User talk:JWilz12345/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What is the difference between de minimis and not de minimis in a photograph of a building or sculpture in a country where there is no freedom of panorama?

Single photography of buildings or sculptures located in countries where there is no freedom of panorama is not allowed, but pictures of landscapes with them are allowed in accordance with de minimis.

However, even with a similar composition, some photos were decided to be kept in the deletion discussion, while others were decided to be deleted in the deletion discussion.

Even if the file name contains the name of buildings or sculptures protected by copyright, it may be decided to be kept it, while in other cases it may be decided to be deleted it even if the file name does not contain such a name.

What's the difference?

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: depends on case-to-case situations. COM:De minimis#An example provides an overview of a de minimis test. Let's reword the three cases outlined there, but now using FOP-reliant works:

If the building/sculpture is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the photographic reproduction may be considered de minimis (perhaps the said artwork takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background).

If the building/sculpture forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the said artwork, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defense to say that the artwork was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the said artwork was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.

If the existence of the building/sculpture/fresco/mural makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the artist (architect/sculptor/muralist), then a de minimis defense to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Once I understood that. Please bring specific examples of deletion discussions.

For example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte world tower.jpg (As a result of the discussion, first version was kept because it is DM, but intermediate version was deleted because it is not DM.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow re. that file, it can be argued as passing de minimis test. Try to crop away up to the middle of the building. What is the result? The image is still usable and educational even if a substantial portion (not necessarily the whole) Lotte World Tower is cropped away. I'm not saying you crop the image and request an admin to revision delete it, I'm trying to illustrate to you the principle of the de minimis test as outlined in the example section of COM:De minimis.

However, File:Power Plant Mall, Makati City.jpg (DR) becomes a different story. There may be several reasons to claim de minimis such as the building obscured by trees or the image may show the road scenery. But upon using the de minimis test, you will realize that it fails after all. Crop away a major part of the building, and the image becomes a redundant image of a portion of the road or a tree. The building serves an integral purpose on the image; without it, the image is of no use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

When you request deletion of files in categories of buildings or sculptures located in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, are files corresponding to de minimis excluded from the deletion request?

I saw your requests for deletion of files in the category of buildings and sculptures located in South Korea where there is no freedom of panorama.

In these deletion requests, it was confirmed that these deletion requests were made except for some of the files that were in categories at the time the deletion requests were made.

Excluded files:

Are these files excluded because de minimis applies to these files?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: those are not deletion of categories per se. Those are batch or mass deletion requests, made easier through VisualFileChange apparatus. The files that I excluded are likely due to my judgment that these may pass COM:DM. Deletion of categories can either be made via COM:Categories for discussion or tagging of speedy deletion notice in a few cases. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thanks. I have found a very useful tool. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Philam Life Theater

Hi, I restored images of architecture and 3D art attached to the building ([1]). I didn't restored the 2D art works, which may have been created much later than the building. Or do you know what's the creation date of these? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: only the building itself. I don't know the history of the artworks (sculptures, murals etc.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg

Hi, I am a bit confused as which file should be kept. Additionaly, we should separate these, but I forgor how to do it without loosing the upload history. There are also more deleted files about monuments from the same artist: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino, Commons:Deletion requests/Guillermo Tolentino statues. Should we undelete these too? And what about Commons:Deletion requests/Bonifacio Shrine in Manila? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this, only the images that show w:Bonifacio Monument of Caloocan that dates to the regime of mandatory copyright formalities. Not all other statues by the same artist Guillermo Tolentino, and not even the shrine in Manila that was designed by Eduardo Castrillo (who died in 2016) and unveiled in 1998, during the regime of "copyright starts from the moment of creation." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And @Yann: , for File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg, the version that will be only restored is the version by User:14macgirl (not the recent one which is a clear copyvio). For File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg, I request for COM:SPLIT to split the 2008 file (and name it File:Bonifacio Monument at night.jpg), while the current file must be redeleted as it is an unfree Eduardo Castrillo work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Plus re: File:Andres Bonifacio Monument .jpg I think that is fine because 14macgirl's other file (File:Rizal Monument.JPG) is decent enough to be treated as own work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ping @King of Hearts: for some assistance in restoring only the decent versions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I make a template related South Korean non-building structures?

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yi Sun-sin Bridge, it was concluded that bridges in South Korea are not copyrighted.

So, I suggest a template related South Korean non-building structures.

This template can be used in photos featured South Korean non-building structures(such as bridges, tunnels, etc.).

Can I make a template related South Korean non-building structures?

And what should be the template name?

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: there is no need for a template for objects that you mentioned. It is just redundant and highly impractical to add such templates in every category of uncopyrightable objects around the world. Even if your template is exclusive for SoKor, it just encourages creations of such impractical templates on categories of all uncopyrightable works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

So, how about adding an exception to COM:FOP South Korea section? (Non-building structures such as bridges and tunnels are not protected by copyright.) Ox1997cow (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: that's fine. See COM:FOP Ukraine for instance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And are chimneys protected by copyright in South Korea? Are chimneys non-building structures? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about that @Ox1997cow: . But IMO chimneys that have no architectural or artistic designs are fine, but if they incorporate some 3D works like engravings or sculptures, then they might be a no-no to Commons. Application of COM:TOO perhaps. But not sure, just my opinion. It seems my opinion is applicable to European chimneys. Perhaps I'll ping @Liuxinyu970226, Yann, King of Hearts, and Explicit: regarding SoKor chimneys. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggested a template related South Korean non-building structures because unlike in France, bridges are not copyrighted in South Korea. Copyright laws differ from country to country, and protection is also different. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ox1997cow, bridges are part of a class of objects which should be presumed to be architecture unless found otherwise, so when a country deviates from the norm we should have a template to warn people so they don't accidentally nominate them for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow and King of Hearts: or perhaps a note in two languages (using {{En}} etc.), one in English which is the default language here and the other the principal language of the country (for this case, Korean)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I can make both English and Korean versions of the template. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: if you want to make that template that should be compatible with categories of uncopyrightable works from othee countries. Not just SoKor. A single template for all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a good idea. Name of the template is PD-non-building-structure. This template can be used in photos featured non-building structures in countries where non-building structures are not copyrighted such as SK. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, which country does not have copyright on non-building structures? (In South Korea, non-building structures do not have copyright, and in France, non-building structures have copyright.) Ox1997cow (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that a template would be useful. In the past, I have avoided uploading images of bridges in South Korea because I assumed FOP restrictions applied to them. It wasn't until I saw Ox1997cow's comment about it at a DR a few months ago that I became aware that they don't.

While it may difficult to gather this information for each and every country, the consolidated rules from {{FOP region index}} may be of some help. ✗plicit 02:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Great. What should be the name of the template? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: By the way, why non-building structures are copyrighted in France? Ox1997cow (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: see [2], on the website of Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau, who is the management of w:Millau Viaduct, for one particular case. While property owners' house rules are COM:Non-copyright restrictions, the restrictions imposed by CEVM are in effect copyright restrictions as they state that they are also the exclusive beneficiary of all rights of Mr. Norman Foster, who designed the bridge. To quote with some emphases:

"Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau (CEVM) is the exclusive beneficiary of all property rights including all usage rights for the very image of the Millau Viaduct. These rights are managed by the CEVM on behalf of the architect, Lord Norman Foster. Not a single image (photograph, video footage, drawing or other representation) of the Millau Viaduct is "royalty free" (except landscape images where the Viaduct appears in the background and is thus not the main focus of the image). The use of images of the Viaduct is thus regulated, and any use for commercial purposes requires the prior express permission of the CEVM."

The house rules comply with COM:FOP France, restricting any uses of images of the famous public landmark to non-profit purposes only, except of course incidental or background inclusions of the viaduct or uses in noncommercial sphere like schools, research or study works, décor on desktops or phones as wallpapers, and interior décoration of bedrooms or living rooms. But uses in post cards or exploitations by content creators,

Not OK.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I found copyright status related non-building structures in the US. Non-building structures in the US do not have copyright. See also: COM:FOP US

Therefore, FOP status in the US is below.

OK for buildings

OK for non-building structures

Not OK for sculptures, statues, monuments, murals, posters

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: the U.S. case is understood. The uncopyrightable works (like dams) have been enumerated under COM:FOP US JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I think South Korean chimneys are

OK. Because in English Wikipedia page, Non-building structures include chimneys. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345, Liuxinyu970226, Yann, King of Hearts, and Explicit: I think it's good at PD-non-building structures templates are made country-by-country. Because copyright laws are different country-by-country. For example, bridges are not copyrighted in South Korea and the US, but they are copyrighted in France. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a boilerplate global template would get unwieldy very quickly. Just have an FoP-country tag for all countries regardless of whether they have FoP or some exception which is not technically FoP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: See {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. So I will make {{Non-building structures-South Korea}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something starting with "PD-ineligible, such as {{PD-ineligible-SK-architecture}}, would be a better title to indicate what family it is in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I think it's a good idea to replace the word 'architecture' with the word 'structure'. Architectures in South Korea are copyrighted. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "structure" makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I made {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} template.

I had a discussion with some people, and as a result of the discussion, I made the following template.

The depicted structure situated in or visible from public space (e.g. a building, a bridge, a signage) in

South Korea is ineligible for copyright as it is a simple or ordinary work with no architectural or artistic properties that would have made it a copyrighted structure. It may also be a work of an engineer (like an infrastructure), not of an architect. In several countries like South Korea and the United States, bridges are not among their copyrightable works.

Notes:

Different jurisdictions have different levels of originality with regards to works of art or architecture: see Threshold of originality for more details.
In a few countries like France and Thailand, bridges may be among their copyrightable works.
A building or a bridge is eligible for copyright if it is a true architectural work; images of such buildings or bridges are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons unless there is an applicable freedom of panorama (that allows commercial uses) in the jurisdiction where the building or the bridge is located; see Commons:Freedom of panorama for more details.
For images of architecture that are in public domain, please use {{PD-old-architecture}}. Refer to its documentation for jurisdiction-specific tags.

English ∙ Tagalog ∙ 한국어 ∙ slovenščina ∙ +/−

How about this template?

If there are any mistakes, you can correct them. The Korean translation will be written after the English original is corrected.

Ox1997cow (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Then, how about make {{PD-US-nonbuilding-structure}}? The United States Copyright Law also doesn't protect non-building structures. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: . No need. No one's gonna nominate static structures of U.S. for deletion because "no FOP". Because it is 100% accepted that everything static-looking from the United States (buildings, arches, pavilions, dams, mansions, churches, homes, and other similar static works) are acceptable here, whether or not they are called as architecture by their law. The only things that are problematic are artistic works that are recent or contemporary (like sculptures, public monuments like Korean War Veterans Memorial, and public murals). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Ok. However, there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in South Korea, so {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} is needed. And, are there any errors in {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The template seems fine. But still, best to consult admins or other users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Why some photos of PNB 118 is nominated for deletion request?

I have noticed that several PNB 118 photos have been nominated for deletion requests.

List(I only included photos that clearly include PNB 118.):

There is freedom of panorama in Malaysia, so photos of PNB 118 are allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

By the way, Why some photos of PNB 118 is nominated for deletion request?

There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, but photos of Lotte World Tower uploaded by me have not been nominated for deletion requests.

List (I only included Lotte World Tower in the file name.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: please read the reasons. I clearly stated the reasons. And these are not DRs but requests for speedy deletions. Malaysian FOP is irrelevant. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

For the SoKor images, DM probably applies. But I cannot bother some of the fireworks images that intentionally included the tower. I will let other users decide on them. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see the reason. Anyway, I think five photos of Lotte World Tower and fireworks are all applied DM. Before uploading pictures of South Korean buildings or sculptures, I check whether DM is applied or not. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: the reason is there. Just have a closer look at the speedy deletion boilerplate tags. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Does not protecting non-building structures under South Korean copyright law affect FoP status in South Korea?

South Korean copyright law does not protect non-building structures, so non-building structures such as bridges, dams and tunnels are public domain in South Korea.

By the way, does not protecting non-building structures under South Korean copyright law affect FoP status in South Korea?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: no. It doesn't change the no FOP status of SoKor as seen at File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg. It will continue to be a "red" country on the map, just as the current status of the Philippines does (despite the allowance of pre-December 15, 1972 buildings through a loophole in our copyright law which is non-retroactivity and the validity of American colonial-era Act 3134 of 1924 for buildings that were completed before the cutoff date, as the colonial law didn't protect architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos of architecture and sculptures in Belgium taken before 15 July 2016

There is freedom of panorama in Belgium after 15 July 2016.

So photos of architecture and sculptures in Belgium taken after 15 July 2016 is allowed.

By the way, how about photos of them taken before 15 July 2016?

Are they OK?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: IMO they are OK! As long as the buildings and artworks still exist on the date of official introduction of FOP there. See Category:Belgian FOP cases/undeleted. By the way the wording (COM:FOP Belgium) suggests only permanent works are covered by FOP. IMO the situation in Belgium is different in situation in Seychelles, in SoKor, in U.S., in the Philippines etc.. Each country has its own FOP or FOP-like provisions and rules, unless it has identical or similar rules to its former mother country (when it was still a colony). Like COM:FOP India - COM:FOP UK, and COM:FOP São Tomé and Príncipe - COM:FOP Portugal. But generally you must not assume that rules of most countries are the same in some way or another. Please raise this at COM:VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between "incidental" and "trivial"?

South Korean de minimis clause uses "incidental", and the US de minimis clause uses "trivial".

Then, What is the difference between "incidental" and "trivial"?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: when an infringing object incidental, it means it is just "a minor accompaniment to something else" or it is just there "by chance" and not intentional (some meaning courtesy of Oxford). If an object is trivial, it is "of little value and importance" (Oxford). Note a condition at COM:DM United States. But I say this to you, that the U.S. law does not recognize DM. Nowhere in their Copyright Act has explicit mention of it. The U.S. DM concept came from various court cases, which Commons now applies in U.S. derivative work-related or U.S. freedom of panorama-related deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I know all two cases are not applied when infringing object is too prominent. Can you provide an example with deletion requests that result in kept? Ox1997cow (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, in File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg, main objects are fireworks, so Lotte World Tower is incidental. (Related deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg) Ox1997cow (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: please analyze the DRs and the resulting closures. There are some things that I cannot provide examples because de minimis is an incoherent concept that varies country by country. Worse it is only made into existence by court rulings and not by laws that do not explicitly mention it (like the case of the U.S.). In some countries like ours de minimisfor FoP-reliant works does not exists, simply because of the doctrine "what is not written by the law is allowed" (but this doctrine is not allowed here per the policy of protecting copyrights of architects and sculptors of public works).

U.S. de minimis is much "tighter" as the copyrighted sculpture must not be noticeable and must either be out of much of the image or successfully blend with buildings or uncopyrightable objects (like plants, people, and/or nature). Thus "trivial" and not incidental or accessory Thus U.S. DM is too narrow.

De minimis thus is judged by case-to-case bases. Do not expect that it is the same in all countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you taking such an extreme attitude?

I've come to know that you're taking an extreme attitude after two deletion discussions.

At Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace.

I told that even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused.

And, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa, you suggested that file names containing "Burj Khalifa" should be banned.

Even if I agree to ban file name File:Burj Khalifa.jpg(This file name had been misused too much.), I cannot accept your extreme argument of banning file names containing "Burj Khalifa".

If file names containing "Burj Khalifa" are banned, when uploading skyline or cityscape photos including Burj Khalifa, we won't be able to choose the detail file names. (For example, "Dubai skylines with Burj Khalifa 2021.jpg" cannot be used.)

In any case, before making any extreme claims, please reconsider that doing so may not solve the problem, and may harm good users.

Ox1997cow (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I won't get involved at COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa anymore. But I felt it is best to recommend most extreme actions, as the whole deletion request has been causing errors to tools of some admins, and the need to pre-emptively stop further uploads may be needed. Setting up an archive is just a band-aid solution: I wouldn't be surprised if the DR soon will reach 100 threads within the next decade But I also provided a more permanent suggestion there — the need to introduce freedom of panorama in UAE. Thus all this debate and bickering by all of us would stop. I am a type of person who thinks of what will happen in the very near future. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comment that someone suggested to use the edit filter to warn the user if they try to upload a photo file names containing "Burj Khalifa". This is a compromise that came out of my and your disagreement process. How about you? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

And at Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates, why you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and suggested that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: on edit filter message: I'm fine with that, as long as the edit filter message (or should I say: no-FOP edit filter feature message) brings clear notice, on why the name is flagged as such, like:

Attention: you are going to upload a file that contains an unfree artistic work. Please do not upload your file unless that artistic work is incidental or just a minor part of the whole file. Reason: Burj Khalifa is a copyrighted architectural work in UAE, that has no freedom of panorama. Therefore permission for commercial Creative Commons license from its architect Adrian Smith (still alive) is needed.

There will be two buttons immediately below the upload form when this edit filter message is triggerwd: "Cancel upload" and "Ignore message and continue upload the file anyway." If the latter is selected, a mechanism triggers the listing of the uploader's action at the abuse log (example of abuse logs: mine, yours). The edit filter message and abuse log listing features must be applied to all, regardless of the user rights or status (regardless if one is a newcomer or one is an uploader or contributor since around 2000s).

Re: the no-FOP templates. Please do not use it as a comparison as the no-FOP template and the filtering of file name matters are different matters. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What if the editing filter works in the same way for Lotte World Tower? Ox1997cow (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: maybe. And also, for the likes of Burj al-Arab and its variant names (Burj Al Arab or Burj Arab), Louvre Pyramid and its French name, Charging Bull, and others from countries that I don't expect to have FOP introductions or full FOP introductions (for the likes of Denmark, U.S., etc.). Unless the situations become favorable (that is, there are actual attempts at introducing FOP or full FOP and not just proposals, plans, or drawing board discussions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, these editing filters will filter out famous buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama(such as Burj Khalifa, Lotte World Tower, Louvre Pyramid, Charging Bull), but not less famous ones. Also, be careful not to work with buildings or sculptures in countries with freedom of panorama.(such as Tokyo Skytree, CN Tower, Atomium, Cristo Redentor do Rio de Janeiro) Ox1997cow (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words, that is

OK,

Right example: Lotte World Tower (There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.)

Attention: you are going to upload a file that contains an unfree artistic work. Please do not upload your file unless that artistic work is incidental or just a minor part of the whole file. Reason: Lotte World Tower is a copyrighted architectural work in South Korea, that has no freedom of panorama. Therefore permission for commercial Creative Commons license from its architect Kohn Pedersen Fox is needed.

But that is

Not OK.

Wrong example: CN Tower (There is freedom of panorama in Canada.)
Attention: you are going to upload a file that contains an unfree artistic work. Please do not upload your file unless that artistic work is incidental or just a minor part of the whole file. Reason: CN Tower is a copyrighted architectural work in Canada, that has no freedom of panorama. Therefore permission for commercial Creative Commons license from its architect WZMH Architects is needed.

Ox1997cow (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: it is a common sense. No need to give filter warnings regarding works from countries with FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So in your country the Philippines, which buildings and sculptures would be applied the editing filter to? (There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines.) Ox1997cow (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: unsure, since the FOP provision is still pending in the w:House of Representatives of the Philippines. Plus there is a proposal to define the Philippine FOP scope to private and/or domestic purposes only. Commons may accept domestic purpose-FOP: {{FoP-Austria}} is domestic only (see the template note). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

On pending Philippine FOP

Just an added info @Ox1997cow: . From my conversation with Howdy.carabao off-wiki (on Messenger) regarding the nature of House Bills here: if a House Bill remains pending (and not approved) in the w:House of Representatives of the Philippines (HOR) and the current meeting of the Congress (the w:18th Congress of the Philippines) ends, the Bill will die. In case the same Bill is approved in HOR but there is no equivalent Bill in the w:Senate of the Philippines, the Bill will also die. Note that we have a bicameral legislature, thus it is more easier "for a camel to pass the eye of the needle" than to pass the laws. Note that the 18th Congress will end sometime in 2022 (next year [!]) as per the enwiki article.

The latest hearing at HOR discussing the three pending IP Bills (including House Bill 8620 that contains the FOP provision) was held in August 2021. Fortunately the FOP provision was not flagged for contention, but there is some contention on two other aspects — extended licensing (Netflix and Motion Picture Association of America lobbyists were also part of the hearings) and orphan works (there is a possibility for orphan works clause to be axed). Another contentious aspect, power to takedown infringing works on digital and new media, was tackled on the September hearing. For this reason, I do not expect the intellectual property amendments to be fully passed anytime this year, as opposed to what Wikivoyage admins and senior editors would expect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If so, freedom of panorama in the Philippines continues to be left without this? Ox1997cow (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Unhappiness

I hope that consultation with a mental health professional can help you with it. I value your contributions, and I hope they continue. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 08:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: it's just some sort of overthinking off-wiki, due to seemingly lack of replies from my friends (personal or online) to my various messages on w:Messenger. Yet I can still manage it. I can do some categorizations and perhaps import a few Flickr files. Thanks for the advice though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Now feeling better. I've already chatted with 3/4ths of my personal/online friends on Messenger. Now doing good. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad to read that. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking a few things about introducing edit filters.

At Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa, Ixfd64 suggested to use the edit filter to warn the user if they try to upload a photo file names containing "Burj Khalifa".

This is a compromise that came out of my and your disagreement process.

I talked to you about this last time. And, I've been thinking a few things about introducing edit filters.

First of all, the edit filter works when we use the name of a building or sculpture in a country where there is no freedom of panorama in the file name.

For example, Burj Khalifa(no freedom of panorama in UAE), Lotte World Tower(no freedom of panorama in South Korea), Monument to the motherland(no freedom of panorama in Ukraine)

I think the edit filter should work if we add a category of buildings or sculptures from countries where there is no freedom of panorama to the file, too.

For example, Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Lotte World Tower, Category:Monument to the Motherland, Kyiv

The reason is that we can upload without using the building or sculpture name in the file name.

For example, we can upload an single photo of Burj Khalifa as Dubai Skyscraper.jpg.

What would you like some additional thoughts on edit filter?

I will gather my and your opinions and submit them.

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I prefer longterm or eternal solutions. What I want is the introduction of FOP in UAE. I will not make replies anymore on COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

However, in order to introduce FoP, the copyright law must be amended, and it is difficult and takes a long time to amend the law. So, it is better to use the method that is available right now. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I leave the decisiom to other users. I won't meddle in the filter matter again.

UAE FOP is actually easy to amend, IMO. Just adding the word "photographs" makes a big difference. Two available options exist:

OPTION 1.Presenting fine arts, applied and plastic arts or architectural works in [photographs and] broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in public places.

OPTION 2. (if buildings only is desired to make it less contentious)
Presenting fine arts, applied and plastic arts in broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in public places.
[Presenting architectural works in photographs and broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in or visible from public places.]

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Löschung von Fotografien / Erasing photographs

Meine Versuche, eine Genehmigung zu bekommen, schlugen fehl. In diesem Fall ist die Löschung für mich in Ordnung. Viele Grüße und vielen Dank.--Horst70 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

My attempts to get a permit failed. In that case the deletion is okay for me. Best regards and thank you very much.--Horst70 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Horst J. Meuter: I respect your decision. A pity nevertheless, but the artist seems aware of artwork copyright (my opinion only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hallo, lieber JWilz12345, vielen Dank für Deine Meldung. Ich kann mich jetzt doch noch einmal mit einer neuen Information zurückmelden. Das Museum hat mich wieder kontaktiert: sie wollen bei den Künstlern nachfragen, ob diese eine Genehmigung erteilen möchten. Bei neuen Informationen melde ich mich bei Dir zurück. Best regards --Horst70 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, dear JWilz12345, Thank you very much for your report. I can now get back to you with a new piece of information. The museum contacted me again: they want to ask the artists if they would like to give permission. I will get back to you when I get some feedback. Best regards --Horst70 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Horst J. Meuter: that's nice to hear. But I recommend commenting at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lette (Coesfeld) the next time, so that other users will also know that there is an ongoing progress for obtaining licensing permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Araw ng Dabaw 2014, balloon vendor (Bro. Jeffrey Pioquinto, SJ) - Flickr.jpg

File:Araw ng Dabaw 2014, balloon vendor (Bro. Jeffrey Pioquinto, SJ) - Flickr.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Daet Church.jpg

File:Daet Church.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What means w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

I saw w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in Commons:Deletion requests/File:사우디 리야드의 킹덤센터 (Riyard Kondom Tower) - panoramio.jpg.

However, I don't know about w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

What means w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow it is a logical fallacy committed by those defending their delete or keep !votes, by pointing to another article, category, or file of same or similar nature. I committed that before, at COM:Deletion requests/File:Nokia N70 2.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I mistaked something. I will be more careful. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow however, it is fine to point out or refer to a certain DR as basis for delete or keep !vote, since DR's are usually backed by policy or precedence of consensus or older DR's. Example: my delete vote and comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parvis la Défense ciel bleu.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Where are you from?

I'm from Seoul, South Korea.

Hou about you?

What country and city are you from?

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: you can easily guess the country thru my profile image on my user page (imported directly from Meta). Plus analyze my self-photographed images at Category:Photographs by User:JWilz12345. :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: you may also analyze my invite for you to join the Facebook group page of w:en:WP:Tambayan Philippines. Through my invite you may determine what is my country. The FB group page is welcome even to those who aren't from the Philippines or those who aren't Filipinos. Still, it is voluntary and not compulsory. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Facade of San Fernando Church in Cebu province.jpg

File:Facade of San Fernando Church in Cebu province.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:FoP-Burundi

Category:FoP-Burundi has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ellywa (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png and File:Gma 1995.png

Hi, are these logos File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png and File:Gma 1995.png violate some common rules? Because of the color and background of the two. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: File:Gma 1995.png may be a copyright violation as it seems it is not simple; it has the image of a satellite plus the placement of the rainbow and GMA. Although the satellite may be dismissed as de minimis (in this context, the satellite is trivial or not an important feature of the logo), I may suspect the creativity involved in the placement of the elements (the satellite, the rainbow, and GMA). Not to mention that GMA is glossy here.

On the other hand, A2Z is a tricky case. The typeface is not too special, and the letters and numbers are the only elements (no other objects). This is where COM:Threshold of originality comes into play. However, we do not court cases relating to artistry of all logos. We may apply American threshold as we are heavily influenced by U.S. jurisprudence. I will let other people or admins decide on A2Z logo, if it is too simple enough that will deny designer's rights, or contains some creativity that will warrant its designer the right to claim copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Is it okay that we will just nominate it for deletion so that it would be easier? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: feel free to nominate them. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but sometimes when I nominate a image for deletion, it seems like it is not a valid reason or I don't know which rule violates it. Can you please help me what reason for these 2 images to be nominated for deletion? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: analyze what I've said. I would recommend nominating GMA logo for deletion as it shows a significant degree of creativity by its designer: the layouting of the elements, incorporation of satellite image, and the rainbow colors. It can be nominated for deletion as a copyrighted logo in which its design exceeds COM:Threshold of originality. A2Z's case is tricky (considering we do not have concept of threshold of originality in all Pinoy logos in our laws or our existing court cases). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure on the reason you mentioned awhile ago among those two images that I will use for the nomination. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems strange na wala po tayong konsepto ng threshold of originality. TOO concept relates to the eligibility of a certain artwork (like logos, which are works of their designers) to be copyrightable if it incorporates significant degree of creativity or artistry. Other countries have that concept that were based on their court rulings. Several are too punitive, like the UK and China, where even ordinary-looking logos are considered too artistic enough to warrant their designers their copyrights over the logos they created. However, others like the U.S. are not so strict: logos have to exhibit significant creative properties. If the logos are just mere plain shapes or regular fonts, then they are simple and their designers have no rights to copyright them. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And take note SeanJ 2007, copyright is not the same as private property. The logo may be claimed by its company or owner as their property, but copyright relates to the person/s who designed them, not the person/s who "own" them. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing, kindly look at this image, File:Files Presents - 2022.png. Does it violate commons rules? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: I would suggest deleting it as out of scope. See Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. What is the use of a plain "Files presents" brownish box-type object? Does it have value? Can it be reused outside Wikimedia websites? I doubt it. Feel free to nuke it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: and finally, with regards to logos, since we do not have the concept of threshold of originality, we may use the American threshold of originality standard as our basis. Our courts tend to follow US jurisprudence, even in copyright cases, so we will expect similar outcomes for copyright cases in the future. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your help! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: you're welcome! Feel free to approach me for more questions (but do not ask me anything related to algebra hahahah). Anyway, stay safe and take care always. :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I made two NoFoP templates.

One is {{NoFoP-Chad}}, and the other is {{NoFoP-Tanzania}}.

{{FoP-Tanzania}} is used for the videos, and {{NoFoP-Tanzania}} is used for the static pictures, per COM:FOP Tanzania.

If there are any awkward parts, please correct them, thank you.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: both are fine. 👍 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

However, I think {{NoFoP-Tanzania}} is had to edited. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

If {{NoFoP-Tanzania}} is edited, {{FoP-Tanzania}} also is had to be edited. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: it is up to you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Multiple files for deletion

Hi, I saw your contributions that you have nominated multiple files for deletion and nominate them in one place, is there an automatic way for that? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: through the Visual File Change gadget, which can be activated through your Preferences. However, I'm not sure if you have user rights to do so. You may need to contribute through uploading your self-photographed images to raise your user rights (but do not upload your images that you previously published on any of your social media platforms!). Ask also at COM:Help desk for assistance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have user rights to use that, but I saw a button that can be used without installing. When I pressed it, it said what user or category is this action about, can you tell me how this works? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: hmmm. If you choose "user," you will need to type the name of the user (without the prefix "User:") whose files you want to request for deletion. If "category," you will need to type the name of the category (without the prefix "Category:") under which you want to select files for deletion. Are you targeting certain files under a category for deletion, or are you targeting some problematic contributions of a user? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Some problematic contributions of a user SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: then choose user. Follow my aforementioned instruction. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay I will wait for your instruction. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I already said the instruction ("aforementioned"). Refer to my previous message. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry peace, I don't know the meaning before I messaged you that SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: for other steps, these are self-explanatory. Just be cautious: only check files you want to request for deletion. Also, be sure to add your reason for deletion on the text box on top. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The VisualFileChange tool is too powerful; one misuse may cause unwanted effects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: I saw that deletion request you started (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Askeuhd). You should have just read the entire file details including the license before conducting deletion requests. The files are clearly fine as they come from a public domain source (NASA). I suggest you focus on individual nominations and avoid using VisualFileChange for the meantime, as you need to be familiar with files that have special case licenses, like {{PD-NASA}}, {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, and several more. Also focus on files that originate from the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the London Eye protected by copyright, unlike other Ferris wheels?

I found the photo of the Ferris wheel in the Philippines taken by you.

However, as a result of reading the description in the category of the file, the Ferris wheel is not subject to copyright protection.

However, the London Eye, unlike other Ferris wheels, is subject to copyright protection.

(But photos of the London Eye are allowed because there is freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom.)

Why is the London Eye protected by copyright, unlike other Ferris wheels?

Ox1997cow (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow I cannot answer that. I only assumed it is copyrighted because of its inclusion in free culture groups' 2015 campaign in retention of de facto FOP in many EU countries. The issue is best forwarded to COM:VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: likely, due to Britain having notoriously low bar of threshold of originality, and the London Eye was designed by architects. We, however, do not have such TOO concept in real life and in practice, for utilitarian objects like ferris wheel. I suspect most of our ferris wheels are just works of engineers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How about {{20th or 21st-century buildings in South Korea}}?

I made {{20th or 21st-century buildings in South Korea}} template.

layout

This template can be used in categories of 20th or 21st-century buildings in South Korea.

(For example, Category:N Seoul Tower, Category:63 Building, Category:Trade Tower, Category:Lotte World Tower, etc.)

I made this with reference to {{20th-century architecture in France}}.

How about this template?

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That is fine. I have no reservations on the template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference between {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} and {{PD-structure}}?

I made {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} for use on non-building structures (such as bridges, dams, tunnels, etc.) in South Korea.

By the way, you made {{PD-structure}}.

Why you made {{PD-structure}}?

Ox1997cow (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: for similar cases in other countries like the Philippines, as well as plain buildings that are not artistic works (architecture), like industrial buildings and warehouse-type buildings (which are more common in various parts of our country). It is similar to PD-SK-nonbuilding, so you may want to discuss the possible merger. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Though before that proposed merger, a few fix is needed; see the thread above. So that SoKor files can be categorized under Category:PD structure (South Korea). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been told that additional parameters for {{PD-structure}} will be added later. That extra parameter is country-specific, how will it behave depending on whether the country has freedom of panorama or not? For example, South Korea has no freedom of panorama, Germany has freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please show as an example the difference between how to express when South Korea is put in the corresponding parameter and when Germany is put. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It will depend on the file in question - which structure from which country is shown - whether thar template should be used -- sarang♥사랑 06:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

PD-structure

What are your ideas about catecorizing ? With a parameter cat= or sub= anything can be done but more text must be passed, e.g. a category or subcategory name as "cat=Switzerland". For countries, either only a short language code or a longer descriptive code is needed, but that may become a bit more complicated. Ping me tell me what I can do -- sarang♥사랑 17:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang I'm thinking of categorizing images by country. Like: Category:PD structure (Philippines), but in a way that is governed by the template. Also, if this is feasible, the function also adds a small passage on the template that states what country is the subject of the image located (preferably a small box between the bottom of the main text and the languages). Again, the latter is if it is feasible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the small box similar to the one at Template:FoP-Tanzania, but not a red-colored box. Also, instead of stop icon, either an info icon or a country flag icon, the latter governed by country of choice. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that there are two different things required, that can depend on each other, but should be treated independently: the subcategorizing, and the optional display of another image (e.g. a flag) with some additional text.

The PD-icon.svg: and the Gnome-home.svg: are always displayed, AFAIK also Dialog-warning.svg: ,
and when specified also a fourth icon plus explaining text, e.g.

Special copyright conditions apply for images of that country.

This means that optional parameters are needed for

the subcategory
the fourth icon
the explaining text.

For missing subcategory, the main category is used. Text without fourth icon uses a default icon, icon without text displays a default text; no box when both are not specified.
BTW, may I suggest not to overload the template-created box with too much information, as with many-colored icons and individualized text. Think also of translating: will it be possible to have always the same standard explaining text, to the changing fourth icon ? Everything is possible – but not always useful -- sarang♥사랑 08:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: yes. You have read most of my mind 😊. For the text of the template-created box, I'm suggesting Country of the structure: <COUNTRYNAME>. For the country name, I suggest the country code (hopefully there should be automated translation when using the country code). For the template-created box, you mean a new template is to be created? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There are the Flag icon templates, probably for all nations, with a three-letter country code, e.g. {{KOR}} = South Korea. They include automated translation, but I miss that a selection allows either flag or nation name or both – always both is created.

It can be used within an own-styled box, e.g.

People's Republic of China [more text]

and needs no own template because it can be transcluded like it is done here.
Without any specification, {{Created with/layout|text={{TZA}}}} looks so:

Tanzania

which seems useful for further expansions.

Currently I see no link between the flag icons and Multilingual tags: Country names; but such a link can be created, e.g. a Module that returns from the 3-letter-code not only the flag icon but either the country name or the flag. Then that 3-letter-code can be used for the catgeory as well as for the inserted box. -- sarang♥사랑 11:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: since you mentioned the flagicon, perhaps it is more simple to incorporate the flag icon in the template itself, perhaps adding a parameter for flagicon tag. For example (with highlights indicating added words/insertion):

The depicted structure situated in public space (e.g. a building, a bridge, or an overpass) in <Country> is ineligible for copyright...

However, I don't know if this affects the subcategorization as intended. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I made the Module:Codenat which can convert the 3-letter-code to the English country name, that can be used for categorization. The corresponding flag icon template can give the flag and the translated country name. {{PD-structure}} will only need one parameter, the 3-letter-code; but your text, which can be mixed with the flag icon, needs to be translated into all required languages.

As a first expansion of PD-structure, I care for the subcategorization and for passing the parameter to the single translations. Then they have to do the internationalizing. -- sarang♥사랑 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: ok, do whatever works. I'll test the template (modified):

The depicted structure situated in public space (e.g. a building, a bridge, or an overpass) in Philippines is ineligible for copyright as it is a simple or ordinary work with no architect's artistic properties that would have made it a copyrighted structure. It may also be a work of an engineer (like an infrastructure), not of an architect.

One problem is the lack of "the" for this case though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When you want to tell it in such an exact mode, the "the" (in all the different languages!) has to be inserted using a country-specific switch; or by another template. It is possible but a bit more complicated.

A first test is now realized in Киевская телебашня.JPG -- sarang♥사랑 06:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The "the"

It seems not so easy; the "the" will be needed for all plural forms, as e.g.

British Virgin Islands,
Cayman Islands,
Faroe Islands,
Marshall Islands,
Netherlands,
Philippines,
United Arab Emirates,
United States of America,
United States Virgin Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia.

But it can be used also for nation names as e.g.

Czech Republic,
Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Dominican Republic,
People's Republic of China,
Republic of Ireland,
Republic of the Congo>
State of Palestine.

and it is not the same in all languages! -- sarang♥사랑 07:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

First test: when you change in Киевская телебашня.JPG the "ukr" to e.g. "fro" or "NED", you will see that the "the" is now inserted. :It is only done for the first group but not or the names with 'republic' or 'state'. -- sarang♥사랑 08:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: I made a second test for File:DiviMart Pulilan Christmas 2021jwilz.jpg (Philippines case). I think for the second group (nation names), we may use some of their alternate names:

Czech Republic - Czechia
Democratic Republic of the Congo - Congo-Kinshasa
Dominican Republic - (stay the same without the)
People's Republic of China - (plain) China
Republic of China - (plain) Taiwan
Republic of Ireland - (plain) Ireland
Republic of the Congo - Congo-Brazzaville
State of Palestine - (plain) Palestine

Although some of them may be contentious, especially with the presence of the flags. Though the presence of the flags was intended to emulate FoP templates (those with flags) in a single template for all countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

For "United States of America," I suggest simply "United States" and "Federated States of Micronesia," simply "Micronesia" (using common name for this case). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi JWilz12345, you are invited to change the return values in Codenat as much as you like. The 3-letter argument is needed for that module and for the flag icon, but the returned name can be altered/simplified/standardized to any other English text for the category.

Also 'The Bahamas' and 'The Gambia' may be altered.

Another problem is the country name internationalized by the flag icon, whicch makes the "the" problem, it cannot be changed.

-- sarang♥사랑 09:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As I see, there are different codes; the Philippines are either PHI (the module) or PHL (the flag icon). Best will be to check all codes and let the module use the codes of the flag icons. When (as for the Netherlands) the flag icon has also a redirect (NED for NLD), the main code (NLD) should be used. Missing flag icons can easily be generated, as I just did for {{FRO}}. -- sarang♥사랑 09:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: done changing. For the Philippines, the subcategory is still using (PHL) instead of (Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As I told, there are different codes: the flag icon works well with PHL, but the code in the module is unchanged 'PHI' and does not understand PHL. This code (and some other codes) needs to be changed to the flag icon code, then it will be fine with PHL for both. -- sarang♥사랑 11:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It will be a tedious work to compare ~200 codes on both sides, but it is necessary for the functionality - sorry -- sarang♥사랑 11:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 and Sarang: I think it's a good idea to replace the house icon in the template with a bridge icon. This is because a house is protected by copyright if it is artistic work. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: do whatever is best. If I modify some code I might break its functionality to other files. @Ox1997cow: that will come sooner; the priority now is on the template's technical aspects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What can {{PD-structure}} be used for objects in South Korea?

{{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} what I made is used for many bridge photos in South Korea.

As stated in {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}}, {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} can be used for photos of bridges, tunnels, dams, etc.

Then, what can {{PD-structure}} be used for objects in South Korea?

Unlike Kyiv TV tower, N Seoul Tower is an architect's work and therefore copyrighted, so {{PD-structure}} cannot be used.

(N Seoul Tower is the work of architect Jang Jong-ryul, who died in 1994.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: it can be used for images currently tagged with the tag you created, to avoid redundancy. Perhaps merging or redirecting your template to PD structure, which is more comprehensive and can be used for very plain buildings (like warehouses). See some examples from our country here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I attach {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} and {{PD-structure}} at the same time? Ox1997cow (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: redundant. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

Template:20th-century architecture in France/en

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hi, can you check some images uploaded by Judgefloro. I saw some images that has no permission. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: what particular images? Can you name some? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

File:9568Baliuag, Bulacan Province 19.jpg, File:9568Baliuag, Bulacan Province 18.jpg, File:9568Baliuag, Bulacan Province 15.jpg, File:9676Cuisine food of Bulacan Baliuag 32.jpg, File:9676Cuisine food of Bulacan Baliuag 31.jpg, File:9676Cuisine food of Bulacan Baliuag 29.jpg, etc. The others that has a name like for example File:9568Baliuag, Bulacan Province 19.jpg and File:9676Cuisine food of Bulacan Baliuag 32.jpg (with other Cuisine food of name) seems like no permission from the owner of those. I bet that the file names that has the name "Cuisine food of Bulacan Baliuag" really violates it. The names that has "9568Baliuag, Bulacan Province 18", not sure with this. Kindly look at those images that is similar to the names I mentioned. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: I believe those are really from the uploader himself. The problem with the uploader, who is now blocked, is that he constantly treats WikiCommons as a "dumping site" for his thousands of redundant images. Like he is treating it as a COM:WEBHOST, equating Commons as another Flickr, another Instagram, or another Facebook (which is not). It has been his defining quality the use of numerical disambiguations in the filenames of his images, plus having very wordy descriptions (like File:0454jfQuezon Memorial Elliptical Circlefvf 09.jpg; notice his descriptions are very exact in all files in a particular set).

This issue with Judgefloro is one of the two issues that led him to being blocked indefinitely (see User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 32#Your account has been blocked). Another issue is his continued uploading of images that show copyrighted works, like product packaging (breach of COM:PACKAGING), screens that broadcast audiovisual presentations or live feeds of church masses (tantamount to COM:SCREENSHOT even if his photos show the edges of LED screens and the surrounding elements like church column where the screen is installed and part of the church space), and most especially, recent works of art and architecture without commercial license authorizations from architects, sculptors, painters, muralists, etc.. (considering we do not have freedom of panorama in our Republic Act 8293 right now that would have allowed free shooting of public works and artistic structures permanently installed in public spaces without licensing permits from the artists or architects who hold copyright on those works).

Although he is already blocked, various admins took note of his use of alternate accounts to continue uploading very redundant images that impact the overall content quality of the entire Wikimedia Commons project. His alternate accounts have been blocked too. These include: JFVelasquez Floro (talk · contribs), FBenjr123 (talk · contribs), and LubGua987 (talk · contribs). His "socks" were determined by the identical behavior of contributions: the uploading of very similar images with identical file names and only distinguished by numbers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: note that he requested for the lifting of his block at one of his sockpuppets (User talk:FBenjr123#Blocked), but his request was denied. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named `license+` and `license-`.

Hi JWilz12345, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! -- CptViraj (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @CptViraj: for the message! :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Airport_Road

Airport Road has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. 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 discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

File:SC 205918 - Veteran Artillery men of the "C" Battery., 90th Field Artillery., lay down a murderous barrage on troublesome Japanese artillery positions in Balete Pass, Luzon, Philippine Islands, April 1945 - Flickr.jpg

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, JWilz12345!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

A1Cafel (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Lotte World Tower Blacked Out.jpg

Yours sincerely, . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

in re FOP

Hi, JWilz12345! I saw your comment about FoP for ESEAP on Meta. I want to invite you to join the discussion about this over at Movement Strategy Forum, a proposed multilingual venue to discuss implementation of the Movement Strategy. Since the state of the FoP seem to be a crucial Strategy issue, we'd love to have your expertise in this area and share it with other groups and individuals with similar interest or already working on this. The specific thread about FoP can be found here. Give me a ping if you're around! Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF): thanks for the invite, but I do not want to divulge my email account (whether a personal one or one I use in my college years) as I am very particular at privacy and security of my email accounts. The forum you indicated requires a verified Wikimedia email acount, which I haven't added (and I have no plans to add out of, as I said, privacy reasons). My apologies but again thanks for the invite. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF) I'll instead create a userspace page at meta about my interest on freedom of panorama matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

RamzyM, I discontinued my plan to create it, as it may not comply with Meta:Inclusion policy (may contain some personal insight on FOP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Casiguran munisipyo.jpg

File:Casiguran munisipyo.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

File:IrosinChurch 20140602.jpg

File:IrosinChurch 20140602.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Casiguran simbahan.jpg

File:Casiguran simbahan.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your change to Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Toll gates: Difference between revisions

Hi, JWilz12345. I thought you'd like to know that pings do not work if you don't sign the post in the same edit. See the documentation for Template:Reply to for more info. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Auntof6 got it. Thanks for the info. :) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Irosin mun hall 20140602.jpg

File:Irosin mun hall 20140602.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

File:DiviMart Pulilan Christmas 2021jwilz.jpg

File:DiviMart Pulilan Christmas 2021jwilz.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Oh God what's wrong with me LOL haha (on my uploads here). Do you know where can we get logo's for ABS-CBN Christmas ID articles on Wikipedia (eg: Star ng Pasko, Andito Tayo Para sa Isa't Isa) that does not have copyright issues? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: sorry but all logos of programs by ABS-CBN (as well other TV networks like GMA, UNTV, CNN Philippines, et cetera) are copyrighted or assumed to be copyrighted, meaning to say Commons cannot host them. If you wish to have the logos uploaded here, contact the copyright holders of those logos (likely logo designers working in ABS-CBN/other networks or the TV networks themselves) and obtain their permission to have your uploads of their logos hosted here under commercial licensing. But at best you only upload them locally at English Wikipedia under fair use guidelines (see w:en:WP:Non-free content#Images).

i doubt the logo designers working at ABS-CBN will accept your email pleading the release of such logos under commercial licenses.

Wikimedia Commons only accepts files that can be exploited even for commercial purposes (following free licenses of Creative Commons), by anyone and anywhere in the world. It cannot accept unfree content. One golden rule is that you should only upload photos that you took, or upload images from freely-licensed sourced, like copyright-expired images and some Flickr imports. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Contacting them so it can be use here, LOL! I may be shy on that, but nah!. Maybe I will just upload them on Wikipedia instead. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice

Please take notice that there is a pending discussion regarding your message to my talk page on Notice yours sincerely Beeveevee (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC).

Apologies

Touchscreen failed. Vysotsky (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:TATTOO the MIDGET has a bigger POSSE.jpg

Hi @JWilz12345 -- It would be great to get your response on this: Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:TATTOO the MIDGET has a bigger POSSE.jpg

It seems like you misunderstood me?

What is needed before requesting that the file be undeleted? Thanks -- JonathanCross (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Question

Would File:Independence Monument (27506800337).jpg also fail COM:FOP Turkmenistan (it's the Independence Monument, Ashgabat) or does it avoid it somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Automatically fails. It is very recent, dates to 2001. Even if the sculptor is unknown, it will still take 50 years for it to fall in public domain. But since there is no country-specific FOP, the undeletion will be at the mercy of U.S. copyright duration too, not just Turkmen terms. The need to take U.S. law into account can be safely ignored if there is commercial FOP in Turkmenistan in the first place, so that {{Not-free-US-FOP}} can also be used as a defense from U.S. law. But as there is no FOP, {{Not-free-US-FOP}} cannot be used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Bummer, isn't it. Fwiw, it can "live" as fair use on en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the picture of a public building on Turkmenistan

Sir, I am surprized at you request as this picture falls into the provisions made by Turkmen laws: Only allowed for incidental, non-commercial use. Under Law No. 257-IV of January 10, 2012, permitted use includes: Reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of works of architecture, photography or fine art permanently located in a place open to public access. Chaanara (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chaanara: perhaps you're talking about File:Université d'ashgabat (Tukménistan). Coupoles en émaux de Briare.JPG. I don't see it is incidental; it is clear the architecture is the main subject. Also, COM:Licensing explicitly states that only content that is not subject to non-commercial restrictions is permitted on Commons. The allowed Creative Commons licenses here are commercial. Commons cannot accept photos of modern artwork and architecture from Turkmenistan because the non-commercial restriction does not permit the use of commercial licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir,

Clearly you have a much superior knowledge of "Wikilegalese" as compared to me, especially considering you are a "license reviewer". However, in plain terms I can repeat: this is a global view of a public building of which there is no commercial use cf. Turkmen laws.

Therefore, unless you would prove you are a "supreme court judge" I don't consider your opinion superior to mine as to what is incidental and what is not.

Incidentally, I also wish you would make more positive contributions.

RGDS Chaanara (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chaanara: kindly read COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. The allowed licenses used in all image files here allow unrestricted commercial reuses. Commons does not accept non-commercial licenses. Turkmen law disallows commercial uses of works in public still under copyright ownership of architects and sculptors. Simply put, Turkmen FOP is not OK. Didn't you notice the

Not OK label there? It is very clear. And architecture is still architecture: you cannot license your image without architect's permission as long as the Turkmen law disallows commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidental means the copyrighted building or artwork must not be the main subject. In other words, COM:De minimis. That may seem too restrictive since a certain photo becomes just a cityscape or road scene, but there is nothing we can do. As long as Turkmen FOP does not conform to Internet era, then no modern architecture and public art from that country is welcome here. See also past deletions at Category:Turkmenistani FOP cases/deleted. If Ashgabat finally changes their heart to allow free uses, then all deleted photos can be undeleted or restored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

FOP Taiwan

Sorry to disturb you. WMTW consulted TIPO on FOP Taiwan again and got reply recently. The reply is available to the public today.

TIPO has reconfirmed his view in Email 1111122 and 1111230 in TIPO's No.11260001910 reply to WMTW's letter No.1120000003. See Reply No.11260001910.

And, TIPO thinks extra restriction (one cannot sell it) should be added to photos uploaded to Commons under CC-BY-SA license. I'm afraid that extra restriction is not allowed as per COM:License, but I will wait for WMTW's opinion on it. Teetrition (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Temporal is not the same as temporary

Hi, JWilz12345. Please have a look at these dictionary definitions of the word "temporal". Just FYI.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleting of pictures about siege de l'AFP

Hello, is it possible to upload the files on wikipedia ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sebring12Hrs you can request for undeletion at COM:UNDEL, but tell to admins that the restoration is temporary – so that you can export a copy of the image file to the local wiki of your choice, provided that once the export is done, the original Commons file must be redeleted. Also, note that the local wiki of your choice must have a local exemption doctrine policy allowing full-resolution photos of architectural artworks from countries with no freedom of panorama, on the claim that the local hosting complies with the local law that the local wiki follows. For example, English Wikipedia only follows U.S. law, and U.S. copyright law allows architectural FOP. Thus, there is w:en:Template:FoP-USonly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

Re: This difference: It must have been a stray click, unless someone hacked my account (and in that case, there will be more problems). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Ilocos Norte Capitol.jpg

File:Ilocos Norte Capitol.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Scarpa BrionCemetery interior.JPG

Yours sincerely, JopkeB (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Galuppi-Burano.jpg

File:Galuppi-Burano.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Venetie Italie 223.jpg

File:Venetie Italie 223.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

File:GiorgioCastriotaScanderbeg.JPG

File:GiorgioCastriotaScanderbeg.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Will you please explain this category that you added

Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AManila_by_night.jpg&diff=783935054&oldid=783934925

Did you write that this original uploaded photo was had an acceptable license on Commons on that date?

What "data?"

What is "unacceptable?"

Please, help me to understand why?

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan I added that category to request admin/s to speedily-delete the higher-resolution file that was obtained during the time the file license had been changed to an unfree license. The addition of the said category was the tesult of an advice from AN. For the issue surrounding the file itself, see this thread at Com:VPC which was opened regarding my action which I believe is reasonable consistent with CC FAQ. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Will you please explain this category that you added

Category:Media with unacceptable data in old versions

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AManila_by_night.jpg&diff=783935054&oldid=783934925

Did you write that this original uploaded photo was had an acceptable license on Commons on that date?

What "data?"

What is "unacceptable?"

Please, help me to understand why?

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan I added that category to request admin/s to speedily-delete the higher-resolution file that was obtained during the time the file license had been changed to an unfree license. The addition of the said category was the tesult of an advice from AN. For the issue surrounding the file itself, see this thread at Com:VPC which was opened regarding my action which I believe is reasonable consistent with CC FAQ. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Glorietta Plaza Baliuag.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

About deleted photos of PCWHS you requested

Please be reminded, before you request for deletion (like statue of former President Manuel Quezon) please reach out the school administration to gather information than judging by it's cover.

Also the image of map in the school wasn't a FLOOR PLAN", it's a directiory map which people and students are be guided by this. I named it as floor plan because I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD I CALL THAT and I asked school staffs and adminstrators that is a school directory map which it shown the exact location of the rooms. Again, floor plan is only shows have a solid black (for walls), windows, scale, distances, measurements, labels, etc. but the image that deleted recently is NOT A FLOOR PLAN.

About the statue, it was confirmed that it built more than 50 years because the first name of the school was Manuel L. Quezon High School and it renamed to Pasay City High School because many school named after President Manuel Quezon and then it renamed for 2nd time to Pasay City West High School because of new annexes which is the Pasay City South High School and Pasay City East High School.

Please, ask someone first and don't judge everything by it's cover. JustinLRT (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@JustinLRT my response to your certain points:

Per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of the proof of an image file's free status lies with either the uploader or the persons/users wishing to defend the file they want to save, not the admins or the nominators.
Directory map is just like all other maps: those are artworks and are not treated differently in our copyright law (R.A. 8293). It is very unbelievable to claim that creators of directory maps don't merit copyright protection of their works. Graphic artists are also authors.
For the statue, you can request undeletion at COM:UNDEL if you are sure that it is indeed free. But take note that it is a work of sculpture (not a work of architecture), and even if it is public domain here in the Philippines, it may be protected by copyright in the United States because of COM:URAA copyright restoration. So even if it is free from copyright here, it may be protected in the U.S., with the duration 95+1 years from the year of publication or public display of the work. This is if it was still under copyright by 1996, the year of U.S. copyright restoration for all eligible Philippine works (except buildings). So what was the exact year the statue was first displayed to public (unveiling in public)?

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for late response because I'm still gather information about the statue of President Manuel L. Quezon. JustinLRT (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued...

It was built between 1949 and 1952 during school expansion of 10,292 square-meter lot along FB Harrison Street due to rise of enrollees in the school. JustinLRT (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@JustinLRT it's ok for the late reply.

Assuming 1952 was the date when it was first publicly-displayed, then the image may be requested for undeletion (as the work is free), provided that the sculptor did not or failed to register his artwork. The prevailing law at that time (Act 3134 of 1924) did not automatically protected works from the moment of creation, so registration was needed to grant copyright protection for a period of 30 years from the year of registration, renewable for another 30 years. Presidential Decree 49 of 1972 eliminated the need for registration, in complying with Berne Convention discouraging mandatory registration, making works automatically protected upon creation. Copyright lasts for 50 years after the death of the author or artist. The current Republic Act 8293 virtually follows the rules of Presidential Decree 49.

However, if the sculptor did indeed registered the sculpture, then copyright may be still in effect. Assuming he registered the work in 1952, then the copyright would still exist by December 1972 (the date P.D. 49 came into effect) and the rules of P.D. 49 apply for the sculpture. Nevertheless, either of the two scenarios may apply for this case:

If the sculptor is known, then the copyright would last for 50 years after his death. The work may be unfree assuming he died anytime after 1972.
If the sculptor is anonymous or unknown, then the sculptural copyright lasts for 50 years after the date of first publication or public display. This may make the sculpture free here but not in the United States, thanks to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of the United States, which either revived or gave U.S. copyright protection of eligible works globally, including all eligible Filipino works. The sculpture may had fell public domain here on January 1, 2003, 50+1 years after its public display (assuming 1952 was the year it was first displayed in your school), but it would still have U.S. copyright in effect that would expire on January 1, 2043 (95 years after 1952). 2003 is way after January 1, 1996, the URAA date of effect for eligible Filipino works.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello JWilz12345

Do you have facebook account? Thank you. 103.144.157.92 06:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't accept message or friend requests from anonymous users, especially those not using user accounts and resorting to contributions while not being logged in, for privacy reasons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sylvia Sanchez

Category:Sylvia Sanchez is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ ^{🩺 • 💉} 06:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Aga Muhlach

Category:Aga Muhlach is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ हिन्दी ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ ^{🩺 • 💉} 06:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User who doesn't understand Freedom of Panorama insulting me

I've been waging jihad on statue copyright violations and some people are trying to destroy Commons with copyright violations. Микола Василечко has been insulting me and calling me a vandal just because I said that Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama and just because a photo part is free doesn't mean that the whole thing is free because photos of statues are derivative works. They even removed the link to the deletion discussion on the page calling me a vandal there too. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%8C_-_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BC%27%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%96_-_010.jpg). Please teach him a less on about copyright.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@KazyKazyKazakhstan I think Микола Василечко is right in this case. The linked VRTS correspondence is a licensing permission granted by the sculptor. Since the sculptir is alive, it may have been easy for the uploader or his/her fellow Ukrainian Wikimedian users to convince the sculptor about the release of the image under commercial license and process his email to Wikimedia Foundation. The other images of the same statue are likely not part of permission granted by him (the sculptor). Unless other interested users are willing to contact him again (but we are not sure if he would allow another image of his statue to be released under commercial license, or not, that is, he only permits one image with such license). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But I made a very reasonably good faith mistake and instead of just easily saying that the release ticket was on the statue which would have been very easy to say, he kept insulting me and acting in bad faith. He also removed a link to the deletion discussion from the filepage before the deletion discussion was over, which I know is not allowed.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@KazyKazyKazakhstan regarding his behavior, I can't judge since he may not be a fluent English speaker. I can see nost of his Ukrainian FOP nominations (like this) using English with some broken grammar.

But nevertheless I advice both of you to be more calm in approach of DRs and avoid obviously attack-words. Both of you do good DRs anyway, in cleaning up tons of violations to sculptors' / muralists' copyrights in Central Asian and Eastern European countries where commercial FOP is not granted. Therefore, I don't want to see both of you getting sanctioned by admins of Commons. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one calling anyone a vandal. He called me a vandal, an attack word.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@KazyKazyKazakhstan that's why I am calling for both of you to exercise restraint in DRs. @Микола Василечко: , I suggest avoid calling nominators acting in good faith mistake vandals, just simply comment "keep" and cite the reason like a VRTS ticket linking to an email of an artist. You can only call a nominator "vandal" if the nomination is clearly nonsense, like a user only stating "asdfghjkl" or "bad file" or "champs elysees" as the nomination reason. And again KazyKazyKazakhstan, I hope you learned from this good faith mistake. Regards to both of you, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

JWilz12345 Hi. The permission (see Template:Roman Vilhushynskyi) was obtained legally, for all statues of the author Roman Vilhushynskyi, the permission was approved by the administrator Krassotkin. User KazyKazyKazakhstan did not ask for permission. And despite the permission template, nominated for delete.This is obvious vandalism. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No. You said that the file had permission. You never specifically specified that the permission was from the sculptor for the statue itself. If you had said that I would have withdrawn it but you reverted the deleton tagging like an actual vandal would and kept insulting me. You can't be vague and call me a vandal for misunderstanding your words. I was never saying that the photo part wasn't free. I wanted to know about the status of the statue which you just insulted and insulted me instead of just saying the magic words "The release is for the statue itself" so you don't get to call me a vandal here. A mistaken deletion nomination based on vague information is not vandalism and you should apologize. Frankly I think removing a deletion nomination even a mistaken one is grounds for a ban but I will be nice and not ask for one.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко File:Тернопіль - Пам'ятник Степанові Бандері - 010.jpg does not appear to bear {{Roman Vilhushynskyi}} template. Note that the template contains a VRTS tag so I'm not allowed to tag the file with such template (a VRTS administrator should tag it, provided that permission covers the said file too). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 PermissionOTRS template {{PermissionOTRS|id=2016090710013187|user=Krassotkin}} add user Krassotkin. He is an agent OTRS. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@KazyKazyKazakhstan: kindly add "noinclude" tags at categories you added to DRs at Category:Tajikistani FOP cases/pending. Without those "noinclude" tags, Commons:Deletion requests/2023/10/09 becomes categorized as a result. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Philippine FOP

Hi JWilz12345. Since you seem quite experienced in dealing with COM:FOP Philippines matters perhaps you could assess the following files to see if they're OK for Commons.

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly: . For the image files you cited:

First file, as well as all of Category:Regina Rosarii Institute of Contemplation in Asia: Not OK. Publicly displayed in 2010 and authored by Jose Barcena Jr.;
File:Ugong Norte, Quezon City Metro Manila 19.jpg - Not OK. Authored by w:en:Eduardo Castrillo: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:People Power Monument. The category must be reviewed too if there are substantial presence of the sculpture in each of the images.
Third file ("File:Hundred Islands Christ the Redeemer Statue.jpg"), nominate it for deletion as an image from Facebook (facebook metadata). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandy Talag.jpg.
File:Kamay ni Jesus.jpg, Not OK: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kamay ni Hesus Church Lucban, Quezon.JPG.
File:PH-Manila-Rizal Monument.jpg, OK. The sculptor involved died in 1919, and possibly if it was registered, its registration was valid for 10 years only consistent with the Spanish law from 1879. See the attached PD-PH template itself.
File:BonifacioMonumentjf9933 13.JPG, OK. See a reply of Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights at this Facebook post of our Intellectual Property Office, which is the basis of the attached PD-PH template.
File:08419jfSumacab Este Cemetery Park Cabanatuan Cityfvf 24.JPG, Not OK. The memorial park opened in 2004, and the sculpture is apparently authored by w:en:Napoleon Abueva, see this information text at the entrance.
File:Statue of the Risen Christ in Tarlac.jpg, likely Not OK. The Monasterio de Tarlac complex was completed in 2000, and it can be assumed that the statue, inspired from copyrighted Christ the Redeemer Statue of Brazil, was unveiled during the same time/period.
File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG, OK. The uploader is the sculptor himself: see also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG.

Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at these. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind starting a DR for the questionable ones since you seem to have been able to sort their provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly perhaps you are aware about the attempt here to introduce FOP (documemted at meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama. A large part of that metawiki page is contributed by me; therefore, I thought of putting more deletion requests on hold for a while in hopes that FOP will be introduced here soon. But the problem is the pertinent bills in our lower House (House of Representatives) – HB799, HB2672, HB3838 – have been pending since last year, and recent support by various stakeholders here are towards a bill (HB7600) that is purely focused on countering online piracy and giving the Intellectual Property Office the power to order the take down of erring websites or block access to websites found to violate intellectual property rights of Philippine works. There is no FOP clause in this more widely-supported bill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner. If you feel a DR for these files should wait due to the impending passing of new FOP laws for the Philippines, then that's fine with me; however, I don't think Commons should wait too long for the Philippine government to act. Files that are deleted for this reason can, afterall, always be restored at a latter date if needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I may leave the decision of nominating these and other image files of the Philippines to other users. If I feel that there is little chance of FoP being introduced here, then there is no chance of waiting for these and other images to be deleted from public view here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly also, it is sure that some users may accuse me of not being faithful to the FOP initiative, of which I am a part of. Perhaps Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained-glass windows, paintings and statues of Saint Andrew Kim Taegon in the Philippines would be my last PH-FOP-related deletion request, unless something unfavorable happens (like FOP being not passed as part of amendments or FOP passed is no longer suitable for Wikimedia, like non-commercial or traditional media only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I think I have to nominate some by more famous Filipino artists, whose heirs may have the power to launch lawsuits. As U.S. lacks FOP too, the first line of defense for Commons, {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, is not usable here and those images may need to be taken down to prevent potential lawsuits from heirs or estates of National Artists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to your pings earlier. I'm not quite sure if you're asking me a question about one of these images or are just discussing the general situation related to them. Commons is a volunteer project and you need not nominate any images for deletion if you feel doing so might have real world consequences or might otherwise cause problems here on Commons between you and other editors. Anyway, once again. I appreciate your original assessment of the above-listed images. I'll keep that assessment in mind moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Golden langur region1909 IGImap.jpg

File:Golden langur region1909 IGImap.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Enyavar (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair use in Italy

Hi. I have a question for you. I was just reading this article from the Library of Congress about an update to Italian copyright law in 2021. According to it under the Educational and Research Use section "Research institutions are authorized to extract text and data from works or other materials available in networks or databases to which they have lawful access, to reproduce them for the protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research, and to communicate the results of their research expressed in new original works to the public. An exception that being Online Content Sharing Service Providers who profit directly or indirectly from the material. But apparently it explicitly says providers of access to nonprofit online encyclopedias or cloud services that allow works protected by copyright to be shared among multiple users aren't included in that.

I'm not sure if that means it would allow users to directly upload images of copyrighted works to the Italian Wikipedia, but if I'm reading it correctly Italian Wikipedia could copy and use images uploaded to Commons and other websites under the justification of "protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research" without there being an issue. Which would essentially allow for fair usage as long as the images comes from the internet. I think that would possibly help resolve the whole thing with us and them when it comes to FOP in Italy. They could re-upload the images to the Italian Wikipedia for the purposes of "cultural heritage and for scientific research" and we could delete them on our end since there's no FOP in Italy and we aren't an encyclopedia or allow for fair use. I was wondering what you think about it though since you have more experience with this stuff then I do. Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1 I think it is best to have this discussion on VPC, since more users should be aware of this update to copyright law. From the looks of it though, it does not seem to benefit Commons in terms of hosting of copyrighted works. We can be considered as an Online Content Sharing Service Provider or OCSSP. OCSSP's are defined as "providers who store and give the public access to large quantities of copyrighted works or other protected materials, which their users upload, when the works or other materials are organized and promoted to profit directly or indirectly from them." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably going to do that at some point but I wanted to know what you thought first since your more expericed in the area. While I agree that we would probably be a OCSSP, it's more about the Italian Wikipedia being able to host images under the guise of "protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research" then anything to do with us. Although that would allow us to delete copyrighted, or questionably copyrighted, images of Italy on our end without Italian users being screwed in the process since they could just re-upload them to Italian Wikipedia. I'm probably naive, but I'd like to think issues like the ones brought up in the Village Pump discussion about FOP in Italy could be resolved in a way that benefits everyone by allowing the images to just be uploaded to Italian Wikipedia while being deleted on our end. Otherwise one side of the whole thing is getting screwed. Either we are by letting Italian users keep images that have extremely questionable copyright status' or they are because we would be deleting a lot of images that are being used in Wikipedia articles and would otherwise be kept if we allowed for fair use. Anyway, that's just my thought on the matter. I'll start a discussion about it on the VPC at some point though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1 I have started a new subsection on VPC, no need to add. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Binondo Church (2022 Jun)jwilz.jpg

File:Binondo Church (2022 Jun)jwilz.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

NatalkaWiki (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Binondo-Intramuros Bridge sidejwilz.jpg

File:Binondo-Intramuros Bridge sidejwilz.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

NatalkaWiki (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Binondo‐Intramuros Bridge2jwilz.jpg

File:Binondo‐Intramuros Bridge2jwilz.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

NatalkaWiki (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello JWilz12345, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@A1Cafel you're welcome! Merry Christmas too 😊 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheImaCow&diff=prev&oldid=1205738090&title=User_talk%3ATheImaCow&diffonly=1

If can check this link for Pilipinas Super League and add few logos; i mostly noticed davao missing for long, for some reason the league isnt getting enough attention here; thanks Loptač01 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Loptač01 based on your already-existing request at w:en:User talk:TheImaCow#Detail, you seem to refer to the logo of w:en:Davao Occidental Tigers, which lacks an image of it. Sorry, but this is Wikimedia Commons, not English Wikipedia. On Commons, all files must be freely usable even for commercial purposes, so licenses must not restrict commercial (like CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-zero). This rule also applies to images that may show copyrightable subjects like artworks and food packaging. Most contemporary logos are not acceptable on Commons, and the logo of Davao Occidental Tigers is likely among the copyrighted logos. Unless there is a permission from the artist or whoever holding the copyright of the logo, Commons cannot host that logo.

English Wikipedia allows images of unfree works (see w:en:Non-free content), but those images should pass the strict criteria for worthy inclusion of the non-free images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi JWilz12345, I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding Valenzuela400. They have been uploading images on the English Wikipedia and them importing to Commons. They appear to be based in the Philippines. I took a quick look at their talk page on Wikipedia and noticed this comment, which gives me Judgefloro vibes, but I have not paid much attention to this user to make a call for sockpuppetry. What do you think? ✗plicit 04:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already messaged User:Just Step Sideways (formerly Beeblebrox) about that in their metawiki talk page. They haven't yet responded. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit I have nominated a few of their local enwiki images for deletion, mostly no-FoP reasons. I just nominated one image that may either show a logo ot a trophy. Valenzuela400 ignores the fact that English Wikipedia follows U.S. law and only applies architectural FoP, which means this user should not be uploading any Philippine monument locally at enwiki unless they prove that it is already old enough (for example, pre-1929). Or, they must know the non-free content criteria rules before uploading, provided that the monuments they are sharing locally have enwiki articles (but so far, there are none, so fair use tagging is useless). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

National Book Development Board

Hi JWilz12345, the 2016 annual report of the National Book Development Board (books.gov.ph) has a copyright notice: "Copyright © 2017 National Book Development Board". Does this mean that photos from this report are not covered by Template:PD-PhilippineGov? Joofjoof (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Joofjoof you may want to contact the designer (R. Jordan P. Santos) via rjordanpsantos@gmail.com, if he does indeed have copyright claim on this public document. It has been a common practice by several government agencies here to hire either contractuals or third party individuals coming from private sector to create content, which means their works may not be in public domain (since they are not regular government employees). But I suggest you contact that person, just in case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:JWilz12345/Archive 2

What is the difference between de minimis and not de minimis in a photograph of a building or sculpture in a country where there is no freedom of panorama?

When you request deletion of files in categories of buildings or sculptures located in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, are files corresponding to de minimis excluded from the deletion request?

Philam Life Theater

Can I make a template related South Korean non-building structures?

I made {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} template.

Why some photos of PNB 118 is nominated for deletion request?

Does not protecting non-building structures under South Korean copyright law affect FoP status in South Korea?

Photos of architecture and sculptures in Belgium taken before 15 July 2016

What is the difference between "incidental" and "trivial"?

Why are you taking such an extreme attitude?

On pending Philippine FOP

Unhappiness

I've been thinking a few things about introducing edit filters.

Löschung von Fotografien / Erasing photographs

What means w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?

Where are you from?

File:A2z channel 11 logo 2020.png and File:Gma 1995.png

I made two NoFoP templates.

Multiple files for deletion

Why is the London Eye protected by copyright, unlike other Ferris wheels?

How about {{20th or 21st-century buildings in South Korea}}?

What is the difference between {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} and {{PD-structure}}?

The "the"

What can {{PD-structure}} be used for objects in South Korea?

Notification about possible deletion

May 2022

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

Notification about possible deletion

in re FOP

Your change to Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Toll gates: Difference between revisions

Copyright problems

Apologies

Deletion requests/File:TATTOO the MIDGET has a bigger POSSE.jpg

Question

Proposed deletion of the picture of a public building on Turkmenistan

FOP Taiwan

Temporal is not the same as temporary

Deleting of pictures about siege de l'AFP

Reversion

Notification about possible deletion

Will you please explain this category that you added

Will you please explain this category that you added

Notification about possible deletion

About deleted photos of PCWHS you requested

Hello JWilz12345

User who doesn't understand Freedom of Panorama insulting me

Philippine FOP

Fair use in Italy

Seasonal Greetings!

Question

Sock?

National Book Development Board

Navigation menu

Search