User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

I like to keep discussions in one place, so:

• I will respond on this page to everything left on this page.
• If I leave a message on your talk page, I will look there for a response.
• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page.

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

Closing an RfdeA

Dear Jameslwoodward,

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship 2) has ended now since 01:43, 15 January 2024.

To prevent more votes after scheduled time the nomination is probably worth a protection and an archive.

Thanks for your attention. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

OK It seems the rules are different from there, so no rush. Have a good day! -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, if I counted correctly there was only 19 remove votes and not 20. (one was striked) --Zache (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Right you are, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

The last two votes were posted after the scheduled time. Not that it changed anything, but IMO that should be corrected. Yann (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As you say, it doesn't change anything, but I'm not sure you are correct. Although there is no guidance on this for de-adminships, the guide for admin votes says, "Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the period of an RfA if they feel that it will be helpful in better determining community consensus." Although this case more inattention than intended on the part of the crats, it still seems clear that votes made after the deadline can and should be counted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure in Undeletion requests

Hi, Jameslwoodward. You wrote here "Below the ToO and also past the copyright period" (which apparently, correct me if I'm wrong, are reasons for the file not to be beleted) but yet you closed the request as not done, and the file remained... deleted. Was this an oversight or I'm missing something? Strakhov (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Recovery of formation impact image

sent via talk to you link by Cresterest:

The following is a follow up question to a now closed undeletion request:

Ca (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The deleted photo is not a photo of a crashed airplane / airplane crash site. Thuresson(talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo depicts four airplanes flying together in a tight formation. Abzeronow (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, can you describe the “tight formation,” i.e. was it line-abrest? Can you somehow show me the deleted formation image? Also you may be more experienced on Wikipedia than I— I can’t find the edit where the formation crash ground scar I was trying to replace with my errant undeletion request was lost from this article. I would like to place that image to the same location where it was lost from. Maybe it was because of a now-dead link? Cresterest (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the image at https://www.pinterest.com/pin/320811173426378057/

This is the only image that has been removed from the WP:EN article 1982 Thunderbirds Indian Springs Diamond Crash. You can see that by examining the history for that article for April 2018 (click on View History near the top of the page). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you James. This is an Air Force Public domain image. It was used as an Air Force recruiting billboard displayed inside NY Grand Central Station in the late ‘70s and on an fold-out Air Show handout for attendees—-public domain.

this is a Diamond formation, which is the subject of the wikipedia article we are discusding and the photo that was substituted for the deleted one has five aircraft instead of four in a non-diamond formation, so the deleted photo is more appropriate. The aircraft had transitioned from a diamond formation to line-abreast to perform the maneuver that resulted in an accident.

Thank you for confirming that the cite impact scarf photo was not part of the original article. I have to study how to try to add that to this article as an enhancement edit. Cresterest (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is likely that it is {{PD-USAF}} -- the photographer is very likely an Air Force professional photographer as this image would be difficult for anyone else to take. However, "likely" does not suffice here. Neither of these uses:

"It was used as an Air Force recruiting billboard displayed inside NY Grand Central Station in the late ‘70s and on an fold-out Air Show handout for attendees"

make it a public domain image unless the photographer was, in fact, an Air Force person either military or civilian. It is up to you to prove that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, question on the airplane drawings.

When I restored the licenses to some of those drawings, I restored the last stable license. I didn't know until today that GFDL was also originally there but removed by the uploader in 2023. Should I restore the GFDL license as well or should I just leave things as is? Also learned new things from reading en:Wikipedia talk:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The GFDL was originally created for software and while it can be used for other text as well, it is not suited to images because it requires that the full text of the license be included with the use. That's easy enough if you're distributing a megabyte of software but impossible for print use of an image -- where do you put 3700 words of license in print? Therefore I think it adds nothing to the licensing of a Commons image file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm content to leave things with those as they are now. Thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ayuda en UDR (Undeletion Request)

@Jameslwoodward:Buenas, por favor en el COM:UDEL (en la parte "File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg") esta foto debería ser restaurada (support) o no restaurar (oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There are good arguments on both sides. The truth probably lies in subtleties of language that may not be well handled by Google Translate, so I will leave it to those who read Spanish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)