Jameslwoodward

Jameslwoodward's Archives
2009-2010 2011 2012 2013 1st half 2014 2nd half 2014 1st half 2015 2nd half 2015 1st half 2016 2nd half 2016

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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.wikimedplease see w:Wikipedia:No original research, w:Wikipedia:Verifiability as to why it cannot be used as a reliable source. Thirdly, if you decide not to keep discussions in one place, they risk becoming very difficult to followia.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"

Thanks & Question

Thank you for the message on my talk page, I searched and found also [one more] of the nominate accounts. When you said "see unDR" for more, could you give me link to that? I'm sorry but I'm having the winter flu/cold and my brain feels stuffed with pillow fluff instead of the 'little grey matters'. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:C1115.jpg. Storkk (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- I linked your name there -- it will show up in your notices. And sorry for your cold. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The soup looks fabulous, I need to make some IRL. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Jameslwoodward, for taking the time to review my request. As for my last file that was deleted two days ago, I asked for the file to be restored because I'm afraid it was deleted for no obvious reason. This document was a copy of the original birth certificate of the late Egyptian actress Souad Hosni; it' apparently shows that it was registered in 1943 and is sealed by the Egyptian Ministry of interior. That document serves as a reliable source which confirms her birth date and place of birth. So, It would be truly appreciated if you could review it and see if it can be restored. Thanks in advance. --Rita saber1 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Per what I mentioned on my talk page, do you now see why if you do not keep discussions in one place, they risk becoming difficult to follow? You seem to have missed it there, so please see w:Wikipedia:No original research, w:Wikipedia:Verifiability as to why it could not be used as a reliable source even if we could somehow authenticate it, which we simply cannot. Storkk (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Rita saber1, you are pushing this far too long. Six experienced Administrators have told you in various ways and in various places that this file cannot be kept. Simply repeating the same request over and over and over is going to get you blocked from editing on Commons.

This is for the last time. I have said all of this before and will not say it again. The next time you mention this file anywhere on Commons, you will be blocked. You will also be blocked if you open another account, or upload any similar files. As a general rule, Commons Administrators have a lot of patience with new users, but there are limits and you have reached them.

1. The file is not a reliable source of anything. It is too small to be legible.
2. There are also questions about its authenticity from User:Hawajez, who is a significant contributor (10,000 edits, mostly in Arabic) and who you have falsely accused of being biased against you.
3. Also, any Arabic speaker could load the file into Photoshop and put any date and place he wanted there so perfectly that it could not be detected, so it cannot serve as a source for anything.
4. It is out of scope. As I have said at least twice, except for documents which relate to significant controversies, such as the question of Barack Obama's birthplace, we do not keep public records on Commons. There does not appear to be any controversy at all over the actress's birth and even there were, I am not sure we would keep this file.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you can't simply defend someone, the user you mentioned, while you haven't been in an argument with them to tell whether they're biased or not! Secondly, that birth certificate is completely genuine and is compatible with her other legal documents. Lastly, no admin told me that it was not a reliable source, they rather told me they needed to be sure I had the right to use it. --Rita saber1 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Source page checking

Hi Jim,

I'm referring to the per De728631 of 7 December; FoP-Switzerland.

First of all, thanks for all your information. Being part of the Wikipedia Projet:BAA/Genève, we are desesperatly trying to find illustrations for our posts. I thought the Google images "free of use" option was right enough.

You kindly propose to check the list of the source pages. What will be the easiest procedure to do so ? Should we mention it when uploading in WikiCommons and in which terms ?

Thanks in advance

Have a nice week-end --Philvuagn (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Philvuagn, I made 79 edits on 7 December. I did a quick search, but I didn't find the one you cite. I could probably find it if I spent some time, but perhaps you'll be kind enough to give me a link? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Category Type 5 Na-To

Hi Jameslwoodward,

I just created "Category:Type 5 Na-To". Before I had created "Type 5 Na-To", which meant to be the category page. So I wanted to delete the latter. But accidently I put the "delete page"-code in "Category:Type 5 Na-To" – which was, of course, wrong and not my intention.

Before I re-create "Category:Type 5 Na-To" I wanted check back with you what the best way is to re-create this category. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, --Chris.w.braun (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. When you created the gallery page Type 5 Na-To it is was added to the New Page Patrol log, which allows Commons editors to check that new pages created by inexperienced editors are OK. 90% of them are not OK and are deleted. At that point the page had a button on it allowing an experienced user to mark it as "patrolled" and remove it from the log.

Then you moved it to Category:Type 5 Na-To. There's a software bug, which keeps such pages in the NPP log, but does not provide the button. The only way to remove them from the log is to delete them and then recreate them. There are usually half a dozen such pages every day -- it's an easy error to make. So, as I go through the NPP log, I mark them with "temporary deletion to clear NPP log", make a list of the pages I need to recreate and then do that after I have gone through the whole list. I would have restored the subject page in a few minutes.

That's a long explanation of why it's OK for you to restore the Category page, or, if you prefer, wait for me to do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Let me re-create the page "Category:Type 5 Na-To" real quick. Okay? --Chris.w.braun (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Go to it. Thanks again for asking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. --Chris.w.braun (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I blocked your block

Hi Jim: I just blocked Rita saber1 indefinitely. I see that you and Alan had blocked for shorter durations and when she started slinging personal insults I decided I'd had enough and blocked her indefinitely. Four birth certificates out of scope is not worth the headaches for any users/admins here. I don't see any attempt on user's part to work through this in an adult fashion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I changed to "hard block" (+Talk Page +email). Alan ^(talk) 20:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Great! One question, Alan, did you search for other accounts which she might be using based on the comment that she's already back to editing? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked -- nothing so far. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AntoineOne

Hi, Jim, how are you? Ángel García de Diego already sent an email to permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org to send a free license using the procedure at OTRS as you told me, is everything ok now? Can you undeleted the pictures? Or what must I do now? Thank you :) --AntoineOne (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OTRS does not have enough volunteers to do its work quickly, so the permission goes into a long queue. It may be several weeks or even more before it reaches the head of the queue and is acted on. At the point, assuming the permission is correct, the images will be restored without any further action on your part. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jim :)--AntoineOne (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foreigner - I Want to Know What Love Is.jpg

You said that a typography has 25 years of copyright. If that's the case, the UK copyright would have expired in 2009 or 2010, more than 25 years after first publication in 1984. Also, what about the cover of Agent Provocateur (album)? Sorry, but how would the USA copyright not protect the "F" 3d thing, especially the US release of the single? --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait... the "F" 3D logo is artistic work. Normally, anonymous artistic works, including works for hire, have 70 years of copyright after first publication. --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Found the name of the cover designer: Bob Defrin. I found his Facebook page, LinkedIn, and Chamber of Commerce. I could not find his birthplace. Let's assume that he is British or American. Also, the "F" 3D logo might be copyrightable because the copyright notice of the album or single contains "Atlantic Records Corporation". It's a work for hire. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quite sure that there is no copyright in the USA -- as I said in the closing comment, type faces, no matter how complex, do not have a copyright in the USA. If this had been a photograph of an actual 3D "F", that would be a different thing, but a 2D representation of a 3D thing is simply a complex type face. As to whether the cover is copyrighted in the UK, given that the 25 years is over, I'm not so sure. I suspect that it's above the ToO there. It does not matter whether it is a work for hire -- in any case, any copyright will last at least 70 years, so if there is a copyright, it will not be PD until at least 1/1/2055. Since I'm not sure there is a copyright in the UK, I will not oppose an UnDR, if you post one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In other words, the "F" is uncopyrightable in the USA? Also, can you add more in your closing rationale for better sense or something? --George Ho (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I could add more, but I don't understand what you mean. Say more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Words in the rationale, the part where you mentioned the 70-year copyright. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Köf II

Hello Jim, first of all, sorry for my bad English. I'm from The Netherlands. I do not know how Wikimedia Commons exactly works, so that's why I contact you in this way. The reason I report the following photo (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kof_II.jpg#File%3AKof_II.jpg) for deletion is because I am 100% sure that the person who uploaded this picture, isn't the owner/photographer. I am an employee of the company that owns the train at the picture and a colleague made that photo. Thank you for your help! Jasper K (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, but you must make your comment at the DR, not here. And, by the way, your English is fine -- I would say "owns the train in the picture", but otherwise there is not even a hint that you are not a native English speaker. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploads by AnthonyAtArquiste

Hi there! The images I uploaded were taken by a photographer that works at ARQUISTE. They belong to the company, which I work for, and which I am making the ARQUISTE page for. I have a lot more to add to the page, but am just getting started on my first Wikipedia page ever! Any advice you have would be much appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyAtArquiste (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 December 2016‎ (UTC)

First and foremost, you should understand that what you are doing is a serious violation of WMF rules. A summary of the policy is at COI. I doubt very much that your article on WP:EN will be accepted, so you are fundamentally wasting your time. Also, you will see that I have removed the text you placed on Draft:ARQUISTE Parfumeur. You cannot post material taken from a copyrighted Web site on Commons.

Following WMF policy, paid editors may only suggest edits on the talk pages of existing articles. They may not write articles or begin new articles. You must also declare your conflict both on your Commons User Page User:AnthonyAtArquiste and your WP:EN User Page User:AnthonyAtArquiste.

As for the images, as I said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AnthonyAtArquiste, these images are fundamentally SPAM and violate COM:ADVERT, which you should read. Any further comments you wish to make about the images should be made at the DR and not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your warning here. Sagecandor (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange edit

Hi! This was a strange edit. Svensson1 (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm not sure why AWB did that, but I should have noticed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Lisbon Portugal (3016881027).jpg

Did you even read the changed file descriptions of the files before deleting them again?. For your information the graffiti were researched and attributed "whenever possible" as you demanded, but it appears that even that is not enough. It seems like the Freedom of Panorama, for some strange reason, is codified in portuguese law but is not applied. Tm (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't read the file descriptions. When you break the rules and upload a deleted file, you can expect that it will be deleted quickly. The only way to get a deleted file restored is to file an UnDR..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to read that you, an bureaucrat, delete files for mere disregard, instead of reading the attribution in the images before redeleting them and when called to reason still continues to refuse to undelete them. So this images were deleted as the graffiti depicted werent attributed, i did (previously) the research, reuploaded them with an edited description attributing the authors or explaining with the authorship is unknown, as you demanded and yet you deleted them again. If you took the text about portuguese FOP, maybe you didnt noticed that same text talks about photos of Lisbon graffiti and refered them as a good examples of the portuguese FOP, yet it seems even when the images are attributed to the image author, author of the graffitis, freely licensed and there is FOP in the country, it seems that images still get deleted. What you want? Files are attributed as you demanded in the deletion request and still get deleted again. Tm (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We delete around 1,500 files every day. 10 Admins do most of that work and we work very fast. When you break the rules, you cannot expect anything but quick action. Stop trying to make this anything but your own fault and deal with as the rules require. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To quote you " I've seen a lot of silly (...) arguments here on Commons, but this has to be one of the silliest". What have to do what administrators and how much they work have to do with the case in question? I have 1,059,828 edits or 278 daily, a "little" more than yours 138,934 or 47.3 daily, and yet you do not listen to me bragging of how much fast or slow i work. What is in question is that you claimed that this images "requires serious effort to find the name of the artist and then deleted them.

Fair that you did not knew then that i did made, before this deletion, the "serious effort" to attribute this graffitis, but as i refuse to feed to the arguments of the other user that was\(is?) on path of shock with me (that you could se if you did saw is contributions and see why my comments are not ad hominem comments).

I reuploaded the files with the attribution on the description or at least the research and the reason as to why 2 graffitis are of unknown author, on full compliments of Commons policies and portuguese law and Freedom of Panorama. But as it seems that some administrators "work very fast", so fast that several errors are daily made ("Quality, not quantity" seems to be replaced with "Quantity, not quality") and you deleted the files despite the attribution (as you said, i "deal with as the rules require") attributing the graffitis and when i called to reason and urged you to read the description that fills your demands on the deletion request, you said that "didn't read the file descriptions" as you "work fast" and demand that i request undeletion on UnDR.

Well, what policy or rule, in Commons, demands that files that are freely licensed and are covered by Freedom of Panorama that stay undeleted? If you dont come with anything your words are nothing more than empty talking, and your continual refusal to undelete this in scope files is mere scorn for Commons policy and rules, for reasons that i do not understand. Tm (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No aswer? Either the cat as eaten your tongue or you do not have an answer based in policy to the last question! Good to know that the files are still deleted against policy. Tm (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:AsteroidOS - Wallpaper3.png

You missed a spot. MCMLXXXIX 15:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

About the Kurdish Maps

Hi Jim: Recently you closed discussion on File:Kurdish states 1835.png. I am in receipt of correspondence from M. Izady who continues to say that his map/s are being used on Commons and also on other parts of the Wiki Projects. I saw you closed it on [1]. Yes the uploader cited M. Izady's work as the only source (the other source is dead). Mr. Izady feels his work is copyright and continues to correspond with me via email. What would you suggest? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment, maps may or may not have a copyright -- the national laws and case law run both ways. But, even if you stipulate that Izady's map does have a copyright, that goes only so far -- only to the presentation, not the facts. He cannot copyright the location and names of geographic features. The map I kept uses different colors, typefaces, and style from Izady's map. I suggest that you might tell Izady that he needs to be careful about this -- if he pushes it much farther, he may find that his map does not actually have a copyright. I think that is the more likely outcome if the issue is put to a test. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm urging him to create an account and participate in project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of photos of Disneyland Paris

Please reconsider the deletion you made of all photos in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moteurs... Action! Stunt Show Spectacular. Even if one considers that every building in France is covered by FOP restrictions (which is riduculous imo), in most of these cases the buildings were not the subject of the photos: thus the de minimis principle would apply. Following your strict interpretation, most urban pictures taken in France would be delected, including for example this one. Greetings, Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The pyramid at the Louvre has a special exception arising from a court case. You are correct that most photos of street scenes of recent buildings in non-FOP countries cannot be kept on Commons and, in fact, for the most part there are very few here. As for the question of "every building in France is covered by FOP restrictions", in the first place it is not a matter of "FOP restrictions", but rather the lack of any FOP exception to the French copyright law which puts all architecture under copyright until it expires. And, of course, it is not "every building", but only those that are still under copyright.

I suggest that a better target for your dismay would be an effort to get the French Parliament to adopt an FOP exception similar to the one Portugal has. The Wikipedias in Russia and Belgium were instrumental in getting those laws changed recently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello colleagues, Jim, to contradict a bit a part of your closure rationale "There is no evidence that architecture has a ToO", our policies state there is indeed a ToO for building in France. Note this is just a comment. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thank you -- although there are a lot of fuzzy words in the cite, it appears that I need to relax my standard a little. That being said, in this particular case, these are actually probably stage sets, not buildings, and, as such are almost certainly copyrighted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am the happiest in the world if I learned you something. Good continuation for you two. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I consider this procedure so exagerated that I have just submitted an undeletion request for one of the pictures (the one uploaded by myself). Please check here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian, your English is usually perfect -- I did not realize you were not a native speaker, but it is "I learned something" and "You taught me something". And, by the way, I learn new things all of the time, mostly small, but this one is important. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, in french we have two verbs too: apprendre= to learn and enseigner=to teach; but in french "apprendre" (to learn) is sometimes used in both senses in everyday language. A dictionary and google translate helps me a lot and I am less fluent than I seem, it is just that I try to be careful to be well understood. When I had to write some complex texts, it takes to me sometimes more than 1 hour, e.g. this message took me between 5 and 10 minutes. Thanks you very much for having teach me the distinction between to learn and to teach, this lesson is learned. :) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request of John_Rotellini.jpg

Hi Jim! I'm sorry to bother you but I'm new to all of this and swear I am following proper protocol as per the uploader instructions. To clarify, I am the subject of the photograph as well as the photographer (gotta love remote shutters). I own the image exclusively as well as the organization that variations of the image has appeared on. According to the uploader, a form shouldn't be necessary if I am the sole owner and originator of the work and hold the copyright for it. Again, I apologize if I'm being at all thick and want to make sure I do everything properly here. Would you mind assisting me in correcting this properly if a form does need submitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojohot1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

First, no apology necessary -- as I see it, part of my job at Commons is to try and help newbies climb the very steep earning curve. Any time you have a question, please ask.

Unfortunately, we get vandals and fans who make claims such as the one you make above in order to get images on Commons that are not, in fact, properly licensed by the copyright holder. We have no way of knowing who User:Jojohot1 actually is. If an uploader claims "Own Work", in the absence of a reason not to, we assume good faith and keep the image. However, when the image has appeared on the Web without a free license, policy requires that one of two things happen -- in this case, (a) you could put a note at the bottom of http://johnrotellini.com/#dates saying that the image is licensed under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or (b) you can provide a free license via OTRS, sending the e-mail from an address at johnrotellini.com. Either will do, but be advised that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and, also like Commons, is understaffed, so it runs a substantial backlog -- several weeks, sometimes more than a month. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Jim. I completely understand and totally appreciate your willingness to help and also educate. Like you, I want to make sure I upload and attribute everything properly! Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojohot1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sillans de cascade

Hi Jim, as you requested, I send you a note for the newly uploaded picture. Now in a better resolution 1,424 × 2,144 pixels. I hope this fits your requirements. --Hohi2009 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hohi2009, that's much better -- great photo. Thank you for your contributions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

deletion of "advertising subsidized space exploration" images

Hi Jim, I'm a new contributor to Wiki Commons...several images uploaded about a month ago were tagged last week for deletion, so I added info to their talk/discussion pages (on both the pages for the images themselves and their "nominated for deletion pages"), and, on the personal discussion page of the person who tagged them. No one responded. The person who tagged them must have done a quick reverse image search...she found both that the images were also on my personal blog, and, that they were distributed throughout the web. All such images created by me are released CC0 and their base composite images use NASA and SpaceX images which are also as a matter of their policy CC0 (universally for all of their photos).

I also sent an email to OTIS (?) asking that they review the images and note that their base photos are of course CC0 (all SpaceX and NASA images are public domain). This was noted on the individual photo discussion pages but I have not yet heard back from this Wiki Commons volunteer team.

As you can imagine this is really a frustrating time sink. Can you suggest what I should do next? I would have appreciated a question from you regarding the images before they were deleted, or at least a discussion on their relevant pages. Hope you understand, thank you.Ericmachmer (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

First please understand that Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,500 of them. Ten Admins do most of that work, so we don't have any time to have a couple of hundred personal discussions daily. If we had many more active Admins, we might, but as it is, the backlog is growing.

Your images were not deleted for copyright but for scope. As a general rule we do not keep personal art or parody from non-notable artists. You can post them to your own site or Flickr, but not here.

I should also note that it is not at all clear that all SpaceX images are PD. We have deleted some that were uploaded here by an unauthorized person. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for the response. This concept art is meant for an expansion of a wikipedia article on advertising subsidized space exploration, and is not meant to be taken as a parody etc. (The expansion will mention new techniques such as metal etching and spotlight projection, as well as new vehicles such as ITS and the ISS's cupola.) Prior to their deletion the copyrights to the underlying CC0 base images were clarified with links to SpaceX's Flickr stream, but there was no indication on the image's discussion pages that this was taken into account. (They were misattributed to my personal blog, the BBC, and Ars Technica for some reason....) Anyhow, to the extent they may contribute to updating this space advertising article it seems they may at least be in proper scope?

Also -- not to take more of your time -- but I'm wondering how to determine copyright for this image:

http://konspekts.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rocketspace-shuttleadvertising.jpg

This is by far the most commonly shared "famous" conceptualization of space-related advertising and has been around since the '90s. (Ironically it has traditionally been used as a parody of sorts to pitch advertising with a negative spin.) There are many, many instances of it on the web and it is frequently shown at space-themed conferences when the topic of advertising arrises...is there a fair-usage/historical relevancy copyright status which would allow this image to also be incorporated into wikipedia articles? It has been the "go to" image when discussing space-related advertising for decades -- but I have been unable to find its creator. Thanks again! Ericmachmer (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)