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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

“All files” categories

In June I created a discussion for the deletion of numerous "[locomotive] (all files)" categories, as they were already covered by their respective categories. You closed it in September, reasoning that they "[were] not empty categories." Since then, someone has removed all of the files from those categories. Seen as these are now empty categories (which I'd argue shouldn't have existed in the first place), I'd like to have their deletion discussion reopened, or, skip the discussion and delete them. —TwinBoo (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Empoli FC logo.svg

Hello, you deleted this file after a DR of mine. Is it the same file that has been reuploaded? I can't remember. If so, it should be deleted per COM:CSD#G4. Jonteemil (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jonteemil: I had a look. Quite different, the other included a picture of a building. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jonteemil (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:一張圖概述萊茵蘭再軍事化.png

I feel like you’re supervoting here. There wasn’t any consensus to delete, you just decided the nominator was right without elaboration and completely disregarded anything I said. Admittedly Matrix participated as well, but didn’t vote or even really make a strong argument. Either contribute to forming a consensus or wait until one has clearly formed before deleting. --Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The DR had been open for two months and we can't manufacture additional comments. Three people, including me, thought that deletion was appropriate. That looks like a consensus to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

GNU not accepted

This conversation is not finished I don't understand why it was archived  : here

Haymillefolium (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It was nine days (now ten) since the last comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

okey but can you respond to the comment then ? You delete a file explaining it was GFDL when it's actually GNU, so can you restore the file ? Haymillefolium (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

GNU suffers from the same problem as GFDL -- namely that it is intended to be used only for software in digital form. It requires that a copy of the license be included with the licensed work. This is trivial for a digital presentation but impossible for a print presentation, which is why we have banned its use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

we are going in circle, if the previous presentation I linked documentation that clearly state that screenshot from GNU software is accepted. Idk who you're referring from when you said "we", but according to commons documentation it is not prohibited. Haymillefolium (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons does not and can not prohibit every license that does not meet our requirements, so you should not expect to see an explicit prohibition. In order to be acceptable here, a license must make possible use both on the Internet and in print. Licenses that require that the full text of the license be included with every use are not usable in print, so they do not meet our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Why i should not expect to see a explicit prohibition ? oO If commoms choose that GNU software screenshot are not acceptable because the GNU licence should be printed then this should be explained in the documentation. If not, I have not way to know this is not from your own will. On which power/name are you creating rules that do not exist ?

I must insist there is a lot of screenshot software on commons. Haymillefolium (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, there are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of licenses out there. You cannot expect Commons to list every one that is not acceptable. The prohibition against licenses that do not permit free use by anyone for any purpose anywhere is clear and quite obviously precludes any license that requires the full text of the license to be included with use. We have discussed this enough. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

"The prohibition against licenses that do not permit free use by anyone for any purpose anywhere is clear" where is this stated ?

" You cannot expect Commons to list every one that is not acceptable" I'm not saying that. I'm saying the GNU is accepted according to the commoms documentation. And you decided by yourself that it is not. Haymillefolium (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Jim, GNU is very well accepted for screenshots of free software. Yann (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Help needed

Please help in category:Requests for unblock. Some users are blocked for sockpuppetry, but they claim, that they have not abused multiple accounts. Some of them are my blocks. Some of them I have declined unblock and they request unblock again. And of course I wish you a happy new year! Taivo (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

And a happy and prosperous New Year to you, as well. I have looked at all the UBR and taken what I think is appropriate action -- some of which is visible, some of which was emails to people involved and some of which was to do nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Удаление файлов в категории "Отель Узбекистан"

Удаление файлов в категории "Отель Узбекистан" по моему приведёт к снижению популярности Wikimedia Commons среди огромного числа его поклонников. Это здание не имеет всемирной исторической ценности и видимо в предстоящем веке его снесут за несответсвие современному гостиничному сервису. Поэтому, Правительство Узбекистана не будет оспаривать его в судебных инстанциях с руководством Wikimedia Commons. (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

What you say may or may not be true, but it violates COM:PCP. We honor every copyright everywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Tom Monahan 2025.jpg

Hello, a few weeks ago, we reached out to the VRT team to make a file undeletion request. I understand "this image will be restored automatically....if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT." It's been 12 days since the last update. Is there anything I can do help the team expedite the process? Thank you in advance! TheBlueOwl (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not a VRT member, so I have no look into their process. It would not surprise me if H&S legal did not approve the free license that we require -- if you send me a copy of what was sent to VRT, I could comment, but remember that VRT is confidential while this page is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jameslwoodward! Thank you for your response! They asked for the URL of the deleted file last week, but we haven't heard back from them yet. TheBlueOwl (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This Undeletion Request

Dear Admin Jim,

As you likely know, I am Canadian. But I always ask experts like you for their honest opinion--and nothing more. The architect died in 1955 but his monument was built in 1936 in France. So, I don't know if COM:URAA applies to it because of US copyright rules. It is a well known work in Canada and France but I don't know if it known in the USA before 1936. If not, I assume it cannot be restored until 2032. Personally. I wished URAA was more practical at 90 rather than 95 years...but as you and I know, we don't make the rules. I hope you can make a response for or against the above undeletion Request. That is all I ask. Thanks for your time...and have a great 2026 sir. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment: Of course, you can always decide to accept or decline this Undeletion Request as an Admin on January 11 after 7 days. User Nard and Prosfilaes claim that there was a copyright notice...but I am not a copyright expert sadly. Its your decision here. I...always respect your decisions. Thanks again Jim, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for your honest reply Jim on the Undeletion Request. I'm afraid I am not a copyright specialist here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• Leoboudv, I fully agree with you that the URAA is unreasonable. I think that the US Copyright should be about the same length as that in the country of origin. But, as you say, we don't make the rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• I inserted this image into the Canadian Vimy Ridge article. If you think De Minimis does not apply, please kindly revert my two edits. I thought this image had a more distant view of the monument. I have no problem at all. Unfortunately, this was the farthest distance photo of the monument that I could find on Commons. As an aside, I have had to deal with user Hard on these 2 Deletion Requests here and over here I don't know how Hard managed to keep the second image under DR on Commons whose license says it does not pass URAA since 2022...but I guess stranger things have happened. Maybe it could be speedily deleted if you wish but the second image is a blatant disregard of Common's rules sadly. Best Wishes from Metro Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

My user page

Could you please delete my user page? I would like it to show my Wikimedia Meta userpage instead. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, CheatCodes4ever, I've done this for you. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Closing UDR

Hi Jim, Could you please wait for 24 hours after the last comment before closing requests? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yann, I routinely close requests where one of us has told the requestor that they need VRT and there is no controversy without regard to timing. I think that's appropriate. On all others, I thought our informal rule was 24 hours from the time of the request, but I'm happy to wait 24 after the last comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hello James. My repeated question at the Nathannah request for checkuser has not been answered. Per the global CheckUser policy: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects. [...] There must be a valid reason to use the CheckUser tools to investigate a user. Please explain what abuse justified your use of the CheckUser tool in this case. If your rationale cannot be shared publicly, feel free to email me. If I receive no response, the next step will be contacting the Ombuds commission. I apologize for the tone of this message; if I had felt there were any other way to ensure a response, I would have taken it. Toadspike [Talk] 13:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Since you are not yourself a Checkuser, I am absolutely prohibited from sharing details with you either here or by email. Nathannah showed up as a sock in the investigation of User:Mvcg66b3r-- the details were apparently created by a bug in software, but at the time of the blocking, the details were very clear that Nathannah was either a sock or a meatpuppet of User:Mvcg66b3r. You are welcome to take this to Ombuds, but that will be a waste or your time, my time, and Ombuds time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my question. I don't care about any of the technical details or why you placed the block. I am asking about why you checked Mvcg66b3r in the first place. There must evidence of abuse before you use the CheckUser tool, and thus before you have any technical details that you cannot share with me. Or, if you began the investigation due to an alert from Suggested Investigations, you could just tell me that. Toadspike [Talk] 18:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't check Mvcg66b3r -- I checked another user and Mvcg66b3r turned up as a sock, hence the block. While it has turned out that the sockpuppet evidence was a false positive whose creation I don't understand, at the time of the check, it was clear and convincing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Cover of CD Isaak Loberan 2017.png

Thank you for your helpǃ I have sent the e-mail and the permission is achieved [Ticket#2026011410010448] Sorry for asking - do I need now to change this myself by editing the above file, or do I need to upload from the scratch, because the photograph was deleted in the wikipedia lemma BenutzerːGernot Haraldson/Isaak Loberan, or will this been shown in the lemma without actionof myself needed? Regards Gernot Haraldson (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Reloading a file is never allowed -- it wastes volunteer time and computer resources. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Bodyoaken

Hi Jim, I think that Bodyoaken is a sock of Slowking4. Similar formatting, no real answer to requests, and mainly dumbing a huge number of paintings from Sotheby's and Christie's (cf. Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4). Could you have a look please? The Squirrel Conspiracy hasn't responded. Yann (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Yann sorry for delayed look -- been away from my desk. Lymantria has confirmed what you thought. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)