you be willing to remove them after all? Though these are used in many other articles, they are not correct. I've already redirected the article to the original .png articles. Appreciatively,

Wtfiv (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: Is there a reason we can't simply update the existing images to fix these inaccuracies? Wikimedia Commons allows users to 'Upload a new version of this file,' which would resolve the errors without needing to delete the entry entirely. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
That sounds great! I don't have the permissions to upload a new version(i.e., add a file to one I didn't add myself. (And just to check, I tried in this case...) Would you be able to switch out the files? Wtfiv (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
@Wtfiv: If you have the newer version, I can upload it myself with proper attribution in a comment or you can open Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests yourself. I personally don't have the expertise on the subject to confidently fix the issues. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
also if you need help with maps, you can ask the folks at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
I put in the request to be able to overwrite the files. Thank you so much! Wtfiv (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Your most welcome. Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 18:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Overwriting enabled. Abzeronow (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Open Government Licence logo.svg

Hello @Jameslwoodward: ,
I hope you’re doing well. I recently mentioned your name in a discussion at User talk:Coleisforeditor#File:Open Government Licence logo.svg and would appreciate your guidance on the best way to proceed.
Since the original file (which was deleted) now exists as a redirect to the new upload, is an undeletion request still the appropriate path if the redirect is removed, or has that window closed?
While a new Deletion Request is an option, I am personally inclined to keep the file, so I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to open one myself. If the logo is ultimately kept, we should update meta:Open Government Licence#Things we can't reuse and {{OGL}} to feature the actual logo; however, I don't want to make these changes without a proper community discussion.
Should open another Village Pump thread be opened? The previous one had very little engagement. Just one comment from a sockpupperter.
If a new discussion is started, could you please ping editors who are experts in UK Threshold of Originality, or suggest someone who can?
I would value your thoughts on the best path forward.Tausheef Hassan Auntu ✉Talk? 17:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem. We have the image file and a redirect from the older name for the image file. I think that the image is below the new UK ToO, so what is it that you would like to do? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Peter Oloche David files

you deleted a portrait images of Peter Oloche David that have already passed through VRT review. With all due respect, what metadata or information not provided in the files by me or the subject (copyright holder) prior to or during the VRT review that lead you to delete the file?

I am sorry, I don't want drama, I have tried my best to follow every single directive requested of me likewise the content copyright holder include sending a direct email from his official affiliate email address with strayer university, and using VRT system, he even went far to deposit the photos on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidoloche/55207685389/, since this this dispute , I did my best to contacted him, and he have responded by provided me his LOC AUTHORITY RECORD ID, ISNI, Worldcat Entities ID, etc include links to his works be catalog in several libraries worldwide includes British Library, Harvard, MIT University of Michigan, Princeton university etc. yet you seem not certified with every evidents provided here or on wikidata.

Please advise, what do you want? What is available in other files and is missing in his case, I am willing to corporate and resolve this drama.

Thanks! NatHaddan (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

VRT review deals with copyright issues. Images on Commons must both be freely licensed and in Scope. As I noted in the deletion comment and on your talk page, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peter Oloche David the community decided that Peter Oloche David was not sufficiently notable to be of use here. Do not return with his images to Commons until there is an accepted, independently written, article on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:NZ AK Womens Suffrage Memorial (1).jpg

Would you please reconsider this (and the associated) close? One of the first examples at Commons:Artistic craftsmanship is literally hand-painted tiles. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I would have to see a cite for that claim. I see no difference between painting on canvas, wood, or tile. Stained glass, on the other hand, involves cutting and fitting the glass between the lead and wrought iron gates are blacksmithing. Note that the case cited there is about furniture. In reading the Web on the subject, I noted that for a work to be "artistic craftsmanship", it must be both artistic and have craftsmanship. Hand painting on a tile is artistic, but has no craftsmanship. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's a citation: https://www.dacs.org.uk/advice/articles/what-is-visual-arts-copyright/artistic-craftsmanship IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
I saw that when I was looking for a citation. That's just a personal opinion -- is there any case law anywhere on the subject? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
It is from an established organization which specializes in copyright. It is not one personal opinion. The source is fine. Requiring specific case law in this instance is an unreasonable standard. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm not going to restore it without some indication that there is at least one jurisdiction that treats painted tiles differently from other paintings. I suggest you post an UnDR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

"File:Maraş shooting 2026.png"

I can't lie. Felt like every reason i brought out was just being ignored on that page Trade (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Trade, I don't understand. Did I not summarize your position accurately? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing standards for digital reconstructions, question on recent SDK flag decisions

Hello Jim,

I have a policy question following your recent close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Serbian Volunteer Corps.jpg and your support for the undeletion discussion of File:SerbianVolunteerCorpsBadge.png.

Both proceedings relied on identical arguments submitted by the same editor on the same day, citing a photograph hosted on Imgur as evidence of authenticity for 2024 digital reconstructions. Having accessed that photograph I note it shows a low resolution image of an unidentified person inside a church holding what appears to be a folded piece of fabric. The colours, heraldic details and proportions that appear in the reconstructions are not discernible from that photograph.

User [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67] raised this exact concern in the original DR in November 2025, when he wrote that the flag in the church could have been "made by people in exile after the war based on their memory" and that "an SDK flag would have needed to have been preserved and examined, and someone to have reliably published a description of it." This concern was not addressed in either the flag DR or the undeletion discussion.

The keep reasoning states "there is no reason to suspect somebody would go to great lengths to fake such an artifact". In 2024 however producing a convincing digital reconstruction of a historical flag requires no great lengths AI image generation tools can produce such results in minutes with no physical source required. The "no reason to suspect fakery" standard may have been reasonable before such tools were widely available but I would suggest it is no longer sufficient for a 2024 {{own}} upload where the only supporting evidence is a photograph of a folded piece of fabric on a commercial image hosting platform that has now been inaccessible for several days.

COM:DERIVATIVE was cited in both the flag DR and the badge DR but was not addressed in either closing decision. I ask this as a genuine policy question rather than a challenge to your decisions. Thank you Rajendra Alben (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You say, "Having accessed that photograph I note it shows a low resolution image of an unidentified person inside a church holding what appears to be a folded piece of fabric. The colours, heraldic details and proportions that appear in the reconstructions are not discernible from that photograph."

I see https://imgur.com/a/CJD25y2 quite differently -- as an image of a crude flag showing more or less exactly the same details as the two files at issue. You misunderstand "there is no reason to suspect somebody would go to great lengths to fake such an artifact" -- it refers not to the digital reconstruction but the flag shown in the church, which gives credence to the assertion that the images are not of a fake.

Therefore I kept the images because they appeared to be good representations of the actual flag, allowing for the variability that is expected in heraldry, and because, while they are derivative of the flag, the flag's copyright has expired. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Jim for the clarification and for taking the time to respond. I accept your reasoning. Rajendra Alben (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Category:User talk pages with broken file links