User talk:Jcb/archive/10

File:Keil & Delitzsch.jpg[edit]

Dear Mr. Bos! As you kept a file I had nominated for deletion, File:Keil & Delitzsch.jpg, I wonder if this is not a problematic precedent for lots of images. All bad images may be used outside the wiki projects, so it becomes difficult to get rid of them. I doubt there will be problems for possible users, since the image was uploaded by the creator. And a Tineye search results no results, so there is no reason to believe the image is used at all. --Jonund (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once you release a file into a CC license, it's too late to 'get rid of them'. I have seen several cases where a photographer first uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons with a free license. Later they licensed it to Getty Images in an exclusive license that they were no longer allowed to grant, because of the earlier CC license. Then Getty Images started to start hugh bills to external reusers. If we delete the file in the meantime, the victims have no way to show that Getty Images has no right to send those bills. So that's one of the reasons why we are very careful which such deletions. And no, this is not a precedent, we have been doing such keep closures for years. Jcb (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, though, it seems extremely unlikely that somebody would run into that kind of troubles.

Often bad images clutter categories. Maybe we should create a category for images that are kept only for the purpose of avoiding troubles with copyright? --Jonund (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We make decisions based on principle, not based on how 'unlikely' a risk may feel to an individual. Jcb (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18 - Andy Mabbett - 47.JPG[edit]

Please explain why you deleted File:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18 - Andy Mabbett - 47.JPG. Your stated reason of "delete delagation request of SPAM policy imediate image unsuitable inappropriate misplaced" cannot be parsed. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale comes from User:Matffy, but you yourself declared somebody else to be the photographer at the file description page - Jcb (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that I did. The work was mine. Please restore it. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a special page for undeletion requests: COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But as you are apparently unable to explain your deletion rationale, and as your subsequent reasoning is false, I thought I would, as a courtesy to you, give you the opportunity to act honourably, and undelete it yourself. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Request for undeletion, it's {{PD-RU-exempt}}, several experienced users agreed to that and voted for keep! --ScriWi (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A DR is not a vote. The closing administrator has to decide based on the validity of the arguments, not on the number. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the system here, but that way it just seems not all right to me. It's ridiculous. If it's not a vote then why have a discussion at all? Why have a discussion and let several people vote for keep and collect arguments for keep, only for you to ignore them and delete it anyway. I still don't see any doubt in the {{PD-RU-exempt}}, you didn't explain yourself at all, you just delete.

So I really don't understand your "validation" of arguments at all. The files existed for a long time, they were {{PD-RU-exempt}} and no one doubted it. There are more stamps and postal cards from Peter Emilevich Bendel online. There are probably thousands or hundreds of thousands painted stamps and postal cards from other painters that are licensed by {{PD-RU-exempt}}. So if you think you are right, go ahead and delete more... delete them all. That would be the only correct consequence of your doing. You called some references, trying to "vote for keep" selfcontradicting. No, you are selfcontradicting, because there are still more of similar licensed files online.

Besides you destroyed days and weeks of my work, to put the article of Peter Emilevich Bendel together and categorize and show some of his works. I did this as a favor to my father in law, he's aged 80 and has known Peter Emilevich Bendel as a friend in his life and wanted him to be honored. You are frustrating him, too.

People, forget it, I'm not going to invest any other minute of work here, if that's the result of it. Why invest any work at all, when people like you come at the end and destroy everything, despite any other reasoning. I'm out of here. --ScriWi (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to ScriWi I do know the deletion is not a vote but the arguments are solid and I sincerely believe your reasoning is flawed. You may want to reconsider your decision to delete all the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel considering this topic has been discussed before and, as pointed out by several editors, all Russian stamps are in the public domain. You should probably review all the kept Russian deletion requests listed at Category:Philately related deletion requests/kept most of which included some sort of alleged copyright image in the stamp design. I can't see that any Russian stamps are included in Category:Philately related deletion requests/deleted. Otherwise, to take you decision to its full term means deleting all Russian stamps. There is also some mention at Template talk:PD-RU-exempt about stamps and postal cards. Thanks for your consideration. Ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting the request by Ww2censor to revisit your decision in question. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at COM:UDR and that will be the only place where I will respond to this case from now. Please don't contact me again about this specific case at my user talk page, I do have COM:UDR on my watchlist. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:DeletedContributions/Matffy[edit]

Please undelete the files you deleted under his request. That's a long-term abuser (known as fritella) seeking sort of a childish revenge against users fighting his vandalisms. Honestly I'm afraid of seeing Commons sysop's uploads (@Amada44: ) being deleted with such a meaningless reason as "This photo was uploaded by Amada44 through Category:Uploaded by Amada44 (unsorted) and Cat-a-lot also did the license review. And the obvious problem and Internet of not having had a second set of eyes on the file to confirm the license, the second problem is the Flickr source says this is a Google and copyright which has been causing dissension lately because it seems to not be acceptable for Commons."
--Vituzzu (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Vituzzu: . Jcb you clicked a bit to fast there. Would you undelete them please? Did you actually read the DR request? Vandalisme Fetichism of Selfies destructive of images immediate cancellation. How can you delete something on that ground? Amada44 ^{talk to me} 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I don't not always take too much time to carefully read the speedy rationals. Some should have been overwritten at deletion. I have checked the files:

File:Addison Moorehead.jpg - obvious candidate for speedy deletion for being out of scope
File:Christan Grant taking a selfie while waiting for his parents.jpeg - obvious candidate for speedy deletion for being out of scope
File:Selfie-pudeur.jpg - out of scope
File:മണ്ണിൽ ചേരുന്നു ഞാൻ.JPG - out of scope
File:Selfie stick à Pétra.jpg - useless, we have far better pictures in Category:People photographing using selfie sticks
File:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18 - Andy Mabbett - 47.JPG - no permission
File:Pottinger Street from Wyndham.jpg - out of scope, but there may be a little room for doubt in this case, so I have restored it
File:Humanity, I despair (15378900818).jpg - I have checked before deletion, it does say 'Google' in the EXIF

So the result of a careful reconsideration is 7 remain deleted and 1 out of scope file (for which I will file a DR) has been undeleted for now. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can happen. I was only referring to the two I uploaded from flickr. It says:

Software used	Google
Exif version	2.2

(which is of course a reference to the software that person used.) There are many more image of that uploader and in my opinion they are perfectly okay. Please undelete the other one as well. cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 19:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ivtorov[edit]

Hi Jcb, you missed this one. Rodrigolopes (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I fixed it. The problem is that MediaWiki has been very wonky for the past few months. I think there are still more than 10 files online only from DR's that I closed. Sometimes the software refuses to delete one of the files. I have seen other admins complaining about it as well. But the good news is that those files will be found when cleaning up Category:Deletion requests April 2016 within a few weeks from now. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olatunde and CFA.jpg[edit]

Dear Jcb. I am not convinced by your closure of this deletion discussion. On a procedural basis, this file was listed inside a more global discussion, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Wikicology, that is not closed. Concerning the picture itself, it is clear from the context that this picture was taken at the occasion of the interview, 20 August 2015 at en:Channels TV, of Wikipedia's Ambassador Olalekun Isaac by en:Chukwuemeka Fred Agbata of Channels TV. And this context suggests largely that either a timer was used or the one who pushed the button was acting as a timer, doing so on the order of Wikicology, after the said Wikicology has gathered himself and CFA in front of the logo of the chain, and configured the Blackberry. As the conclusion, Wikicology had the requested rights over this picture to release them, and thus this picture is actually open source. Masking this releasing process could only create a burden for any user of this picture, but not change its status. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person who held the camera/blackberry/whatever and pushed the button acted as a photographer, not as a "timer". Permission from the photographer will be needed. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinião em fotos de Alessandro Sil[edit]

Olá, Jcb, tudo bem? Você poderia dar sua opinião aqui e aqui, por gentileza? Obrigado. Alessandro Sil (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eu respondi sobre a pintura. Eu tenho dúvidas sobre os gatos, não sei como usar esta foto de uma forma educativa. Jcb (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bom dia, Jcb, obrigado por sua compreensão e decisão. Quanto à foto dos gatos, eu carreguei aqui simplesmente porque existem muitas fotos aqui, de pessoas, objetos, etc e no entanto não são usados para fins educacionais, estão ali apenas por se acreditar que são boas fotos, ou são bonitinhas. Sinceramente não vejo porquê eliminar uma foto que não faz mal nem a ninguém, nem ao projeto. Na própria página de usuário do Ellin Beltz, existem fotos de gatos que se encaixam na mesma categoria dessa foto minha. Além do mais, no Commons, existe uma categoria que hospeda inúmeras fotos de gatos, então, por que eliminá-la?

Quanto ao conselho sobre o cuidado em alguém pensar que quero me autopromover, na verdade eu até carreguei um quadro de um outro artista, mas não estava por dentro das políticas de carregamento — até hoje, sei bem pouco –, então foi apagada. Daí pensei: "Se de outra pessoa não pode, minha pode. Na verdade, estou mais preocupado em alguém ganhar dinheiro com minha pintura do que minha autopromoção.

Alessandro Sil (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nodules polymétalliques[edit]

Hello, I am surprised that the photo of the map of mining permits AIFM has been deleted. An authorization email was sent to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" February 26, 2016 by Ms Anna Elaise - representative of the International Seabed Authority. I can send you a copy of the email if you want. Can you explain why you deleted this photo? Thank's --Philweb (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a file name, so that I can take a look? May take a few days, because I will be offline for the next few days.

The file is File:Permis miniers accordés par l'ISA-2.jpg (Philweb contacted me for information but as you're both sysop and OTRS, I guess it would be easier for you to check it). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the permission. Apparently something went wrong when it was processed. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File Huy_hieu_LDST.jpg[edit]

File Huy_hieu_LDST.jpg is mine, of my own photography . This file by my own hands and put up a wiki to capture more than a year . Also at http://cpd.vn/Default.aspx?tabid=742&storyid=248 files can copy my files , this newly updated 05/04/2016 .

Sorry , my english is not so good .

Please use OTRS - Jcb (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vernić[edit]

who allowed you to remove photos from my article ?

The Wikimedia Commons community did. Jcb (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Estonia.svg#Incorrect_colours_as_of_5_May_2016 if you can fix the code to what is listed below, this will be great. Thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with editing SVG files. But I have changed the protection, so that you can do it yourself. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed using the great tool of Rillke. User:Zscout370, can you check that? -- Geagea (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantstopthefeeling.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed you deleted this pic due to Copyright. I thought album covers and single coves are free as long as is for their own articles (?) Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is called 'Fair Use'. We do not accept Fair Use files at Wikimedia Commons, but several language versions of Wikipedia, including the English version, do accept them if you upload them locally at that language version. See for more information: en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline - Jcb (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Summer vs Wendy Wheels.jpg[edit]

What further information do you need beyond what I already said in my statement? You still deleted it, so there must be additional words but you did not define them. You just deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need a conversation by email for identity verification. That's what OTRS is for. Jcb (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize I have previously sent my release form by e-mail, years ago. That should cover it. Why is my material being deleted after already doing that? Trackinfo (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may request undeletion at COM:UDR, please mention the OTRS ticket number of your email conversation. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion request/File:Dnr-16.jpg[edit]

Good day! Why this file was deleted? The author name is mentioned. He is Egor Voronov. I collaborates with him. If you think that license is uncorrect, inform me so I can re-downloaded this file. Best wishes--Messir (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source website does not mention a compatible free license. The author may send permission to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.f[edit]

You deleted the photo on my profile, but you know, this is my piano at home „A.f_model_super11029484_10153074001793775_7351561790315278059_n.jpg" Zdravkopetrov (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please send the original file as generated by your camera to OTRS for verification. Jcb (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kristyn Harris.png Deleted[edit]

When you decided that I just ripped off the photo from the Internet and deleted the photograph, did you bother to notice that the Flickr account was the official account of the promoter and that the photo had been released under the Creative Commons General Attribution 2.0 license which allows derivative works and adaptations? DavidBailey (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You started a request at COM:UDR before you came here. I will leave it to the colleagues who look at it there. Jcb (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kōtetsujō no Kabaneri logo.png[edit]

Why has the file been deleted? There should be the template {{Vector version available}}, especially since the vector version is different from the original. Can you restore it, please?--Sakretsu (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I pressed the wrong button. The file has been restored. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariupol_2016.png[edit]

Dear user, Jcb. These your actions (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AMariupol_2016.png&type=revision&diff=196032397&oldid=195116627) unjustified removal from the pages of Wikipedia (and server) and kindly made me unplaced images (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mariupol_2016.png&action=edit&redlink=1), on which work took me more than 1 month, as expected led to legal collisions. So my image, legally belonged to Wikipedia now has lost his master, and clones of the image, for example:

are now given the opportunity to the owners of such sites as the later have placed copies of my work, to be their masters. Thus, thanks to your ridiculous actions donated my lawfully my intellectual property was stolen, and therefore I offer the opportunity to apply for legal aid for the purpose of moral and material compensation from Wikipedia and you personally. The only solution that will allow me not to initiate pre-trial proceedings, I see the image return to the Wikipedia server restore all references to it from all the pages of Wikipedia, in addition it is your efforts need to protect the legal rights of my Wikipedia from possible legal claims hosts a clone of my image.Yours faithfully, --Olegzima (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop acts of vandalism[edit]

Are you just trying to be the next admin who sabotages the current WLE competition? Otherwise please immediately restore the categories for German protected areas. I really cannot believe what's going on here. Who asked you delete the work of those who support the WLE competetion? These categories are part of a complete system, they contained descriptions and local categories, many of those that were empty until recently received their first images during the current WLE competition. Enter some bored admins, or should I say vandals? We just convinced JuTa to stop this deletion nonsense, see User talk:JuTa, but the next lonesome hero is already waiting? --Sitacuisses (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC) This is the list from your deletion log that I am referring to:[reply]

16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Warmberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Ursulahochberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Unter Lauhern (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Taubenäcker (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Sulzeiche (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Steinbuckel (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Seetalhalde-Galgenberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Schopflochberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Schandental (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Ruchberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Listhof (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Kälberberg-Hochberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Kugelberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Krähberg-Kapellenberg (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Hüttenstuhlburren (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Höhnriß-Neuben (empty category)
16:06, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Halmberg (empty category)
16:05, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Großer Stöckberg (empty category)
16:05, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Einwinkel (empty category)
16:05, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Eckenlauh-Weißgerberberg (empty category)
16:05, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Echazaue (empty category)
16:05, 15. Mai 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite Category:Naturschutzgebiet Blasenberg-Ringelesberg

--Sitacuisses (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were tagged for speedy deletion and they were empty. A category qualifies for speedy deletion if it's empty. So the approppiate way to resolve this for you is making sure that they are not empty and then recreating them. Please do not accuse people of vandalism if you are not fully aware of what's going on, but ask for an explanation instead. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They may not have contained images, but they were not empty. Since it's very tedious to explain this to every other admin, I started a new section at Commons:Village_pump#Administrators_sabotaging_the_Wiki_Loves_Earth_competition. --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you: They were empty. I do not delete non-empty categories. Jcb (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitacuisses, wenn Kategorien wie z. B. Category:Naturschutzgebiet Ehinger Galgenberg gelöscht werden, die leer sind, in keiner Weise getagged sind und 2 Jahre lang nicht angefasst wurden, dann ist das in Ordnung, weil durch die Policy gedeckt. Wenn dir das nicht passt, dann setze bitte eine Änderung der Löschpolicy durch anstatt unnötigerweise mit Vandalismusmeldungen zu drohen. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pymol logo.png[edit]

Why you speedied this file if seems too simple to meet the TOO, and the software that belongs is licensed under the MIT license? --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PD-textlogo may be doubtful, because of the shading of the colors. Restored and license changed to {{MIT}} - Jcb (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChristopherMac7[edit]

Why was my photo of myself that I own removed? Mark McKenzie .jpg or Composer Mark McKenzie How can it be a copywriter violation of my own picture I took and own? It has been used all over the web as my professional photo.

The file has been published online elsewhere before, so you will have to provide evidence for a valid copyright situation. Please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal regarding Speedy deletion[edit]

The file did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion since https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-I1b1CVkP4 isn't copied from http://www.onenewspage.com/n/US/759i5e2d3/Ali-MacGraw-and-Ryan-Neal-return-to.htm. Actually the difference between both files could hardly be more extreme. More to the point, the compared videos are not the same - neither of footage nor of content. The uploader of the Youtube file just linked to that website in the description and he obiously used no material of the video there published. Incidentally onenewspage.com is not the copyright holder of the video posted on their website. Imho the file should be restored. --84.141.10.209 13:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests can be done at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AT&T globe.png[edit]

Hi Jcb. You deleted File:AT&T globe.png because it was lacking a proper license. Can you tell if File:AT&T Globe Logo.png is the same file? It has a license, but I'm not sure it is appropriate to assume the CC 3.0 licensing is accurate simply because the logo is sourced to Logopedia. If you look at the AT&T official website, it does not look as if the company is freely licensing any of its intellectual property. Do you feel the licensing on this is acceptable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same logo and same uploader --> deleted. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mustermann_Reisepass_2007.jpg entfernt, auf Commons von Jcb gelöscht[edit]

Hi Johan, sorry for this note, but I'm not quite sure if you are the person "in charge". I got notice of the deletion of the file Mustermann_Reisepass_2007.jpg as a result of a deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mustermann Reisepass 2007.jpg). Stefan2 argues that the picture is not public domain. I tend to disagree. The quoted decision (Loriot stamps case decision) is not applicable:

"Auch § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG ist für Postwertzeichen nicht einschlägig. Postwertzeichen werden nicht im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht, da kein amtliches Interesse an der freien Verwertung besteht. Denn sie werden nicht zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht, sondern zum allgemeinen Gebrauch im Geldverkehr herausgebracht." I.e. stamps are not considered a work that is published "for the attention of the general public" (zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme) as a matter of official concern ("im amtlichen Interesse").

The picture of the Passport-ID-Card was published "as a matter of official concern" and therefore in the public domain according to German copyright law.

Could you please undelete the file? Furthermore I can't understand your remark "Deleted: high risk of identity theft."

Kind regards, --Olli1800 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: For the situation in Germany please visit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Amtliche_Werke

Therefore the pictures published here http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/passv_2007/anlage_1.html are public domain.

Kind regards, --Olli1800 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at the copyright aspect. The problem with this image is that it contains passport and fiscal number. Criminals do abuse such images to obtain money on behalf of the depicted person and so on. The damage to the victim is always huge is such cases. Do not put such a document online ever. Jcb (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johan, there is no problem at all with this image and/or the depicted person and/or the number on the passport, since

1. the image shows an official SPECIMEN, i.e. the passport-card shows an imaginary person with imaginary data. I guess you are from the Netherlands, so I think you are aware of Dutch placeholder names like "Jan Jansen" or "Willeke Liselotte De Bruijn" that correspond to "Erika Mustermann" in Germany (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustermann or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_placeholder_names_by_language). An imaginary person cannot be a victim.

2. images of travel documents are officially published by the government of a state (or the EU) to inform the citizens and to visualise the security features in order to enable fraud-detection. Please have a look at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/8030/image-212297.html.

Did I convince you to undelete the file?

Kind regards, Olli1800 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I see. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks a lot and best regards! Olli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olli1800 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding proper images for wikipedia use[edit]

Hello Jcb,

How can I find adequate images to use for the Dhiyaa al-Musawi and Mahmoud M. Ayoub articles? I am having a difficult time finding something that would not infringe copyright guidelines. Thank you. -- HafizHanif — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm sorry. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip-bailey-easy-lover-duet-with-phil-collins-1985.jpg[edit]

Deleting the image was a mistake; so was removing it from all pages. This should have been taken to deletion discussion. I believe that the image is still free to use; Wikipedian administrator said so. --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the file should not have been deleted, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message from @Neonqeelin: [edit]

why you delete my pic? the pic were provide the agent of the artist with her personal willing to to be her profile of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonqeelin (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A picture needs a valid release into a compatible free license by the photographer, not by the depicted person or the agent. You can provide evidence of permission to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so you mean i can not upload a pic of myself or i can not upload which is taken by me without you think the was taken by me or without you think i have the copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonqeelin (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a picture has been published before outside Wikimedia Commons, you must provide evidence of permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agian, to whom and which document i should demostrate to prove i have the copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonqeelin (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click the OTRS link I provided and stop bothering me. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion[edit]

I took the photo of Leela Dube which you have deleted. You point to its presence on Flickr, but that is in my own "photostream". I am Mukul Dube and also, in many places, payasam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payasam (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS for verification. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion[edit]

I took the photo of Shehla Rashid Shora which you have deleted. You point to its presence on Flickr, but that is in my own "photostream". I am Mukul Dube and also, in many places, payasam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payasam (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS for verification. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message from @TatyanaPenn: [edit]

Hello Jcb, You deleted my file Долина реки Чулышман, район впадения Чульчи.jpg, explaining it by the copyright violation (http://daily-notes.com/2014/09/trip-to-altai-mountains-2014), but you didn't even ask me to prove that's my own work. Website daily-notes.com is my personal blog, and no wonder I already published this photo there. The same problem with the file:Долина реки Чулышман, вид на село Балыкча.jpg ‎(Copyright violation: http://daily-notes.com/2014/09/trip-to-altai-mountains-2014/). And this: file:Ukok plateau 2012.jpg ‎(Copyright violation: http://daily-notes.com/2013/09/altai-mountains-2012/).

And what? Is it OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatyanaPenn (talk • contribs) 06:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS for verification. If they think it's fine, they will restore the files. Jcb (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Directorate of education nazaraat teleem.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb. File:Directorate of education nazaraat teleem.jpg has already been deleted twice: one by you as File:Nazarat taleem logo.png and once by Ellin Beltz as File:Nazarat-taleem-logo.jpg. It's the same uploader and the same source page, and they were warned only yesterday about this by Ellin Beltz. It's possible a lack of English ability could be a factor here, but it's also just as possible that they are going to re-upload the file if after it's deleted again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and added to my watch list, so that new speedy nominations will lead to block - Jcb (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded again as File:Taleem.jpg by Tariq Naveed Ahmad who may be the same uploader or may be another uploader just uploading similar images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked - Jcb (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the new user is a sock of the old user due to the same uploads. It wasn't just the same logo, but the same front of building shot, etc. all claimed "own work" now by two uploaders. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied those files as well. Jcb (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded again as File:Taleem.jpg. Same logo with different colored background. If English is not the problem, then they are obviously are ignoring the warnings placed upon their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked and blocked - Jcb (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verwijderde afbeelding[edit]

Goedenavond Jcb. Ik heb gezien dat de afbeelding File:Occitancommunity.png op 14 mei verwijderd is. De afbeelding werd genomineerd op 2 mei, maar deze nominatie werd (uit mijn hoofd) direct teruggetrokken omdat de nomineerder erkende dat hij zelf fout zat. Echter zie ik dat de afbeelding alsnog verwijderd is, zonder dat ik sporen vind van een discussie of concrete argumenten waarom de afbeelding niet geschikt zou zijn. Is het mogelijk om de afbeelding terug te halen, of alsnog duidelijk uit te leggen wat er niet in orde zou zijn, aangezien de afbeelding simpelweg 'slechts' afgeleid werk (een remix) was van afbeeldingen op Commons en de bronnen keurig vermeld waren. Alvast bedankt en een fijne avond! :-) Auvé73 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Het lijkt erop dat ik op het verkeerde knopje heb gedrukt. Bedankt voor de melding. Als het goed is staat alles weer op zijn plek. Jcb (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mijn dank is groot Jcb. Goedenacht. Auvé73 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

YouTube licenses[edit]

Dear Jcb, You deleted File:LindaDeMol2012.jpg, a still from a short YouTube film. I only use stills or videos from YouTube if that material is licensed under Creative Commons. The original source (YouTube here) mentioned the license as "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". What are Wiki Commons criteria for YouTube material? Vysotsky (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Youtube video may mention a CC license, but the television broadcast is obviously copyrighted. Jcb (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File talk:Philip-bailey-easy-lover-duet-with-phil-collins-1985.jpg[edit]

Hello,

it seems you deleted File talk:Philip-bailey-easy-lover-duet-with-phil-collins-1985.jpg. I think the discussion should be kept there in order to avoid to repeat the same process.

Regards.

Cdang (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We always delete the talk page if we delete a file. I believe the file should not have been undeleted, but at least the undeleting admin is responsible to decide whether the talk page should be undeleted as well. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Lis 3.jpg[edit]

Dear Jcb,

I hereby write to you regarding the deletion of the File:Lis 3.jpg under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Narkiewicz-Laine The person described in the entry has sent me the Coat of arms of his family to add to the article. He is the owner and designer. As it has been deleted what is the procedure to follow in order for it to be uploaded again? Shall I ask him to send an copyright holder email to the permissions?

Many thanx in advance for your help .

best

Glekel 82

Please ask them to contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request of File:Risaldar Muhammad Hanif Khan.jpg[edit]

I am copyright holder of the File:Risaldar Muhammad Hanif Khan.jpg and uploaded it on wikicommons. It has been deleted now and i want to get it back on display. Please let me know if i need to do something in this regard. Thanking you.Rahmatgee (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muhammad Siddique Dar Toheedia.jpg[edit]

I am copyright holder of the File:Muhammad Siddique Dar Toheedia.jpg and uploaded it on wikicommons. It has been deleted now and i want to get it back on display. Please let me know if i need to do something in this regard. Thanking you.Rahmatgee (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khawaja Abdul Hakeem Ansari.jpg[edit]

I am copyright holder of the File:Khawaja Abdul Hakeem Ansari.jpg and uploaded it on wikicommons. It has been deleted now and i want to get it back on display. Someone of conflicting interest has changed its copyright license statements. Please let me know if i need to do something in this regard. Thanking you.Rahmatgee (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi Jcb, Hope all's well,
Sorry to bother you but could you also delete File:ARTE Tour 13 - Shuck2 Graffiti.tiff, File:Shuck2 graffiti.jpg, File:2010 shuck2 graffiti -BOODER- BEUR SUR LA VILLE.jpg, File:FUTURA, SHUCK2 Dubai 2014.jpg, File:BOXE-Saad-BC- rodriguez VS Shuck2 CSMP puteaux -1988.jpg,
I actually sent the images to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shuck2 so I have no idea why someone then decided to No-Perm them all,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant thank you, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion[edit]

Hi Jcb, could you explain why you deleted the link to the photo of Soeur Claire here :https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sœur_Claire? It seems the file in Commons is in the public domain. Kind regards, --Nattes à chat (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted from Commons, because there was no evidence of permission from the (heirs of the) photographer. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vlag van de BeNeLux[edit]

Hoi Johan,

Je hebt de Vlag van de Benelux behouden met als argument: niet out of scope, daar ging de discussie ook niet over... De discussie ging over de juistheid van de gebruikte elementen, zowel Arch als ik hebben aangegeven dat de elementen helemaal niet correct zijn en dat de vlag geen officiële status heeft, maar hier wel als zodanig gepresenteerd wordt. Dqfn13 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zie com:NPOV. De afhandeling lijkt me correct. Zolang iets gebruikt wordt, kan het niet als out of scope (lees: incorrect) verwijderd worden. Ook al is een vlag nog zo fout. (Al is er een soort gedoogbeleid voor crappy structuurformules maar zeker niet voor vlaggen.) Natuur12 (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precies. @Dqfn13, het is goed je te realiseren dat het de taak is van de Wikipedia-gemeenschappen om te oordelen over de juistheid van een vlag. Nu meerdere Wikipedia-gemeenschappen blijkbaar vinden dat de vlag bruikbaar is, is het voor ons als Commons admins niet geoorloofd ons daarin te mengen. Jcb (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry voor late reactie. Als hier zaken dus als correct gepresenteerd worden, dan wordt hier dus incorrecte informatie verschaft en dat wordt 9 van de 10 keer klakkeloos overgenomen op Wikipedia. Blijkbaar schort het hier dan dus aan juist beleid. Dqfn13 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nee hoor, het beleid is prima. Alleen jouw indruk van de rol van Commons binnen de Wikimedia projecten is waarschijnlijk verkeerd. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete[edit]

This file is a taken photo by the uploader. I don't get any other free photos from the mainboard and should add some notes. The file is requested photo. If the uploader did not order to delete it, undelete please. Thank You. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted, because the uploader did not specify a license. Uploader can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACWA Power Logo.svg[edit]

Hello,

The logo for my client, ACWA Power was removed due to copyright. Please could you confirm how best to verify ownership / authorship?

Many thanks, GATalbot (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is that the company contacts OTRS - Jcb (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emily Lau at Democratic Party's rally.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb, the file File:Emily Lau at Democratic Party's rally.jpg was first created on 2 September 2012 therefore is in public domain. See http://www.voacantonese.com/a/hk-legislative-council-elections/1500264.html. Please recover the original file and its several derived files. --Lmmnhn (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

How to send a OTRS email to confirm identity? Akinaakud (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Akinaakud: Send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Etruscan Smile[edit]

Why did you delete the shot? File: The Etruscan Smile.jpeg There was no copyright violation. Donmike10 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a DW at best. You can request undeletion at COM:UDR, do not reupload the file yourself. Jcb (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what any of that means, but it's my work!! Donmike10 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my picture? It's very clearly mine taken with my iPhone!! It's a picture of a monitor on set. Donmike10 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmike10: It's a picture of a monitor on set. So yes, you made the photo, but not the software in the monitor itself. The copyright holder of that image is the one who made the software in the monitor, not you. Read COM:DW. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a book cover to Wikimedia?[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering how to add a specific book cover to Wikimedia for my Wikipedia article. It says that fair use is not allowed, but then how are book covers of other books allowed, even though they are not free?

Here is something I found that I'd like to copy and paste in my book cover description:

YIKES It said your talk page was speedy deletion oops i dont know what happened

Here is what I think would be appropriate in my upload:

Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggsInMyPockets (talk • contribs) 04:09, 01 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EggsInMyPockets (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikimedia Commons we do not accept non-free files. Fair use may work if you upload it locally at the English Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cimini di Messina[edit]

I am surprise you deleted my PIC Cimini di Messina. I do not understand why, since I am the owner of that art work. I also replied you you on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kummin (talk • contribs) 08:55, 01 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a physical artwork does not make you the copyright holder. Please contact OTRS if you still think you are the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM.jpg - IMAGE DELETED[edit]

The image uploaded by me was deleted for copyright violation whereas I am the copyright holder of the same. Kindly restore the image to the connected article. for further reference 21:27, 31 May 2016 Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM.jpg (Copyright violation: as per tag respectively uploader: affected File:SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM BEARER.jpg, File:SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM.jpg (et al),) (global usage; delinker log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaishnavadvocate (talk • contribs) 13:48, 01 June 2016 (UTC)--Vaishnavadvocate (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)vaishnavadvocate 13:57 UTC, 01 June 2016.[reply]

If you are G. Hassan Kumar, please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM BEARER.jpg - IMAGE DELETED[edit]

The image file in the connected article was deleted for alleged copyright violation whereas I am the copyright owner of the image . Kindly restore the image for further reference - 21:27, 31 May 2016 Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM BEARER.jpg (Copyright violation: as per tag respectively uploader: affected File:SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM BEARER.jpg, File:SRI MAHADEVI POCHAMMA AMMAVARI GHATAM.jpg (et al),) (global usage; delinker log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaishnavadvocate (talk • contribs) 13:51, 01 June 2016 (UTC)--Vaishnavadvocate (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)vaishnavadvocate 13:56 UTC, 01 June 2016.[reply]

If you are G. Hassan Kumar, please contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afbeelding Kritisch Denken Logo Verwijderd.[edit]

Beste Jcb, u hebt blijkbaar de afbeelding https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kritisch_denken_logo.jpg verwijderd omdat u denkt dat er een copyright schending op bestaat. Het is spijtig dat u dit niet verder onderzocht hebt, want ik heb persoonlijk dit bestand geüpload en ik heb het ook ontworpen. U kan nagaan dat dit het logo is van de podcast "Kritisch Denken" die ik zelf host. Ik heb het logo eigenhandig ontworpen met behulp van open source software GIMP en Synfig. Op vraag van WikipediA editors heb ik deze geüpload en daarmee ook mijn rechten op aanspraak op de rechten ervan aan de community vrij gegeven. Kan u AUB deze afbeelding terugplaatsen? Bedankt.--Jvangiel (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dit kan iedereen wel zeggen, maar dit kan ik op deze manier niet controleren. Hiervoor hebben we OTRS. U kunt contact opnemen met hem en als zij denken dat het in orde is dat zullen ze de afbeelding terugplaatsen. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Jcb, ik heb de creative commons licence toegevoegd op mijn website. (zie: http://www.kritischdenken.info/drogreden/over-ons/ ). Als ik de richtlijnen op OTRS lees, dan zou dat moeten volstaan. Kan u nu mijn afbeelding terugplaatsen? Bedankt.Jvangiel (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ik was het uit het oog verloren, maar in feite stond er al lang een Creative Commons logo op onze website. U kan die op elke pagina terugvinden, rechtsonder dat kan bekijken op bvb de homepage. http://www.kritischdenken.info/ Jvangiel (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helaas is het op deze manier nog niet in orde, want op de site staat een NC-restrictie (NietCommercieel). Dit is niet toegestaan op Wikimedia Commons. Als je die restrictie weghaalt, dan is het in orde. Jcb (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt voor de verduidelijking. Ik heb het aangepast. Ik vind in de OTRS reglementering echter niets over het feit dat het geen commerciële CC mag zijn. Maar ook, er staat letterlijk: "When contacting OTRS is unnecessary." en onder dat hoofdstuk staat: ""I created the file myself" én ook nog: "The image was first published on my website, or on my own space of a shared website." Volgens deze twee bepalingen was de zelfs Creative Commons zelfs niet eens nodig. Ik begrijp dat je kan twijfelen over het feit of ik het zelf gemaakt heb (het is wel zo), maar niet dat het mijn website is. Je komt mijn naam op bijna elke post tegen.Jvangiel (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt, ik heb het bestand teruggeplaatst. Welke licenties zijn toegestaan, staat hier: COM:L - Jcb (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt. Jvangiel (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSA Gold Star DBD34 (trials variant).jpg[edit]

Jcb, I'm a bit bothered by this--the uploader, Sitush (I assume he's the uploader), seems not to have been notified, and that's his parents on the bike, if I'm not mistaken. Surely he would have been able to make an argument. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW, the anon is obviously an IAC account. I had thought they'd given up but there have been one or two weird things going on recently and I'm now wondering if they are about to embark on yet another campaign. - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dankjewel Jcb. Die arme Sitush wordt geregeld nagezeten door partijdige Wiki-vandalen. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delirium album artwork[edit]

Can you please explain to me how every other Lacuna Coil album page has their album artwork but this one does not? Do you mean to tell me that all album artwork was uploaded by its original copyright holder? Thank you

With the millions of files we have, I cannot tell for every file why it's dear. If you think a file should be deleted, please click 'nominate for deletion' from the left menu and enter a deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NUST at a glance.jpg[edit]

If the image was copied from the said website, which I guess it was, how come it showed Meta Data? A cautious guess would be that the uploader was the owner of the image. Now, I dont know how commons deal with images uploaded by its owner which also happens to be posted on some website. Some, insight please?--TripWire (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We deal with these cases via OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Severed files[edit]

Hi Jcb, please restore the eight images from Category:Severed (video game) (deleted earlier today) when you can. The permission was received and is awaiting OTRS processing. ticket:2014070810016233 Appreciate your help czar 06:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tokyo Doll Event (8239924613).jpg[edit]

Hello.File:Tokyo Doll Event (8239924613).jpg reviewed previously but I deleted the template by mistake --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The watermark suggests a copyright infringement. This will have to go via OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From: Smokeyjoe2016 - Request Undeletion / Restoration of Images[edit]

Hi JCB, Request undeletion / restoration of images for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_filter_kings The images uploaded were free for use with no copyright. The page does not promote the brand, it only highlights the history / lineage.

Pl do let know the process, If restoration / undeletion is not possible, then can i re upload the images.

Thanks Regards

Claims like 'free for use' or 'no copyright' normally show lack of understanding of copyright regulations rather than evidence of permission. Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From: Smokeyjoe2016 - Request Undeletion / Restoration of Images -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Flake[edit]

Hi JCB, Request undeletion / restoration of images for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Flake. The images uploaded were free for use with no copyright. The page does not promote the brand, it only highlights the history / lineage.

Pl do let know the process, If restoration / undeletion is not possible, then can i re upload the images.

Thanks

Regards

Claims like 'free for use' or 'no copyright' normally show lack of understanding of copyright regulations rather than evidence of permission. Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Menno Koch[edit]

Hello Jcb! If you revert my speedydelete, I would like the reason for your revert. This file was not made by User:LRZ246 and my lizense was not Gdfl 4.0. Also I'm missing my name as author, the location and my permission {{User:Steindy/Credits}}. Regards --Steindy (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source was properly indicated. Just fix the information if you think it's wrong. No need for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Goudurix[edit]

Good evening. I do not understand why the file File:Goudurix.jpg was deleted. If memory serves, this represented the current red and yellow version of the rollercoaster named Goudurix. Because it is located in France, and as there is no FoP in this country, Elisfkc launched a deletion request to delete all the files in Category:Goudurix. There seemed to be an agreement on the fact that the coaster is a functional object, which implies that copyright does not apply.
Nevertheless, you have deleted this file. Can you explain me why ?
Best regards. -- Fʊɠỉtɾoŋ ^{‘‘talk’’}, 18:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I keep-closed the DR, but apparently I clicked the wrong button for one of the files. I have fixed it. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KHammerstein (WMF) et al[edit]

So you're not even going to leave it open as a tracking page? You're going to let copyright-infringing files drop into the void? I'm certainly not going to fix those files and I don't see you jumping to either. It seems to me as if you don't really care. While you're at it, why not close Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steven (WMF), Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Howief (WMF), Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Okeyes (WMF)? BethNaught (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate category deletions[edit]

Hi there. I was wondering why you're deleting categories as having 'bad name' or 'bad category'. I've noticed that there are numerous instances in which an editor will create a new version of a category, move all contents from the old one to the new one, then tag the old one for deletion. This is inappropriate, as it deletes contribution history. The correct action is to move the category to the new name, not to delete it, and possibly leave a {{Categoryredirect}} in place at the old name. This ensures that contribution history is preserved.

Examples of what I'm talking about include Category:Chiefs azure in heraldry, which was replaced by Category:Chiefs azure by Erlenmeyer (talk · contribs), and Category:Palls wavy azure in heraldry. Mindmatrix 20:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of category pages is hardly interesting. If a category is empty and somebody nominates it for speedy deletion, it will be deleted. This is our long standing daily practice, which is also in line with our Deletion_policy - Jcb (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture deletion[edit]

Hi, I noticed you delete this picture: Lupis on work (2).jpg, but you are wrong, because this pictures is downloaded from the page: http://www.lupis.it/Marco_Lupis_english.html and the entire site is delivered under free GNU License, as you can read on bottom of the page: All text and pictures in this site www.lupis.it is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Copying or translating the contents of this internet site and its associated database, in whole or part, is granted under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

For this reason I re-uploaded the picture. Hope it is ok. Thanks --Sorority (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not ok. If you disagree with a deletion, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR, but you cannot simply reupload the file. In this case the site owner is probably not the copyright holder of the picture in the first place and therefore in no position to release the file into a free license. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

???Sorry? If the entire site is delivered under GNU license??? Who told you hat the site owner is "PROBLABLY" (?) not the copyright holder???--Sorority (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus: the site is dedicated to a person, and the site is registered by the same person(!) and the picture is a portrait of the same person (!!) So what?--Sorority (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder (=photographer!) is apparently NOT the depicted person and NOT the person the site is dedicated to and NOT the person the site is registered to. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the person is a journalist and photographer.... If he put his portrait in his site and deliver all under GNU license, how many probabilities can be that he is in no position to release the file into a free license?--Sorority (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether the depicted person is a photographer. He is apparently not the photographer of this picture. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale Reverts and semi-protection[edit]

Hi,

Please do not simply hit "revert" and semi-protect the files, simply because you like them to be so. If there are specific areas of disagreement, then please let the community decide. Do not misuse the flag, which you have been trusted with. If such a large-scale revert and protection is necessary, you should extend the courtesy of talking first. Thank you 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:6148:1892:DF5A:B920 20:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your usage of a dynamic IP prevents us from 'talking first', please create an account if you wish such a 'courtesy'. I declined your speedy requests, because the files are obviously too simple to be eligible for copyright. You reverted my decision, which is considered disturbing behaviour. I semi-protected the files, because you are editing from a dynamic IP and messages to an IP talk page won't reach you. Jcb (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as I said before, that is where you're wrong! Giant computer maker HP, or Compaq's logos are made of basic letters, would that mean that they're free to be copied? Also, according to Commons licensing:we can't accept works created or inspired by others, this includes materials such as logos, CD / DVD covers, promotional photos, screenshots of TV shows, movies, DVD's, and software.... 2A02:1810:3812:AD00:6148:1892:DF5A:B920 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read COM:TOO. If a work is too simpel to be eligible for copyright, then it's not copyrighted. You are not going to be able to change that. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

restauration de droits[edit]

Bonjour, j'ai vu que vous aviez supprimé mes droits + une photo du dossier et de la page Statkraft. Merci de me les redonner car j'en suis propriétaire. Cordialement Régis

S'il vous plaît contacter OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Kogelnik - Broken Head.jpg[edit]

Could you please stop reverting the problem tagging in this file?! There is a permission missing for the DW in this photo. And according to Commons-policies the tags give the uploader 7 days to fix that. We are already discussion this issue on german Wikipedia. // Martin K. (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, start a regular DR instead. Don't use these tags if the picture itself is not the problem but some depicted object may cause a problem. You MUST use a regular DR for that. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you starting an edit-war against another OTRS member?
Why are you (as an admin) reverting the image description to a obviously wrong status? If you prefer an DR, go ahead. But stop reverting to an "everything ok" status?
What's the purpose of {{Dw no source since}} in your opinion?

Sorry, but the way you act here, appears to be unnecessarily confrontational. Why? // Martin K. (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the 'no permission' nomination of Pajz. From that moment the only option was a regular DR, if you disagree with the decision. In such a DR you typically explain why the picture is not sufficiently covered by the OTRS ticket and you explain why the depicted object causes a copyright problem, e.g. by saying something about who the artist is and whether he is still alive. FoP rules may apply, but those rules differ from country to country. Please remember this general rule: If the administrator has to do some kind of investigation/research, always use a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who the artist of the porccelan tag is. That's why I added {{Dw no source since}} - the problem tag you reverted twice!!!

You have OTRS rights. I am pretty shure, that you know what Derivative works are. It is your job as admin to enforce the precautionary_principle. And yes even Admins should be able to notice, when they are wrong. Therefore I really don't understand, why are you protecting copyvios by removing problem tags? // Martin K. (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: FoP rules may apply WTF? Do you even know what you are talking about? This is a obviously portable porcellan sculptur inside a Building. This is miles away from FoP! //Martin K. (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DR[edit]

Hi JCB, When you delete images at DR - Can you delete the lot in one click or do you have to manually click each file listed ?,
I only ask because I have over 300 images that need deleting and I've only just found out visualchange doesn't do speedydeletes and I don't wanna nominate them for DR if you have to click manually, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fastest way for us is a regular mass DR. In a DR we have to do one click for each file, without having to load every involved file, so we need less than a second per file. Deleting files from the 'speedy' category takes more than 5 seconds per file. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait would you need to tick every single one or would it tick the lot ?, Sorry I have no idea how you admins obviously do things so I'm trying to figure a way where it involves less work for anyone, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can delete with the 'batch task' - :-) - Jcb (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the previous version of your message. From a mass DR we have to click once for each file, so 300 files is 300 clicks. Emptying a category takes just a few seconds, after which the batch task handler takes over. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow thank you so much!, I thought that's what you meant but wasn't entirely sure

, Despite using visualchange/batch task for the best part of what 2 months I think ...I've only just spotted there's an option to mass delete with it .... How did I miss it ?

,

But anyway thanks for your help - It's extremely appreciated :) - If there was an award for "The best admin on Commons" you'd without a doubt get one :P,

Anyway thanks again, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 17:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not a copyvio[edit]

Hi, I drew this files in Inkscape by my self. based on photos and map File:Oran (Médina Jdida).svg; File:Quartier d'Oran (Médina Jdida).svg --Reda Kerbouche (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that imitating an existing image is a DW, which infringes the copyright of the author of the original file. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Pi[edit]

I have Permission for the use of the document of Kappa Pi, but I have no idea how summit it to Wiki. It is a direct email of the International president of the fraternity.

You can forward it to our OTRS team. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuiSinelDeCordes.png[edit]

Hello! You seem to have deleted File:RuiSinelDeCordes.png which Yanguas had marked for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. I had, however, contested it was so in the file's talk page (the video from which it was taken was uploaded to YouTube under a CC license). Did you happen to overlook the talk page, or was my appeal overruled? Thanks! RickMorais (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment. The problem is that we cannot verify that the video was uploaded to Youtube by its copyright holder. Verification via OTRS seems to be needed. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message of Rongin1[edit]

Hello,

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%A8 is an Hebrew article for my grandfather Binem Heller. The picture we uploaded to this article last month, was taken by our family. And as we've stated while uploading it, this picture does not violate any copyright or permission. However, we now saw it was removed from the article and according to the article editing history, it seems you are the person who changed it.

Therefore could you please restore the picture to the article?

If there are any issues with that, please let me know

Many thanks and Best Regards,

Ron Ginton

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swamibikashgiri[edit]

Hi, you deleted some images (I tagged them for missing license) uploaded by Swamibikashgiri (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Various versions have been deleted before too. The user has now uploaded the same images again. THere's also the other problem of vandalism that he has been warned for, edits like this and now this. User has been blocked on en.wiki for this kind of behavior. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads deleted and blocked - Jcb (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacqueline at Gillette Mach3 India Gaming Championship 2010-2.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb. You removed speedy deletion request without explanation. Was the source which I showed wrong?--Y.haruo (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is right on the image description page. You may need to scroll down a bit. If you still have questions after reading the whole page, please drop me a note and I will spell it out for you. Jcb (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please point it out to me. I showed the photographs of the source larger than Bollywood's photograph. This copyright holder is not Bollywood but Viral Bhayani. This photograph was taken in 2010. It was uploaded on commons after three years passed. It is impossible for anybody to confirm the first post after three years. I hope for your favorable reply.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC) postscript. The Times of India view-source line 921 var _iBeat_articledt='Jul 30, 2010, 11.20 AM IST'; [view-source:http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/events/mumbai/jacqueline-gaming-championship/articleshow/6235937.cms] This photograph is placed on The Times of India from July, 2010.--Y.haruo (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file has an OTRS ticket and a license review. If it's still not in order, then the situation is much more complicated than can be handled by a speedy tag. Please use a regular DR instead. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

borrado de imagenes libres[edit]

hola borraste las unicas imagenes libres y distribuidas por todo el mundo del tema "Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo y San Leopoldo (Navio 1743)", existe muy poco material al respecto, y esas imagenes que borraste estan distribuidas por todo el mundo,no tienen licencia, se han expuesto en medios de todo el mundo, especialmente en mi pais, Chile, han salido hasta en la television, es lo unico que hay en imagenes del tema --Karlinbass (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Si las imagenes realmente son libres, puedes pedir la restauración aquí con una explanación, pero por ejemplo los mapas de Google no son libres. Jcb (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

part restore[edit]

Hello Jcb, please can you restore here everything but the first file version? this was the uploaders request. (will move the file to a better name afterwards) Holger1959 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OTRS permission[edit]

Hello JCB, We have added some books to Commons which are released under CC-BY-SA by the authors daughter. I have sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but they have not provided OTRS tickets. Please provide sufficient OTRS permission.--Ananth subray (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC) The uploaded books are[reply]

I suppose the file links are in the email message? Then the files will get the correct tag as soon as one of us handles the ticket. This may take some time, because we have a backlog. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VOA[edit]

Please pay attention to the discussion: Commons:Undeletion requests#Original materials of VOA. There are several files that you deleted. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I will keep an eye on it and for now I will not do any VOA deletion. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Decathlon (4149607573).jpg - "Not a copyright violation"?[edit]

Hi,

I notice you reverted the speedy deletion nomination for this image with the reason given as "Not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion."

It's a derivative of (presumed copyrighted unless known otherwise) commercial box art which- AFAIK- would normally make it a copyvio. Unfortunately, there's no explanation in the edit summary as to how you're sure that this isn't a copyright violation.

Can you please elaborate?

Ubcule (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if the picture itself is not stolen from somewhere, but a depicted object may cause a copyright problem, then you have to use a regular DR instead. Jcb (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, but it wasn't made clear in the edit summary.

Also, IMHO the summary is slightly misleading; a derivative copyvio is still a copyvio, even if it can't be speedied.

Perhaps you could rewrite it as "Can only speedy delete direct copyright violations. If you believe this is a derivative-work copyvio, please nominate for deletion." Or something along those lines.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Free Law Project Logo.png[edit]

Hi, you deleted this page stating that it was a copyright violation. I'm writing in hopes you can restore it. Here's why:

1. On the page where Free Law Project shares the logo it says, "These are available according to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. You are free to use and modify these logos." You stated that these logos were not acceptable because, "free.law has a CC-BY-ND license. The ND restriction is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons". You're correct that the website in general has a CC-BY-ND license (as stated in its footer), but the logos themselves explicitly state that they have a Attribution 4.0 license. Please do not tell me I need to make the entire site CC-BY in order to host some CC-BY files on it.

2. If the above weren't enough, as the Executive Director of the organization, and the creator of this logo. I uploaded it. I'm the copyright owner, and I believe I granted Wikipedia a license when I uploaded the file.

Can you please put it back?

I see, the file has been restored. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I prevent this from happening again? I see, for example, that the discussion page hasn't been restored...I assume it's going to get flagged again?

I left a comment in the history, which should be sufficient to prevent deletion for copyright reasons. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:EWE 1197 Color Satin Eberhard Weible groß 27.02.2015.jpg[edit]

Hello,
regarding 21:23, 23. Jun. 2016 Jcb (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite File:EWE 1197 Color Satin Eberhard Weible groß 27.02.2015.jpg (Copyright violation: living artist) (global usage; delinker log)

I know there is no copyright violation, because there is a permission from the artist and from the photographer existing too. How should these permissions made visibly correctly in the file description page?

Thx! --Tommes 04:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward the permission to OTRS. They will be able to restore the picture and to tag it with the permission correctly. Jcb (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by Nándor Juhos[edit]

Hi!

On what basis the deleted Category:Photographs by Nándor Juhos images in category? OTRS is authorized them. You asked whether a manager is OTRS, whether authorized or is not? Because I think you can not just arbitrarily delete (to delete it, of course you should not be deleted, but having fun with them). The pictures on the OTRS in the order number is 2016030810015014 license. Be willing to restore all the images! Thanks! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a file name, so that I can take a look. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests:

--Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were tagged (by you!) with {{OTRS pending|year=2016|month=03|day=05}}. So whatever you may think of it, it's your own fault. Jcb (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reset your pictures ! That's it! Do not get smart about whose fault it ! ( By the way, it can not be my fault, because I am not / I was acting manager of OTRS . It's that administrators need a picture to be. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johan, I'm sorry, it was my fault, I forget the permission ticket embeding. Sorry for inconvenience. --Pallerti (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be alright now. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! --Pallerti (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kniendder junge mit gespreitzten beinen.jpg[edit]

You deleted the file with a rationale of "not educational [sic] useful" when such an assertion was demonstrably false. Explain fully and clearly your rationale for how the material lacks potential educational value when the provided examples in discussion show this is not the case. --dsprc (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You told what the difference is with other pictures, but you didn't spend a word to tell what educational purpose it could have. The file is out of scope and therefore deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The explanation tells how it could be used to illustrate various portions of anatomy more clearly than other specimens, specifically providing example categories and why it more useful and unique than any other specimens in such categories. Tagged categories show it was within scope. You still fail to explain how it is "out of scope" or "not educational [sic] useful". --dsprc (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows 10 start screen (16337613651).jpg[edit]

You speedy deleted this file, but it came from an official Microsoft Flickr account. At the very least, I think it should have gone to discussion. czar 16:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to DR - Jcb (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fally Ipupa logo.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Could you please tell me why you reverted my deletion request? Obviously, this file is a copyrighted work...

Best regards,
Heddryin ^[🔊] 15:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you should have noticed, the file was kept in a regular DR, for not being eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks ! Heddryin ^[🔊] 07:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belt trick 1.gif[edit]

Greetings, is Special:Undelete/File:Belt trick 1.gif which you deleted the exact same file as en:File:Belt trick 1.gif? Because that file has a license.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same question also applies to Special:Undelete/File:Belt trick 2.gif and en:File:Belt trick 2.gif.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I have restored both. Jcb (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sources[edit]

File:Garowestatehouse.jpg that you recently deleted is used in the collage File:Garowecollege.jpg. This editor repeatedly removes my tagging that and similar ones as requiring sources. Perhaps you could straighten that out, since I can't simply keep tagging and giving advice about the requirements. I also suspect that other uploads may not be their own work. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the file, reverted removal of tags at two other files and put them on my watch list. Also left a warning at his talk page. If this is not sufficient to stop him, I will try the block button. Jcb (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the uploads are watermarked "Cali Ducale". I can't find their source but similarly marked pictures are widely used in news sources. Cali Ducale is a journalist who works for Puntland Today in Somalia. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads deleted and blocked for a week. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakewood 0.jpg[edit]

I believe that you deleted this image. I had received notification that the image was on the block, so to say, and I believe that I went to the image and added a PD tag to it. The sculpture involved in my picture (that is to say, I took it) was created in or around 1888, well before the 1923 (I think) cut off date for American art. All of this happened at a bad time for me (details upon request) but it would be nice it the picture were returned. If not I can probably reload it. Thank you for your consideration, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Jcb (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abuja Collage.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I am the creator of File:Abuja Collage.jpg. Can you kindly let me have a copy of the deleted file, so that I can replace the problematic picture and re-upload the collage? Thank you.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily restored the file. Please drop me a note after your new upload. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded a new version, regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have removed the old version of the file. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you deleted files[edit]

I do not understand why you deleted W4 Walter Granville Smith (American artist, 1870-1938) Summer Sail.jpg and 'Spring Time' by Walter Granville-Smith.jpg

The artist Walter Granville-Smith died in 1938, so this work should be in the public domain in its country of origin (United States) and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 75 years or less. The reference for the date of death is: Granville-Smith AskArt.com

Wmpearl (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly pointed out in the DRs that your assumption about the USA copyright regulations is wrong. Jcb (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it needs to be free in the source country, which in this case is the US. For it to be free (PD) in the US, it needs to either be published before 1923, Life + 70 if published after 1978, or 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter, (other other reasons which may or may not apply, which takes to long to write). Saying that "it is PD wherever the rule is life+70" if wrong. It needs to be free in the source country (the US), which it is not. Josve05a (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]