User talk:Jameslwoodward
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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"
Some ancient deletion request(s)
[edit]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)
@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
[edit]@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. REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
_USING_Mine-Imator_2.0.png){kind=link}
- (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. 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. 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? REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:21, 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)
- 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. REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
