User talk:Jacklee/Archive: Image issues (2011)

file moves

As administrator, I could easily move files myself. When I use {{Rename}} the new name has to be discussed first, especially if there's a '?' in the proposed file name! axp_de^Hello! 17:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea you were an administrator. In any case, if you just tag the files with {{Rename}} and they appear in "Category:Media requiring renaming", it is impossible for filemovers to tell that you intend for the renaming to be discussed first instead of the files being renamed immediately. To avoid the files appearing in the category, I suggest that you avoid tagging the files with {{Rename}}, or tag them like this: "{{rename||Suggested name: SAMPLE.jpg. Note: Do not rename yet; new name under discussion}}" (this will make the file appear in "Category:Incomplete media renaming requests"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you're right! Sorry, didn't thought about that. On the other hand ... a question mark within a suggested file name should ring a warning bell, don't you think? Nevertheless I'll do it as you suggested! Thanks axp_de^Hello! 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the complex naming system for railroad symbols. I thought the question marks were part of the code used. :-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's the biggest problem. I thought this suggestion to be addressed to my fellow colleagues, but now someone else felt enlighted to rename the file just as he thought best :( Won't use this template any more at all, trouble isn't worth it ... Regards axp_de^Hello! 09:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a "Move & Replace" tool in the menu at the top of the screen you can use. It works in the same way as {{Rename}}. (You probably know about this already!) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know about it, but in case of BSicons it's of no use, because those files aren't used by their full name but only the "ID", e.g. the result of {{BS|BHF|km|Stationname|Comment}} :

km

Stationname

Comment

Thus commons delinker can't operate as desired :( axp_de^Hello! 09:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My Picture Deletion

Hi Jack, I asked to delete my pic at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2fresh.jpg and you didn't. Why? I decided it for deletion because it's too old pic for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2freshworld (talk • contribs) 14:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I voted for the image to be deleted, but I can't delete it personally. Only administrators can delete files. You have to wait for an administrator to come along and review the deletion request. You could try asking Jameslwoodward for help as he is an administrator. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1st_SFCOLLAGE.jpg

Hi Jack,

you suggested to tag and rename the picture. Looks like it has been done already here: File:1980s decade montage-02.jpg Is there anything left to do? Is it possible to disintegrate the redirect?

Cheers SFCOLLAGE SFCOLLAGE (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I renamed the file. If there are no articles linking to the redirect, you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{Speedy}}, specifying a reason for wishing to do so. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious pictures

You may be an expert in these discussions as you are a part of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lord_Ram.jpg

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aravana.JPG
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg

--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert but I will provide my views. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Seen that..let it continue......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you have a look here, seems that user got some problems with the DR, can be included in the above series of DR's Commons:Deletion requests/File:Namaste.jpg --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've responded. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

KFORIII

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kfor3.svg

Hi,

I made this image from my idea, for my army. It's a true image for a true KFOR mission. There isn't illegal parts or symbols. What's your problem? What do you need?

Bye,

Madboy74 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late response. I have copied your comment over to "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kfor3.svg" and responded to it there. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Avalon Poetry

Hello Jacklee, Why you not taken the proposed name for the name change? We try to establish category and the file names in the category:river cruise ships uniform. Please think about your decision again. Regards --Rolf H. (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize there was a naming scheme in place. What if I rename the files to "File:Avalon Poetry (ship, 2004) on the Danube in Budapest, Hungary - 20070804.jpg" and "File:Avalon Poetry (ship, 2004) on the Main in Miltenberg, Bavaria, Germany - 20100623.jpg"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The file names are too long in my opinion. The information is written in the description. The files are sorted into the appropriate categories (Category:Danube in Budapest and category:Main in Miltenberg). Best wishes --Rolf H. (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that descriptive names which indicate a location and date are more useful. Can I persuade you to change your mind? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really - because if the images are inserted into the article (I've written many articles on ships in the German Wikipedia) long file names are disturbing in the edit mode. The previously attempted unity of the category is not achieved with these designations. Best wishes --Rolf H. (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, relist the images for renaming. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Stanislav Zhmakin of Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg - 20101225.jpg

Why Avtomobilist? He is playing for HC Severstal. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Oops, the English Wikipedia article "Stanislav Zhmakin" is out of date. I will fix the file name. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Calopteryx virgo

Thanks! :) Totodu74 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chlaenius rename

thanks --Siga (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Roman bust of a Dacian tarabostes, Hermitage, St Petersburg, Russia - 20070614.jpg

Thanks a lot for the rename and cleanup!! Great work.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

I noticed that you've spent some time renaming files that had useless gibberish names.

You may find the 50 pages linked from my userpage to be useful; they're lists of all the files with names 6 characters or shorter.

They don't all need to be renamed. But many of them do. DS (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Eeek. 50 pages. OK, will drop by and have a look ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I renamed one file and tagged another one as having no source. I guess you should update your user pages from time to time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ponticola cephalargoides

Dear Jacklee! You moved the file name Ponticola cephalargoides.jpg to Neogobius cephalargoides, Gulf of Odessa, Black Sea - 20101029.jpg. Please, change the name to Ponticola cephalargoides, according to modern taxonomic revision. Look Pinchuk's goby and Ponticola for details. -- Ykvach, 10:27 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The file was renamed due to a request made by Etrusko25: see [1]. I will rename it again as you request. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! -- Ykvach, 19:48 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Here is the logo with a free license Red Bull Logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner100359 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's an unauthorized derivative work too. I've tagged it as a copyright violation. Unless FC Red Bull Salzburg has given written permission for their logo to be licensed under a free licence, we cannot have photographs or drawings of it in the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jacklee,
I've taken the liberty to convert your 2 speedies into DRs (Commons:Deletion requests/File:SupportersRBS.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMGP3507.JPG) to allow for some discussion, as I think that in both cases de minimis is applicable. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Renamed Files

Sir, I wish to thank you for renaming the files as requested.--Thorvaldsson (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Renamed file (2)

Thank you Jacklee for renaming File:Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Richet, Moustey, Aquitaine, France - 20110305.jpg. I got confused between the four churches of the village, which all look alike. Cheers, --Jibi44 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, my pleasure. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jacklee, sorry to annoy you again, but I have another request : the church is not located in Moustey as I thought, but in Pissos, the neighboring village (it's in the middle of the woods, didn't realize that). I have just checked that point, so now it's for sure. Could you please re-rename the above picture, replacing Moustey by Pissos, and do the same with File:Moustey église st JB de Richet.jpg ? Thanks aforehand. Cheers, --Jibi44 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, problem.  Done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Proterorhinus marmoratus

Dear Jacklee! Would You please rename the files Proterorhinus marmoratus1.jpg to Proterorhinus semilunaris.jpg and file Proterorhinus marmoratus tarka géb.jpg to Proterorhinus semilunaris tarka géb.jpg. The files are named incorrectly, illustrate another fish species. For details see en:Tubenose goby, en:Western tubenose goby, en:Marine tubenose goby. Thank You very much! -- Ykvach (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK,  Done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! --Ykvach (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for renaming those files and also for updating the descriptions. I do try to update the descriptions when possible but at the moment I am concentrating on identifying the animals and then replacing the incorrect categories. I am hoping my request for file mover rights is granted soon and then I will be able to move them myself. Once again thanks ZooPro 14:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Argentina

Hi Jacklee

I removed the start of the discussion because technically, having these discussions on the Delinker page is frowned upon, so I thought now that we agreed on those elements, they didn't need to be there anymore...

Anway, categories that don't fit the more future-proofed/accepted category system would be:

• Category:History of Argentina Colonial Period
• Category:History of Argentina from Independence to the Constitution of 1853
• Category:Recent history of Argentina
• Category:History of Argentina Modern
• Category:History of Argentina from 1853 to 1930

Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So, what are your thoughts? Go simply for a blank move/merge into "History of Argentina", or do we have to split up at least the subcategories by hand and move them into at least "by decade" cats as appropriate? I think it has to be the second, or we could, with some reason, be accused of destroying valid categorisation work. Ingolfson (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest as follows:

• Merge "Category:Recent history of Argentina" and "Category:History of Argentina Modern" into "Category:History of Argentina", because terms like modern and recent are not sufficiently defining.
• As regards "Category:History of Argentina from 1853 to 1930", I assume there is some significance to the dates that I'm not aware of. In any case, this category seems to be sufficiently defined, so perhaps it can be made a subcategory of "Category:Argentina in the 1850s", "Category:Argentina in the 1860s", and so on until "Category:Argentina in the 1930s". Alternatively, or additionally, you could create a new category called "Category:History of Argentina by era" (or "period" or something similar) and put "History of Argentina from 1853 to 1930" into it.
• I would suggest that "Category:Colonial history of Argentina" and "Category:History of Argentina from Independence to the Constitution of 1853" be treated similarly.

What do you think? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Zhang_Junli.jpg

Hello, Jacklee. Of course file name's wrong is my mistake, but I can't understand why you suggested copyright issue. Because while this photo was published in Shanghai, but I scanned this photo and made file in Japan! --天竺鼠 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to insist {PD-Japan-oldphoto} is wrong, please suggest the correct tag for me. If you won't suggest correct tag, I won't be able to deal with this problem. --天竺鼠 (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you scanned the photograph in Japan is not relevant at all. (Please note that you can only use {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} on photographs published before 31 December 1956, or photographed before 1946 and not published for 10 years thereafter, under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan.)

I don't think there is a suitable tag for this photograph, which is why I nominated it for deletion. Under Chinese law, copyright lasts for the life of the author (in this case, the photographer) plus 50 years. If you can find out who the photographer was and that he or she died at least 50 years ago, then you can apply {{PD-old-50}} to it. But if you don't know who took the photograph and therefore don't know whether the photographer is still alive or not, then we can't tell if the photograph is in the public domain and it can't be uploaded to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But if you saying is true, not only images which I uploaded, but most of modern Chinese people's photograph in Wikimediacommons must be deleted! You'll have to suggest delete these photos! I want to ask Wikimedia commons' administrator or another person's opinion. --天竺鼠 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if Administrator judges these photos will have to be deleted, I will obey it. --天竺鼠 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do go ahead and ask for clarification. I would suggest you post a message at "Commons talk:Licensing" to ask for other people's views on this matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I posted a message at "Commons talk:Licensing" about this problem. Please check and if you want to add, please post message. --天竺鼠 (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if your saying is true, I re-uploaded these files at Wikipedia Japanese Version, only use at Japanese Version, maybe no problem isn't it? --天竺鼠 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I added message about {PD-China} at "Commons talk:Licensing". {PD-China} says "According to copyright laws of the People's Republic of China ... and the Republic of China ..., all photographs enter the public domain 50 years after they were first published, or if unpublished 50 years from creation,...”. --天竺鼠 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Date from EXIF

Hi. Please consider that date and time from EXIF are allways uncertain if they are not explicitly confirmed by the author himself. Such date shouldn't be emphasised in the file name when such file is renamed. Especially if the time is evidently untrue (e. g. time 00:18 for a photo with day light) you can suppose that very probably, also the EXIF date may be not set accurately. --ŠJů (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks for the tip. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "thank you" at Flickr

Hi Jacklee,

after having read your postings here I decided to finally create a Flickr-account to be able to leave a "thank you"-message at the images I transfer to Commons. I always thought it would be a good idea to do so, but to be honest, until now I was just too lazy :-/

Is it OK for you if I use your example as a "template" (until I get some time to create my own message)?

Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Be my guest! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd category edits you made

[2], [3], [4]. These are cities, not people. When in doubt, it's better to leave things in a more general category and/or to contact the uploader, rather than make guesses. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, missed a few. Thanks for spotting them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Roter Schleimfluss

Hello Jacklee, thanks for moving my images. But you made some mistakes. The name of the file is gramatically incorrect but it's not bad; "Baumstumpf mit Rotem Schleimfluss" (German is difficult... ;-)) would be better (or maybe an English title, but I don't know the English name for that phenomenon). Furthermore the depicted substance is no slime mould. It is a secretion of the tree, bacteria and yeast cause the red colour. The one file is not another version of the other because I took the photograph of another tree stump. --Toffel (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have forgotten the links:

• File:Baumstumpf mit Roter Schleimfluss - 20100521-01.jpg
• File:Baumstumpf mit Roter Schleimfluss - 20100521-02.jpg

I think you should delete the old redirects. --Toffel (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Oops, sorry about that. (I took basic German lessons but obviously didn't get far enough with my grammar.) I didn't change the language used in the filenames because we try not to do that unless there is a good reason. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop !

Hi Jacklee. Please stop your changes ! They are completely out of standard! We cannot have Km long file names like this. I understand your care to be precise, but all this informations that you give, they have to be put in the description of the file, not in the file name. I hope that you will changes again this names that are out of all standards. For a picture it's sufficient that you give the name of the object or of the subject, and the location of it, and maybe a number. That's all. Thank you very much. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any guideline that prohibits precise file names. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

COM:GL/P

Hi Jacklee. I made response to Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Artifacts recovered from the Belitung shipwreck. Cheers, --ZooFari 03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Renames

I was just in the process of declining the rename of "File:Heqet and Osiris in Dendera Temple.jpg" as it had just recently been renamed to this name, and thought we ought to get concensus instead of file name churn. Oh well I hope that it is correct this time! ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that the comment on the discussion page was accurate. Anyway, let's see what happens. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, originally I was about to rename it when I struck the old redirect, thought maybe I should ask the original renamer what he thought as there wasn't actually any response to the anonymous statement on the discussion page. Oh well we may be back this way in a couple of months :-) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What fun! :-D — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that a request?

File:Wrapped fruit basket.jpg you have placed a request that suggests a new name and at the same time says it is not necessary to rename? I am a little confused!? Ok the filename is not a precise description, it is only a filename, not the file description! ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had already renamed the file, so it seems unnecessary for it to have been renamed again so shortly thereafter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, a bit of a renaming conflict, we were both apparently renaming the same file at the same time [5], I seem to have completed 3 minutes before you. I'll leave the rest of the category to you then :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the double redirect that resulted, do you want to request the deletion of the extra redirect File:Gift basket - 20070209.jpg? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. OK. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:A and J Inglis Pionees (1905).jpg

File:A and J Inglis Pionees (1905).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Finavon (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Singapore_National_Anthem_at_the_National_Museum,_Singapore_-_20100720.jpg

File:Singapore_National_Anthem_at_the_National_Museum,_Singapore_-_20100720.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Powers (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sleeping people etc.

Hi Jacklee,

I removed a series of requests for SieBot [6]. As they weren't signed, I couldn't figure out who made them, but they might be from you. I'm not sure if "(People/men/women/etc) (gerund)" is perferable to "(gerund) (people/men/women/etc)" as the focus is on the gerund. --  Docu  at 06:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the requests were added by me. I was trying to standardize the naming because some parent categories seem to be using "People sleeping, etc." while others are using "Sleeping people, etc." Let me have another look at the issue and try and identify where the inconsistency is. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Toscanelli

The engraving we are talking about is taken from this portrait of Christopher Columbus, where the name of the sitter is clearly written. My best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll rename the file this evening. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

I'd appreciate it if you took a look at this -- I'm inclined to "delete" -- but it hasn't had a lot of solid thinking. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the files have already been deleted. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Singapore political party logos

I find it disappointing that you did not at least drop me (the illustrator) a comment on the logos before taking action on removing them from the said templates and such. All it takes for me is to upload modified versions and the issue is resolved in seconds. I take it that you are going to reverse-reverse what you have done, because I am not going to expend all that energy to undo things that your have done.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at "Commons talk:Licensing#Logos of political parties in Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Klick. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File rename

Hi, you renamed a file of mine (I requested that it be renamed), but you called it Adult Blaste lignicola on Eucalyptus trunk, Auckland, New Zealand - 20110114.jpg and give the collecting coordinates as camera coordinates. This is rather misleading, as the specimen was collected on a Eucalyptus trunk at those coordinates, but photographed in my lab, quite dead and stuck to a cardboard point! Maybe this needs a rethink??? Stho002 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing this out. I've applied the template {{Object location dec}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A Doubt...

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kottarathil sankunni.jpg - I cannot find that image in PD status with the said book Aithihyamala - Cover image from web, how these kind of pictures are complying with policies of commons..user:Yann is replying that it is in indian copyright, but a link need to be varified right..?? 1--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes

Look again. DS (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the deletion request page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Piotr

The Deszkiewicz image was uploaded in '09. The pl.wiki userpage referencing "Piotr Hałas" was last edited in '08. Conclusion: the pl.wiki userpage is referencing a previous, identically-named image which got deleted. Your comments about relevance are unaffected. DS (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, and thank you for the help with the file File:William Prinsep, Europeans being entertained by dancers and musicians in a splendid Indian house in Calcutta during Durga puja (1830s–1840s).jpg. I had been uploading some things from the Prinsep family, and noticed someone had put the wrong date in. Thank you for the rename and the work you put into it, as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif

Hellow, in Map Patagonia I See you have added wrong info, so I reverted changes and added original data where the Map comes from, also I donated this map from Editorial Patagonia Media. if you want to make further changes, let me know. On May 18th you made 9 changes of data. Regards, Jaime--Jaimesaid (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The new information was put into the file description page because Nerêo placed a message at "Commons talk:Licensing#Falsificación de autor" saying that the original information was wrong. If you disagree with him, please discuss the matter on his talk page and try to reach an agreement first, then leave another message for me here or at "Commons talk:Licensing#Falsificación de autor". In the meantime, I have reverted your changes because it does not seem correct. For example, the title of the map is clearly shows as Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines and not Map of Patagonia. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I left this same note in Licensing#Falsificación de author and in Nereo talk page. There is no discussion about this, only a huge misunderstanding, that I hope it gets clarifyed. Nereo is right in his main observation and conclusion when he did his request, but the issue lacks of truth and that is due to lack of more information needed prior to such false accusation. The Map was never thought to be Jaimesaid as author, when first placed into commons it was automatically set that way or by mistake I do not know, maybe it was done since I am the Editor (and owner) of Editorial Patagonia Media, nevertheless, I will not change anything, but it is important to note and to let you know for the records the following: The Map of A.Jenett in the original book of "Frederic Lacroix" or "Federico Lacroix" of 1841 "Historia de la Patagonia, Tierra de Fuego e Islas Malvinas" the original Map is in black and white and has no color or limits to the north of Patagonia. What Editorial Patagonia Media did in year 2007 was to read carefully the boundaries that Lacroix describes in his book about limits of all Patagonia, then those limits of his book were colored and printed and published in the front page of a book named "Patagonia Chilena" by the author Francisco Fantini in Santiago Chile in year 2007, with all the notes about this issue inside the book and in the back of the map, with all the sources and the name of the cartographer that intervened the map which is Mr.Montt, based on the original A. Jenette drawing and incorporating old boats and digitalization to improve the quality of the map. There is a copyright of the book owned by Editorial Patagonia Media, which I Jaime Said, on behalf of Patagonia Media, donated to Wikimedia Commons. Please also see the following link to Francisco Fantini first edition. HERE http://www.accionaudiovisual.uc.cl/prontus_fcom/site/artic/20071219/pags/20071219165347.html. There is a big misunderstanding and accusations that are misplaced here. Also, Since I have seen that you place notes that MAP is the original from Lacroix or from A. Jenett I did correct this, and tried to put notes that it is NOT the original, it is an ADAPTATION from the original, based on Lacroix original information on limits inside his book. You have to see what you want to do or say about this matter. I leave this note in order to clarify a terrible misunderstanding that is been caused with good faith by all of us here. Cheers,--Jaimesaid (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we have a big problem. If the map is not merely an adaptation of the original 1841 map with colour added but has original portions added by Montt in 2007, then the map is still copyrighted and has to be nominated for deletion. We can only have material that is in the public domain here at the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but we can not let people think it is the original A. Jenett, when it is based entirelly on the original of A. Jenett colored by Montt to the extrict description of the limits writen by Federic Lacroix in 1841.Cheers,--Jaimesaid (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC) That is why I think, in the meantime you should make the necessary note as above ( Montt2007), and take out the notes that you put up there, since as it is, it is clear that we are talking about Jennet 1841.Cheers--Jaimesaid (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to answer on the file talk page so that this discussion is not happening in two places. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Gan Kim Yong photo Done!

Hi Jacklee,

the pic in flickr of my daughter presenting a bouquet of flowerrs to GKY is changed to atttribution to cc as per you request.

Wilson (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.197.7.77 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Singapore_currency

Template:Singapore_currency has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dcoetzee (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lady at the Paris Exposition

Hi Jacklee,

At Commons_talk:Geocoding#Geocoding_of_a_painting I started a thread on how to geocode the painting. BTW, I noticed both versions have overcropped borders (one on the one side, the other on the other). --  Docu  at 13:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Antonella x Asptilio

Dear Jacklee, I added this image from a page of googlebook. This is the page => [7]. This Italian composer died in 1623; this is a photo of his funeral monument in Warsaw, destroyed during the last war. The book on google is «Opera omnia Madrigali di Asprilio Pacelli, Mateusz Glinski» and I downloaded it yesterday. Please, tell me if there is some problem, or put the right name to the file: Asprilio Pacelli.png. Thank you very much. Yours sincerely --Antonella (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have renamed the file as "File:Portrait of Asprilio Pacelli from a monument in Saint John's Archcathedral in Warsaw, Poland.png". I think the correct licences for the image are {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-1996}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Best wishes. --Antonella (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:James Reilly, Mayor of Calgary (c. 1907).jpg

What are you basing the 1907 date off of? According to his article he retired in October 1899. 117Avenue (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the date given in the source, http://www.glenbow.org. Unfortunately, the URL given by the uploader doesn't work. You'll have to search for the photograph manually in the Glenbow Museum website. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is. That's strange. 117Avenue (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's simply a portrait taken after his retirement? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Donetsk

Hi Jacklee,

One of the categories you are trying to move is defined in Template:Photocopy from the Museum of History of Donetsk metallurgical plant. As it's a source category, maybe it should be "from" rather than "in". --  Docu  at 18:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That would make "Category:Photographs from the Museum of History of Donetsk Metallurgical Plant" the only category using from instead of in in the parent category "Photographs by museum". Personally, I think it is better to use the in formulation for consistency. (Also, I have changed the wording of the template because the files are not photocopies but scans. If you have no objections to this, I will also rename the template.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really mind. I was just wondering why the bot failed. --  Docu  at 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, did Category-bot fail? What happened? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It skips <includeonly></includeonly>. --  Docu  at 21:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I see that you were lumbered with a number of my pictures that needed renaming. Sorry about that! I wanted them to be useful and the original names I gave were not conducive to that. I think I am beginning to crack the system and hope not to bother you again, not in that way anyway! Ciao JonRichfield (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you have been around the Commons for a while and have a working knowledge of its policies, you might want to request for the right to move (i.e., rename) files yourself: see "Commons:Requests for rights". Thanks, by the way, for your great nature images! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarotachi

If you're concerned about that Tarotachi upload, I recommend you check his other uploads as well. DS (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on the uploader's user talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Theo v.G.

Thorough work. Thanks! --  Docu  at 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was initially quite confused by the request but did a bit of research and found that it was justified. So I decided to add the additional information to the file description page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File moves and description improvements

Hi. Please, avoid controversial changes in file description or controversial changes of proposed names.

• Don't confuse the file name with the full file description - the file name should be as brief and simple as necessary, with respect to the context.
• As result from the alphabetic-order principle, the file name should generally contain first the more common specification (city, street), then the more precisely or detailed specification (a building, detail etc.). Maybe, you personally prefer different form, but respect that not all users prefer your ideals.
• Date or time from EXIF are never certain if they are not explicitly confirmed by the photograph or uploader. If there is no date or time from the author, the date-time assumed from EXIF need to be relativized by the {{According to EXIF}} template to be discerned from data given by the author. See also User talk:Jacklee/Archive: Image issues (2011)#Date from EXIF.
• Useless spaces in the description template are very controversial arrangement and have maybe as much disadvantages as benefits. If you prefer such offset, you can use it in files you upload but it can be felt as obtrusive to make controversial changes based on personal preferences with files uploaded by others.
• Many users prefer that all location data (verbal description as well as coordinates) are together, permission statement is in the permission field and template structure isn't unsystematically combined with heading structure. Please, don't disrupt such logical disposition, even if you personally prefer some different.
• Please avoid useless replaces of full direct links with simplified template link to Wikipedias, especially because you induces a rewardless discrepancy of English description in relation to other languages.
• The field "date" need often the specification what the date means. It can be date where the photo was taken, where was firstly published, where was lastly modified, scanned from the pattern (digitalized) etc. If the uploader made a more exact specification, please don't replace it with less exact one.

When you want to modify file description or file name, please confine your actions to uncontroversial clear improvements and necessary corrections and abandon whatever assertion of your personal taste and preferences against likewise purposeful taste and preferences of uploaders. Cheers. --ŠJů (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice please

I would like to get your advice about this heated DR..Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chithira_Thirunal_Balarama_Varma,_last_ruling_maharaja_of_Travancore.jpg--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Woodcarvers and woodcutters

Hi Jacklee,

Please note that I removed your requests at [8], as we currently have both categories: Category:Woodcarvers and Category:Woodcutters. You might want to use {{Move}} on one or the other.

BTW, it would be easier to notify you if you added your name to the move requests. The edit history of that page is a bit long. --  Docu  at 07:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, let me have a look at "Category:Woodcarvers" and "Category:Woodcutters". It doesn't seem to make sense for all the subcategories of "Woodcarvers" to be called "Woodcutters". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

CSN

Hi Jacklee,

I slightly modified your request at [9]. Hope this is ok. Otherwise don't hesitate to place another move request. --  Docu  at 07:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the modification? I couldn't tell from the diff. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the two subcategories. --  Docu  at 06:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Paget's disease of bone

Hi Jacklee,

The name of the disease per w:Paget's disease of bone matches the current category title. Thus I remove one of the requests included in [10]. --  Docu  at 07:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, then. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, en:Arthrogryposis uses caps for "Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita" (at least initially). Shall we keep the current title? --  Docu  at 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think English Wikipedia is wrong here. Looking at other reliable sources such as Medscape Reference and Google Scholar, it seems that there is no reason for the words multiplex congenita to be capitalized. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

True, it's a Latin term anyways. --  Docu  at 06:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

CT

Hi again,

Looks like you are the only one moving categories around ;)

Am trying to sort out the "Category:Diseases" and "Category:Disorders" categories, now that we have merged them into "Category:Diseases and disorders". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I slightly modified the request for Category:Computed tomography images 3d reconstruction, but run through the other requests. Maybe we should add "CT" somewhere in the category description. "CT images" seems almost better understood than "Computed tomography images". --  Docu  at 07:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. I was trying to align the subcategories with the parent category "Category:Computed tomography images". I guess we can add a usage note at that category mentioning "CT images". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to get the remaining medical stuff done now. --  Docu  at 06:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:MiaSotis f4.jpg

Hi, you seem to have overlooked the OTRS ticket already on this image. I actually uploaded these based on an email to OTRS by the performer. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just spotted it and already fixed the issue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects & old filenames

 Answer found
Hi, I saw you did my request for renaming a soundfile, thanks. Just one question: the old one had many incoming links, from multiple language WPs. Do I understand that that is not relevant for me & my request (I could find a REDIRECT-like thing here))? If so, I can put a dozen requests more. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I did find the redirect. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

derivative?

Hi Jack,
some time ago in the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chris Colfer Portrait.png, you wrote that the "drawing" File:Chris_Colfer_Portrait.png would have to be deleted if it "is a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph". I am quite sure now that it was "drawn" after this Getty Images photo File:Chris Colfer in the Teen Choice Awards 2010.jpg, which has of course been deleted as copyvio[11], but which is simply a color-intensified version of this Getty Images photo. Assuming this is true, do you think this kind "drawing" is legally o.k. or not o.k. under US law? --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is a tough one. I think you're right – the file was based on the Getty Images photograph (the uploader even accidentally incorporated part of the background as part of Colfer's jacket collar). I'd say that if there is evidence that the uploader actually drew the picture by himself or herself, then that might be evidence of sufficient creativity for there to be a separate copyright in the image. However, if the uploader simply used some computer program to make it look like the photograph was drawn, then I think that is an unauthorized derivative work. If we cannot tell one way or the other, then based on our precautionary principle we should nominate it for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your expertise. I fear we will not get any useful communication from the uploader, as he seems to react rather aggressive to questioning his uploads, as per what I've from the current complaint[12] on COM:AN/U. I've filed now a regular DR, which will allow for further opinions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chris Colfer Portrait.png. --Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Кашинская_писцовая_книга_л.61.jpg

I'd be interested in your thoughts here. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License?

I'd appreciate your comment here. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Go here, please leave your thoughts. DS (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pulau Tekong BMTC.JPG

Hey, I'm on holiday with only a phone and a bad Internet connection. Somebody deleted the original of this image which I edited for you without fixing the description of the cropped image. Could you have a look at that? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder why that was done? What would you like me to update in the description of the cropped image? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

easiest would be to get the original to undelete and to give the deleting admin a beating :) Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the beating part, but I left a message on the admin's talk page yesterday asking him or her to undelete the file. No response yet, though. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, how did you get the idea to rename like this? Did you use an online translator like Googles language tool? Or did somebody who claims to speak German tell you that this naming was ok? -- Cecil (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I studied a bit of German a few years ago, but obviously not enough ^-^. Tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest Aufbahrungshalle am Friedhof von Hinterbrühl,_Niederösterreich ..... That way you get rid of the genitiv (des christlichen Friedhofs von Hinterbrühl). -- Cecil (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK,  Done. Thanks for pointing out the errors. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On the same topic - can you rename this (and the related ones) to read "Dijle" instead of "Dilje". I know that looks odd to non-Dutch/Flemish readers, but that is correct. Thanks. File:Dilje River, Doode Bemde, Neerijse, Flemish Brabant, Belgium - 20110402-02.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Hi Jacklee,

I renamed most categories requested on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. I'm a bit hesitant abut the Nomenclature ones. Spelling it out gets a bit lengthy. The base category uses the abbreviation as well. Shall we keep it that way and just standardize the rest of the name? --  Docu  at 11:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My impression was that "NUTS" was not very intuitive (and slightly odd sounding!), but if you think it's not a good idea to remove the acronym I have no objection to that. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, can you work on the "Chelsea F.C." categories at the top of the list? They've been there for a while; I'm not sure why. Basically, I've nominated them so that all the subcategories use "F.C." and not "FC", to match the parent category. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't too convinced of that request as one might end up moving all "FC"/"F.C." around for not that much benefit. Thus I left it for someone else to do. If you really want them renamed, I'd do them.

BTW, I can't move "Cataluña" as my interface chokes on the "ñ". You'd need to use cat-a-lot, if you want it moved. --  Docu  at 15:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that one. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:001.jpg

Hi, perhaps you can help here - File:001.jpg is an image of a Chinese composer. I'm trying to find out if this is correctly licensed as Author field has "sega", yet "source" has "own". It is licensed with a PD-Self. I can't read chinese, I see that you have a little & was hoping you might be able to help as that would possibly make looking at google results a bit easier. And it needs a rename too - was going to suggest the English & Chinese name combined (File:Hwang Yau-tai 黃友棣.jpg) but obviously would be copy-pasting from en: and not sure if I had it right. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is it you would like me to do? What sort of Google results am I looking out for? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a GoogleImages search and found http://www.yct.com.tw/991010-1.html. Note that this photograph is actually wider than the one uploaded to the Commons, which makes me think that the uploader was not the photographer (plus the fact that the author was indicated as "Sega"). Why didn't the uploader upload the full version of the photograph instead of a cropped version? I would suggest placing a "no permission" tag on the image. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, but your answer is what I needed. - thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Museum and museum's collection

Hi Jacklee,

I moving some of the categories you requested. Requests of the type "Rename Category:Musée de Préhistoire de Tautavel to Category:Collection of prehistory of the Musée de Préhistoire de Tautavel" need some editing after the move. Would you look into this? --  Docu  at 09:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, what sort of editing? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

By default, the bot redirects. In the listed sample, I think the new category should be a subcategory of the old category. In addition, parent categories appropriate for the initial category may not be suitable for the renamed one. --  Docu  at 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Is this the only category affected? If not, can you identify the others? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If any, you should find them with the other requests. I suppose you recall better the requests you made. They should be processed in an hour or two. --  Docu  at 09:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Art info editing

Can you help me edit the info on File:Paul Emmert – View of Honolulu. From the harbor. No. 1. white.jpg and File:Paul Emmert – View of Honolulu. From the harbor. No. 1..jpg like you did to File:'A Man of the Sandwich Islands with His Helmet' (unknown artist, c. 1830).jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAVEBEAR (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In future, you can copy the {{Artwork}} template from the template description page (click on the previous link) or from "File:George Henry Burgess, View of Honolulu. From the harbor. (c. 1854).jpg". Copying the template from an existing file description page is helpful because you can see how other templates like {{Other date}} and {{Size}} are used. I obtained the information for the template from the Library of Congress website. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the claim that Emmert sketched the drawing? If so, add it to the file description pages. The lithograph itself just states that Emmert was the publisher. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I uploaded some more of the same collection and I have no idea how to do the info descriptions for the art template since I usually upload photos rather than pieces of art. So can you help me on those? Give me twenty more minutes since they take some time to upload.

As for Emmert the library of congress link says "Drawn on stone by G.H. Burgess. Sketched from nature by Paul Emmert."

Ah, yes. Missed that. Hmmm, maybe we should change the artist back to Paul Emmert. What do you think?

Do you want to try using the {{Artwork}} template on your own, using "File:George Henry Burgess, No. 1. View of Honolulu. From the harbor. (c. 1854).jpg" as a sample? Otherwise, let me know what the files you have uploaded and I'll get to them when I have time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really hard for me to do the artwork template, so I hope you can do it instead. Check my upload list. Also can you mention somehow that the drawing itself was made in c. 1853 but published in 1854?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the title anymore but I go ask someone else about it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. How do you know the drawings were made c. 1853? The LoC website says "c. 1854". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Other examples on the web (google image search), and it makes since if the drawings were drawn one year prior in Hawaii before being published in San Francisco in 1854; travel by sea between Honolulu and San Francisco in the 1850s would've taken months.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think we should just not list the artist in the title and call them by the title of the work. Since the caption on the work doesn't even mention Burgess' name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The implications you have drawn concerning the year when the drawings were made are interesting, but in the absence of more definite evidence I would suggest following the year indicated in the Library of Congress's records. As for the artist's name, my preference is to indicate the name of the artist who is actually responsible for the artwork in question where this can be ascertained. In this case, without seeing Emmert's original sketches, it is hard to know whether the final works were primarily by Burgess (who created the lithographs) or whether he simply copied Emmert's sketches. Therefore, I agree it may be best to omit the artist's name. I had originally indicated Burgess as the artist because on the face of the artworks themselves Emmert is only credited as publisher and not as having played any other part in the creation of the artworks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting videos

Without looking through contributions (mine or yours) and with only using my memory -- it seems like you were on my list of contributors of cool videos.

And I seem to remember that I redirected a category that you recently made (something in botany?). So, you might be a member of two of my "mental categories" -- both of them good categories (as opposed to annoying).

If I am correct about these mental categories, 1) I was almost here several days ago to compliment you on your placement of a botany related video and apologizing for redirecting the category you made. If you take a few moments to look at the plant and animal video categorization (which I am particularly pleased with) you might see something that is like a vine which has attached itself to the "taxonomic tree of life" which is already (almost) existing here. It is actually very very similar in construction to the Unidentified <last known taxonomy> tree which vines the same way.

I would like to propose a task for you -- in my mind, you are perhaps a little more intelligent than me and in my memory, you were one of the first to almost successfully add a video to that "vine" -- thus are the impressions of wiki users :) Anyways, a little "how to" for adding videos by taxonomic classification rather than by common name classification ("Aves" instead of "birds" is probably the most unrelated words -- "fish" might be worse though). I kept the words "cattle" and "horses" for domesticated family members, btw. There are an excess of both images and videos comparatively for these species -- like zebras go into Equidae and equestrian events go into horses.

It was on my mind to write such a thing -- I thought it should be somewhat simple as the taxonomic challenge of categorization is already somewhat successful for categorizing photographs here. Category:Chordata is the place where most animal videos should be placed.

I really did think that you grasped the changes to the videos categorization more quickly than I would have -- for a person who has made a lot of changes here, I am in real not so quick to enjoy, encourage or adapt to changes -- even grasp them. Slow for some things, quite speedy for others. I mention this because I have written occasionally sarcastically on talk pages, but I would like to assure you that this is not a case of that.

I also have found that "discovery" of a system is a better approach to writing a how to for others who might be looking at the new phenomena. Better point of view to start with than the point of view of completely understanding it. It is also an opportunity to find problems and there are some. Some that I know of and more than likely, some that I don't know of.

§Or, don't write this how to. It is a big request/suggestion. It will take much time; it will probably be a pain in the ass. And there are a few other good reasons to avoid writing that -- I know, I have been avoiding it.... -- Queeg (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I recall listing some biology related video categories for renaming and reorganizing others, but I don't think I'm really the right person to write a usage note for this as I'm not a biologist and therefore not entirely familiar with binomial nomenclature. You could post a note at "Commons:Village pump" requesting for help with this. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the more a person knows about a particular subject the less he or she understands about what others do not understand about it. This is not a rule, as there are many exceptions to it -- but it does nullify the claim that "a biologist should write that" as a reason for not doing something. The task requires a person familiarity with the commons and an understanding of what bits of information an uploader might find useful.

I will accept the task is "annoying" or "not enough time" or "I simply do not want to do this" or even "You, Queeg annoy me and I will not do this simply because you asked it" -- this is after all a volunteer based collaborative. I will not accept that "a biologist is needed to accomplish that" as an answer due to the facts that 1)a biologist is not needed and 2)commons is a volunteer based collaborative.

Thanks for considering this. It really is far better to insult me personally than it is to inflate the requirements of the task. -- Queeg (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

:-) Well, I really do think it would be helpful to have more knowledge about binomial nomenclature to write a guideline about it. Also, this is not a task I have time for at the moment. Why don't you give it a shot? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jacklee#queeg_reasons for my reasons to not write that.

I admit that I am somewhat confused by your response. Providing a negative response that gives an aura of professionalism is not uncommon and also something I have probably done myself. "Steering a person" to a place where the social and appearance oriented white lie will start to become policy is not as innocent, however. And that is the point of my confusion.

"Having an opinion in a community talk space" is not equal to "wanting to help"?

My assumption was that you had thought about it and my experience with your actual activity here was that you started to grasp the ideas somewhat quickly -- and that you were naturally capable of doing this task. So the two real things I saw was an opinion being expressed in a public location and some success with the new categorization tree there in videos.

"Having an opinion in a community talk space" is not equal to "having thought enough about it and able to help"? -- Queeg (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your latest message is puzzling and I don't know what you are trying to say. I do not understand the remarks "'Steering a person' to a place where the social and appearance oriented white lie will start to become policy is not as innocent, however" and "'Having an opinion in a community talk space' is not equal to 'having thought enough about it and able to help'". Perhaps you do not mean to insult me in your messages, but I feel like this is happening. Anyway, in addition to not having enough time, I am now not particularly interested in the task either. Please ask someone else. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there were too many words. This started with a compliment to you. Here is what I saw and what brought me here:

1. I built a new structure for the categorization of videos which I tried to limit and still adhere to the existing tree for images. I saw that there might be a problem with the fact that Chordata (a word which I am personally do not use ever to describe the things in which it contains) contains birds (Aves), reptiles (Reptilia or whatever the spelling), mammalia and fish.
2. After construction this tree, I noticed that you had had the exact problem that I thought might happen. You put a video successfully into the family name, but had the Chordata problem. I consider myself to be of average intelligence here -- that you encountered this problem -- in my mind -- gave you at the least the average intelligence of those who participate here.
3. Still later, I saw that in your mind you had thought enough about this new tree to have expressed an opinion about it, in public. I was delighted to see this and in this delight and with my preconceived notions of a capable and willing participant (a restatement of the assumption of good faith, I believe), I came here to suggest that you write about how to avoid making the mistake that you made.
4. To me, the insult was when you made the claim that people of average intelligence cannot do what I asked you to do. The insult was to both of us. It failed to insult me, because I know it to be a false claim. Instead of saying "that task is not to my liking" which would have maintained a volunteers initiative which is what we have here, you claimed that neither me or you can accomplish such a great and education requiring task. To me, it was rude, demeaning to both me and you, and risked throwing a simple task into a discussion which would have ended with the requirement for a person who is simply way too over-qualified and possibly not understanding the problem even to accomplish this task.
5. I get frustrated and my ability to communicate simply starts to deteriorate when faced with these "appearance and not reality based" cliches. I became less good at communicating.
6. Too the way I think, you proved not Good Faith to my assumption and worse, you started to take the fun out of volunteering by putting a false appearance onto it.

"Little White Lie" is a cliche. I think they are a fact of being human though and will not ever claim to have never told any. I dislike them though. Sometimes employment or personal safety require them. At the same while, I enjoyed a cliche I have never heard of yet. A "Large Gray Lie". Commons has been blessed with a person who uploads some of the most beautiful videos; all within scope; beautifully, beautifully edited/crafted in a fashion that fulfills the scientific scope but additionally provides an unusually good esthetic. The "Large Gray Lie" was about the esthetic value which the videos were created with -- claiming to have only had the scientific scope in mind while crafting them. This sort of lie (I am certain that the user knows how beautiful the videos are) can have only a positive impact on a volunteer situation like this. It is the anti-diva. It is a "anyone can do it" which might not be true but at least promotes the attempt. Your claim that my request requires a professional in the field was quite rude to this very valuable anti-diva as well.

I am still assuming good faith, btw. I don't think that this is a problem with you in particular. If you think I should apologize, I will, but you will need to explain to me carefully what I need to apologize for. -- Queeg (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. You do know that people more highly educated in taxonomic nomenclature are probably specialized within a particular branch and qualified to argue where the lines of circumscription are drawn and able to determine species by their knowledge of this? -- Queeg (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. You invite me to help.
2. I express the view that perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject would like do it, but encourage you to do so if you are interested.
3. You apparently take this as some sort of insult, and make less-than-pleasant remarks about me.
4. I repeat my view that it would be better for someone with better knowledge on the subject to take on the task, but again suggest that if you are personally interested you should go ahead.
5. You again respond, taking this as some sort of insult, and in return saying rather rude things about me and my supposed lack of good faith. The mention of "Little White Lies" and "Little Grey Lies" which I do not fully understand, sounds like you are accusing me of lying.

In the circumstances, I am not interested in this proposed project. Please do not write to me about it again. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I think this is rather more about miscommunication than being rude. If there is still a task that requires collaboration (I suspect there is), then I suggest posting at COM:VP, and then whoever wants to participate can. I see no need for rancour here. all the best, Rd232 (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rd232, for your comments. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Pacelli

Hallo Jacklee. Please, may you explain me what happened with this image? I downloaded it from Googlebook and I discussed with Ianezz about it => [13]. Thank you very much and best regards. --Antonella (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't {{PD-Italy}} apply in this case? According to the wording of that tag, a photograph is in the public domain if it is a reproduction of figurative art (such as a sculpture) and 20 years have passed from the date of creation of the photograph. If the photograph was taken around 1947 (when the book was published), then it entered the public domain around 1967. If you would like more editors to comment on this issue, I would suggest that you post a message at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jacklee, but, please, I do not understand why you told me that 'File:Asptilio Pacelli.png' is a copyviol. Excuse me for the trouble. Best. --Antonella (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that. I think that was before I realized that {{PD-Italy}} was applicable. I've removed the notice from your talk page. — Cwheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with LOC handle

Hi Jacklee, Thank you for moving the File:Portrait of Corporal Nailer, 13th Pennsylvania Cavalry, USA (1861–1865).jpg. I notice that there is still a problem within the LOC template where one should be able to click on the link to see the listing on the LOC website...but I get an error. This is the problem that I was having last night as well. Do you know how to fix this? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like a problem on the LOC end. I guess the only thing that can be done is to report the error to the LOC by filling in the form presented by the error page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Singapore-RobertsQuay-HistoricalPlaque.jpg

Jack, reviewing the Singapore copyright law, I can see why it may be interpreted that the file I uploaded ("Singapore-RobertsQuay-HistoricalPlaque.jpg") is a potential violation. However, I cannot help but wonder if that is the intent of the law regarding a photograph of a publicly displayed historical sign of general interest.

Bryanmackinnon (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but unfortunately as it stands the freedom of panorama principle in Singapore doesn't apply to literary works or two-dimensional artworks. This seems to be the position in most countries the laws of which are based on UK law. My personal view is that if the Copyright Act is ever reviewed, this is one of the things that needs to be changed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another aspect is the copyright of old photos in such signs since it has been often 150 years since first publication. Some legal minds are arguing that the photos are not protected under copyright even when reproduced. Bryanmackinnon (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Roentgen photos You renamed

Thank You for doing the job, that's great! q:) Note that also File:X-ray by Wilhelm Röntgen of Albert von Kölliker's hand - 18960123-03.jpg is a duplicate of File:X-ray by Wilhelm Röntgen of Albert von Kölliker's hand - 18960123-02.jpg (I've templated it already). Thanks! Vinne2 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it seems "03" was the original file, and "02" a derivative which is a flopped version. However, an editor later flopped "03" itself, making it identical to "02". I wasn't sure if I should list the original for deletion, so I just renamed it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to know about copyrights of this image, I am about to wright a book about medical imaging and wanted to use that pict in my publication. Can I do so according to authors rights? If yes, do you know where I can get a better resolution image? thanks for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.203.86.93 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The images are in the public domain and thus free from copyright, as indicated on the respective file description pages. I'm afraid I do not know where to obtain higher resolution versions of the images. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ring with engraved portrait of Ptolemy VI Philometor (3rd–2nd century BCE) - 20080315.jpg

Hi! I don't find your renaming of this picture. The original name follows the same pattern as several hundreds of pictures representing artefacts from the Louvre. The new name obfuscates both the location of the object and its accession number, which is actually the most important element in the description: there may be lots of rings with the portrait of Ptolemy Philometor, but there is only one with this specific accession number. Conversely this artefact may be known under a different description, as it's very hard to differentiate between the different Ptolemies: identifications tend to change. If the identification changes, the date may change as well. For all these reasons I would prefer if you reverted your renaming. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest "File:Ring with engraved portrait of Ptolemy VI Philometor (3rd–2nd century BCE, Bj 1092) - 20080315.jpg"? There was a request for a similar file ("File:Ring with engraved portrait of Ptolemy VI Philometor (3rd–2nd century BCE) - 20110309.jpg") to be renamed, so I wanted to ensure that all the related files had similar names. If the identification or date does change, we can rename the files at that time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

An accession number is relevant only within a cultural institution, so the Louvre has to be mentioned. More importantly, our renaming policy states that our file names should be as stable as possible. We shouldn't rename for purely aesthetic reasons. The original file name isn't incorrect, misleading or offensive. There is no *need* for these related files to have similar names: harmonisation is a valid renaming reason only to ease usage in templates. That's why I ask you to revert to the original name. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Well, I can add "Louvre" to the name if you like ("File:Ring with engraved portrait of Ptolemy VI Philometor (3rd–2nd century BCE, Louvre, Bj 1092) - 20080315.jpg"). I'm afraid if you insist that the original name must be used, then you will have to tag it for renaming and ask an administrator to help you rename it. I am not an administrator, and so do not have sufficient rights to replace a redirect. However, I can rename the file to a new name that has not yet been used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename of my Masked Hunter pics

Hello Jacklee, thanks a lot for your kind renaming service - you managed to have the file name summarizing everything important, move the category to the correct species name and cleaned up my file description mistakes. Best regards, --Burkhard (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

署名问题

李先生，您好，我是杂志社的编辑西羽，我们很想刊登一张您拍摄的照片，请问怎么署名呢？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.226.115.129 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

您指的是哪一张照片呢？ — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Jacklee! I just wanted to say thank you for renaming some of the files I requested, and making them all consistent. I really appreciate it, and was glad to be able to update corresponding Wikipedia articles! Laura1822 (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that you did some general cleanup of the Artwork template info. I am still learning so I looked carefully at what you changed, and I have one question, about the accession number. The Artwork template says to "Provide also link to museum database if available." Should that read to include: ". . . unless the link would be duplicated in another template field"? Any insights, suggestions, and critiques appreciated. Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. You edited the Romney portrait of Mrs. Fletcher (previously misidentified as Lady Bessborough) to show the provenance which ended with the Columbus Museum of Art (nice! thanks!) and so listed the portrait as being there presently. But the picture archive at that site is, I believe, an archive of paintings sold by Philip Mould. (Also the painting and its accession number aren't on the Columbus museum website.) That's why I left the location info blank, because the source (Philip Mould) does not indicate when or to whom it was sold. Laura1822 (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Feel free to update the file description page to indicate that the painting appears to be on offer for sale with an art dealer. As for the use of the |accession number= field in {{Artwork}}, I suppose there was nothing wrong with you linking the accession number to the website. I just thought the link seemed redundant since it was also indicated as the source. Yes, perhaps the documentation of the Artwork template should be updated. If it is not edit protected, you can make the change yourself. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I had another look at the source website. It is actually an image library of historical portraits, so I don't think the fact that an image appears on the website means the painting is being sold by Philip Mould. (At any rate, the painting doesn't appear on the Philip Mould "Works for Sale" web page.) Not sure how you can find out whether the painting is still at the Museum. Maybe you can e-mail them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I emailed Philip Mould for clarification, and then it occurred to me to try the Wayback Machine at archive.org. I found this painting for sale in May of 2004: sitter's catalogue. From a few other spot checks comparing the Wayback's snapshots with the current contents of historicalportraits.com, I am reasonably sure that my original assessment is correct, but I'm happy to wait for their response to clarify their criteria for inclusion in their image library and whether they will answer my specific questions about this portrait's whereabouts. Also, I found that it was sold at Christie's in June 2002 for over £100,000 but the Christie's website appears to be down at the moment so I can't confirm that.

On another note, I noticed that in one of your edits (think it was yours, can't find it), you got a URL with a pipe in it to work correctly by substituting certain wikicode, I think it was an exclamation mark surrounded by curly braces. I had searched and searched for how to do this, so was very grateful to see how it's done. Do you know where it is documented?

Next subject, I am still learning about categories here on Commons and I think I understand why you created a new category for the three versions of the same portrait of Lord Granville, and moved most of the categories to the new category. But I don't understand why you completely removed most of the categories of things like "Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" from not only the portraits themselves but the new category too. Is there some policy for choosing which categories to use or exclude that I am missing?

Finally, do you know where I can find any documentation for preferred sorting for (a) people with titles, and (b) creator categories? Specifically, I think Granville should have a default sort under "Granville, 1st Earl" (his title, not his given name, and NOT his surname), but when included in the Thomas Lawrence category, should there be some other sort key, like the date of the portrait, so it would be: "1804, Granville, 1st Earl"? That would make all the portraits in the category sort in chronological order, which seems like it might be a valid choice, but where can I find a guideline for how Commons wants it to be done? And is it okay to create categories for families or peerages where I think it would be helpful? Guidelines? Thanks! Laura1822 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My responses, which I've set out in point form for ease of reading:

• Because the pipe character (|) has a specific meaning in wikitext, if you don't want it to be interpreted as wikitext you can replace it with the template {{!}}.
• Since there were three files all relating to the same painting, I decided to create a category to contain them ("Category:Portrait of Lord Granville Leveson-Gower, later 1st Earl Granville (1804–1809) by Thomas Lawrence"). However, I realized that this category name did not make sense for some of the parent categories such as "Category:Ambassadors to Russia" and "Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom". Thus, I created a separate category "Category:Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Earl Granville" and moved all the parent categories relating to Lord Granville Leveson-Gower personally there. "Portrait of ..." is now a subcategory of this category, and only the parent categories relating to the painting are associated with that subcategory.
• I am not aware of any guideline on how people with titles and creator categories should be sorted. After a discussion with other editors a while back I started drafting one ("Commons:Sorting of categories named after people") based on the AARC2 but then got busy with other things and haven't completed it yet. You might want to leave a message at "Commons:Village pump" for input from other editors about this. In Lord Granville's case, I followed the sort key at the English Wikipedia article "Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Earl Granville". I wonder if it is a good idea to arrange paintings in categories by date. I have a feeling people are more likely to look for paintings by their names rather than by their dates.

Good luck with your efforts to figure out the provenance of the painting! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk–

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I'll give it a think. On another subject, would you please consider commenting on my questions on the talk page for {{PD-scan}}? I am trying to understand the rationale for a lot of things around here, and even with my general familiarity with Wikipedia it is often very hard to find non-contradictory documentation and intelligent guidance for any but the most generalized subjects (and sometimes not even then), so I really appreciate your taking the time to explain things. Laura1822 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave the wrong page above. My questions are at Commons talk:When to use the PD-scan tag (not sure how to link it). BTW there is a whole set of portraits I've asked to be renamed because they were misidentified as Lady Elizabeth Foster when they are really of the Countess of Bessborough. Let me know if you need citations for any of them. Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "Commons talk:When to use the PD-scan tag#Question about PD-Art vs PD-Scan when source not given". Yes, if you have citations (whether online or not) for the images, please add them to the file description pages. Also, please provide the "official" names of the paintings if these are known. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant.  :) I will add book citations to the Lady Elizabeth/Lady Bessborough misidentifications; they are almost all in a recent biography of Lady Bessborough. Also, I heard back from Philip Mould about the Mrs Fletcher portrait by Romney: "Yes, (historicalportraits.com) is a collection of paintings we have sold. The painting you refer to was bought from another dealer in 2002 and we sold it to a private client in 2004. I am afraid we do not have any further provenance." I'll add that info to the file description. (How do you make square brackets appear, as they should in this quotation?)

Also, I did a search for philipmould.com and historicalportraits.com and there are 150 hits. I think an Institution template might be in order, and any of the ones that cite to the former will have been moved to the latter when they were sold. How does one go about creating such a template, and/or would a bot be able to do this sort of thing? Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think {{Institution}} is intended for auction houses, but for institutions such as archives, art galleries, historic buildings, libraries and museums which contain artworks, so I would advise against creating such a template. However, you can post a query at the Village Pump about this if you like. I'm not aware of any bot that automatically adds Institution templates to files. To add square brackets, just type them from the keyboard [like this]. No special markup is required unless you are also adding a URL link. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Book covers

Please be quiet. I am not so comfortable to discuss in English. Please see fr:Discussion_utilisateur:Bapti/août_2011#Images_de_couverture_de_livres where I submitted the issue to French speaking administrator. Could you seriously talk about copyvio about pictures less than 20 kb showing book covers issued 50 years ago, by publishers which perhaps are no more existing ? I am doing a bibliographic work and your borrowing suspicion of copyvio in such a case seems to me a non-sense. Cheers --Arno Lagrange ✉ 10:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We are strict about copyright at the Commons. You may be able to upload the book covers and use them under a fair-use justification at eo.wikipedia if that project allows fair-use images, but at the Commons we only accept files that can be shown to be in the public domain or properly licensed. It is the duty of the uploader to provide evidence of this. The size of the images is not relevant. If the books were published in the 19th century I would be more willing to accept that they may be in the public domain. But if they were only published 50 years ago (that is, around the 1960s), the illustrator may well be alive or have died only recently. You have not indicated where these books were published, but in many countries copyright does not expire until 70 years after the death of the creator. If you would like comments from other editors on this issue, please post a message at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just heard from the writers' widow, Erzsebet Sekelj : she as copyright owner will send a message to Wikimedia to let know that she grants publication of these pictures in Wikimedia projects. I just send her the list of concerned pictures. Just wait until you receive her message, and please don't delete any of these so long. Thanks --Arno Lagrange ✉ 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not the writer's copyright that we are concerned about but the copyrights of the artists who created the book covers. Unless you have information that these artists assigned their copyright to the author, you will need to find out who the artists are and contact them. There may be information in the books about the identity of the artists. If there is insufficient information on the copyright status of the book covers they will have to be deleted quickly, but if you are able to provide evidence that the covers are in the public domain or can get permission for them to be licensed under free licences, then you can ask for the files to be undeleted. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I ask lady Erzsebet Sekelj about. --Arno Lagrange ✉ 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, great. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Singapore MRT map

Re: File:MRT_system_map_2011.jpg, this is not a direct derivative of the SMRT map, although it has been drawn by hand to closely resemble it. Jpatokal (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Too close, in my view, not to be regarded as an unauthorized derivative. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to me to have been redrawn as the JPEG file contains many artifacts. It looks like a direct copy of the map that has simply been edited to remove certain parts, or an earlier version of the map on the SMRT website. I've converted the copyvio tagging into a normal deletion request. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fallen crow.jpg

Look at the answer please. I'm afraid of negative emotions of this user. She's talented but shy. Mithril (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've responded on her talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Mithril (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov

Jack:

I'd appreciate your comments here. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Scientific journals

Nice category, but another user has built another category containing scientific journals and wants to move all over. Uses different nomenclature and metacategory system, and the two systems ("Images from" and "by topic") have been built in parallel.

That's of course fairly wretched, because they can't be made to interface well. Essentially, everything down from "Serials, periodicals and journals" needs to be reorganized.

I haven't got a good idea how to. The best I could come up with is:

1. Continue to assume that "journals" content is images by default. This will help the category names short as is required by good programming practice (see en:KISS principle).
2. Streamline the entire "Serials, periodicals and journals" stuff. Simply call it "Journals" and make appropriate subdivisions (scientific journals, magazines, diaries, ship's logs...).
3. Use a by-topic and by-country metacategory system
4. Use other categories like "Images extracted from [zoology journals etc]", "Maps from journals" etc. as needed
5. Integrate "Journals" (and other print media, "Images from books" etc) into "Category:Image sources".

This would require about 60-75 category moves to fix the periodicals issue I think. The next best way to steamline it would require over twice this much. I'm completely open to better ideas, but can't find any ATM. Ultimately this looks like it needs to be discussed in a wider context, because Category:Media by source looks like it might create loops like these only worse. And I wouldn't want to move this by hand... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

First, is my talk page the best place to discuss this issue? Perhaps we should do this at the Village pump. Secondly, though I wasn't the editor who came up with the name "Serials, periodicals and journals", I think there is an advantage in retaining it to avoid editors creating separate categories such as "Periodicals" and populating them. In this respect, I am not sure that "Category:Journals" should remain as a distinct category. Thirdly, I do not think we should assume that the content of this tree is going to comprise entirely of images. I can envisage that editors may want to upload PDFs or DjVus of serials, periodicals and journals that are in the public domain. Therefore, "Images from serials, periodicals and journals" should be a subcategory of "Serials, periodicals and journals". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Otto Pfenninger, Two children leaning together, three quarter length, holding Union flag (1910).jpg

Results at COM:GL/P --Robot8A (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Otto Pfenninger, Two children leaning together, three quarter length, holding Union flag (1910).jpg

Hi, I can see you have changed the template for this image to Artwork. I know that there is a move to try and blanket apply this template but it honestly does not fit this photograph as most of the fields do not apply, and I would like to change it back to be consistent with the uploads that The National Archives would like to make in the future. Note, TNA have raised this example with me to discuss quick removal of CC-BY-SA which they included at upload to ensure consistent context which has now been lost in the derived versions. I suggest that the PD-old apply in addition to CC-BY-SA rather than replacing it which is more in line with the discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/08#discussion_about_the_terms_of_donation_of_images_that_are_actually_in_the_PD_but_are_donated_as_CC-by_or_similar Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to change the template back if you wish. How is CC-BY-SA applicable, though? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The TNA is concerned about persistent context, this is a good example as the derived versions created do not include the TNA catalogue link. Rather than relying on CC-BY-SA (which may get removed for these images rather than just supplemented by other, weaker, licenses) I am recommending that we create a standard context statement for TNA uploads which could also link to the relevant catalogue entry. I have sent a reply to the TNA and we'll see what direction they would like to take for future images before changing things. Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly recommend the creation of a template like {{LOC-image}} which links to the National Archives website. It took me ages to track down the relevant entry in the Archives' online catalogue, then I discovered it was not a permanent link. In my view, CC-BY-SA doesn't seem like the right licence when the file is clearly in the public domain (unless the Archives is asserting fresh copyright as a result of digitization, which is problematic as this would violate Commons policy). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:水は方園の器に.jpg

A question that may interest you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Brothers in misfortune

How can you think that the file name would imply that these boys were brothers? The are brothers in misfortune. That is an idiom. You are reading like a computer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know. I think this was a slight misinterpretation on the part of the requester. Nonetheless, "Brothers in misfortune" is arguably an insufficiently descriptive name for the image. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think one should try to leave file names alone. Just refer requesters to the description, where they can add description in French and other languages, that can include all the information that is in the caption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for spotting my images I uploaded from my camera. So thanks for spotting these photos. I will take them a look in several hours and reach a concenus. Thanks for the info but reach me in my Wikipedia talk page or email me here. Thanks. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ollie.jpg

File:Ollie.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Category:Voyage pittoresque autour du monde (1822) by Louis Choris

Is there any need for this category? Nearly all of Choris' works are from Voyage pittoresque autour du monde (1822). Plus not all of the images are from the National Library of Australia. Can't we just categorize them as Louis Choris. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess the category is not necessary if almost all of his works are from a single book. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rename and info

Thanks for the rename and added info to this. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rename and info

Thanks for the rename, corrections and added info to this. I was at a loss because Wiktionary does not have a translation for 䓁, I had no clue what my “dragon clothes” were supposed to mean before you corrected it, and I was unable to recognize the を as such. I don't understand why Unihan does not list 䓁 as a variant of 等 – was it common to randomly replace ⺮ with the grass radical in any character? Also I'm not sure whether “韓島の永宗城” means that the fort (永宗城) is on a Korean (韓) island (島), or whether “韓島” is instead just an unlikely variant of 韓半島. I guess what's meant here is the latter because the former would probably not have on'yomi furigana for 島, right? --Dustsucker (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't claim much credit for the renaming, I'm afraid. I don't speak Japanese either, so I asked for assistance at "en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#GanghwaLanding.jpg". You might want to raise your queries there. But I'm glad to have been of help. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks!--Dustsucker (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

resolved?

Hi, are you ok with the work that has been done on Belitung shipwreck ? If so, please mark the section as

Resolved

--Vera (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:State seal of Burma (1974-2008)

Category:State seal of Burma (1974-2008) has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 20:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:State seal of Myanmar (from 2008)

Category:State seal of Myanmar (from 2008) has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 20:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info on the pdf

Couple more questions:

1. Can you (please) change the width of the default display? (too wide for me on a laptop)

2. How does someone just download the pdf? (For an image, you just rightclick, but a pdf?) I want to leave instructions so that others can download it, if the viewer on Commons is impractical.

File: [14]

TCO (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and you're welcome. I'm not aware of any way to change the width of the default display. You could leave a message at "Commons:Village pump" about this as there are usually a few technically minded editors who will answer questions there. As for downloading the PDF, users can right-click on the "Full resolution" link and then select "Save link as ..." (on PCs; I don't use a Mac). This will save the file without opening it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi, Jack! I'd appreciate your advice regarding File:1805-Lawrence-Marchioness-of-Ely-AnnaMariaDashwood.jpg. I uploaded this several weeks ago and put a request on it for color correction. The original image came from a museum website and was high-res but only medium-sized, and very dark. The image was subsequently "enhanced," but IMO quite badly: First, the colors still aren't right, and even worse, the editor enlarged the image, so now it is bigger, but lower resolution. How should I handle this? Revert and request color correction again? With or without notifying the editor who "enhanced" the image? Is this something an admin (or at least someone higher up than I in the hierarchy) should handle? Thanks for any guidance you can provide! Laura1822 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert the image yet, for now. As a matter of courtesy, in the first place I'd suggest asking the editor who worked on the image originally to see if he or she can improve it. If the revised image is no better, then you can explain why to the editor and ask whether he or she would mind if you got another editor to try working on it. You might then try directly approaching other "Wikigraphists" for help. There's a list of them at "Commons:Graphic Lab" (scroll down till you see the "Wikigraphists" box); I think any of the users indicated as "often active" should be able to do a good job. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

PowerPoint rox!

Thank you from the kitty (see it has the page in it's paw)

TCO (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (How did you know I like cats? :-)) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename

Hi Jacklee, thanks for the rename. Did I get it right longer names with punctuation are no problem? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. Yes, most types of punctuation such as commas, full stops, hyphens and quotation marks are all right. However, some symbols are not permitted in file names. These include the ampersand (&), colon (:), oblique (/) and percentage symbol (%). I think if you try to include a disallowed symbol, the system will stop you. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Vera Effigies Turcorvm Imperatoris Ibrahim Filii, Et Sultanæ, Eiusdem Matris (1707, original).jpg

"U" and "V" were not fully distinguished as separate letters of the alphabet at that time, so some might consider renaming from "Turcorum" to "Turcorvm" to be a change in the direction of greater pedantry more than true accuracy... AnonMoos (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right ... Might not be worth the trouble of another round of renaming, though. Will note this for future reference. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GJ

Jack. Good job. Takabeg (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Biopolis-Singapore-20080712.jpg

Hallo Jacklee, re. File:Biopolis-Singapore-20080712.jpg: If you look at the flickr page you see in the text that the photographer doesn't like commercial use of his photo although it was licensed like that. I wrote some flickr mails with him and he changed the license in flickr now to © to not spam the search results. However, the thing which I do not know is: do you remember the text on photo's page at the time you did the review? Probably not. ;) But I do not doubt your license review if you are confident about it. In case the text about "no commercial use" was already in the description I wouldn't regard the CC-by-sa license tag in flickr as valid since it obviously wasn't intended by the photographer. What do you think? Btw: as of now I didn't tell him the ultimate possibility that his image needs to be deleted from Wikipedia. Just did tell him that we cannot use such pics. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded this photograph more than three years ago so, no, I don't remember exactly what the Flickr page said. But I don't remember seeing statements like "Kindly pay me if you use my photos for commercial purposes" and "Non[e] of my photos to be used without my permission". I wouldn't have uploaded the photograph to the Commons if I had seen such statements. I suspect they were added after I had uploaded the photograph to the Commons, which means that the CC-BY-SA-2.0 tag is still valid. But of course I have no proof of this. On the other hand, the photographer probably also has no proof that the statements existed in 2008. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) As said, I do not doubt your license review if you do not. Yes, of course - if the photo was once released under CC-by-sa it is still valid. I have put a marker on the file page re. the license change and with a link to here in the edit comment. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Urinary tract pathology?

Did you move urologic pathology to urinary tract pathology? Nephron  T|C 03:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't recall. I suppose it is possible I listed it for renaming together with other categories. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Renewable energy in the Republic of Ireland

Thank you for the link User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Watti Renew (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Jacklee,

Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Dealing with an abuse case

Thank you for the suggestion in dealing with an abusing user. I posted my problem here but I forgave him by striking down my own text in the true spirit of Christmas and New Year despite the fact that he remained unrepentant and redid his regular dose of abuse.

Let us all celebrate new year and wish a colorful world for us and the rest of the world.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

HNY

--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Med X-Ray sub cats

Hi Jacklee... I saw you efforts in categorization. I guess I have moved about 2000 in anatomic sub-cats and you have moved about 500 which is much appreciated. More have to be done yet. I will do the job in most of my spare time... thanks for contributing again. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, great. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)