User talk:Jcb/archive/11

Fleets

You have posted a message on my talk page which was not only rude in tone, but also not a constructive comment. I do not understand what I was doing wrong and as such would welcome some human interaction. I have posted the link showing these are freely available, with links to the author and the page. If it is a question of the incorrect license then please point me in the direction as other English speaking people having cleared these and reviewed the licence.Fleets (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

'Visible to everybody' does not mean 'free from copyright'. The source website did not mention a CC license or another compatible free license. Absence of a free license means: 'all rights reserved'. You reuploaded one of the copyright violations shortly after I deleted it. That's why I posted a warning at your talk page. That's not 'rude', it's a friendly alternative for blocking you instantly. Jcb (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow there must a language thing here, because here was me thinking that if you ask for civility you get that, you ask for education, you get that. What I've got is the rules, which is appreciated. A timeline which is appreciated, though lacking the fact that others had deemed them good, and not a reason why at that stage to the uploader. I still believe your tone to be excessive, which is borne out by your final sentence. It may be a language thing with English not being your first language, but I still seek to engage and to seek how to remedy the situation either through a mass cover-all OTRS or other such way that allows the very good work of Gerard to shown to a wider audience. Still looking to do what I have done, and still seeking the more correct way to upload these photos from Gerard.Fleets (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

These files can only be accepted if we receive a valid permission from the photographer at OTRS. And there is not a language barrier, not from my side at least. As you can verify here, I have a Language Proficiency Endorsement level 6 (on a scale of 6). The problem is that you are not understanding that administrators are in a position to protect the project against copyright violations, no mather how you may call us. Jcb (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I will take the OTRS route, and perhaps there was a harshness derived from the bluntness and lack of communication at those earlier stages, which flowed through and was perceived as rude. Misunderstood rather than lacking proficiency is the olive branch offered. Perhaps so, and that protectionism comes first and foremost. Understood, but I still feel that there should be a way to assist those after the fact. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "no mat(t)er how you may call us"Fleets (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

These two links would be at the heart of my confusion here [1] & [2]. The first link says it is acceptable, and as previously stated other users had cleared other photos. I'm afraid I don't understand what is wrong if the first link is correct. Any assistance on answering this questioned would be very welcome.Fleets (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The source link you provided on upload, see here, did not mention a compatible license. We are not searching the internet if we can find the file at another place with a different license. If we can't verify permission with the provided source link, we will delete the file. With this new information you can try to get the file restored via COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks JCB. That was where it all stems from; Google and Picasa and flipping between the two. Many thanks for the link I will look into that. Cheers.Fleets (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture Deleted.

Hi I am the owner of a photo that you have deleted from the profile Nicole Paparistodemou. As I haven't been accepted yet from wiki because I haven't done 10 edits yet I can't upload a photo. So I gave the permission to a friend of mine to upload the photo which is my own work and you have deleted it. Can we put it back please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairytale91 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 01 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide the file name of the involved picture, so that I can tell why it was deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stimmen für Van der Bellen (Konzerthaus 2016-05-16)

Hi Jcb,
you deleted 12 files of mine per nomination. The nomination stated: All of these show the election posters .... That is simply not true. None of the images showed the election posters, as I already stated in a comment there. They showed the backdrop of the stage at the event, the text displayed there ("Gemeinsam für Van der Bellen") was not a slogan used on his election posters, but the name of the voluntary association that organised that evening and supported him in his campaign.
Additionally, concerning de minimis, on each one of these photos the speakers are the ones in focus and the images could not be cropped in a way that the backdrop could be used as a photo of it alone. --Tsui (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not important whether the background was an election poster or another copyrighted work without permission. And no, DM cannot be applied here. Jcb (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Though I don't agree in this case, I can accept that point of view. It's just a little unnerving to see images (like these) deleted on the one hand, but on the other hand pictures that I myself as the photographer as well as the people depicted themselves would like to see deleted have to stay, because colleagues here do care about legal restrictions (which is a good thing, no doubt) but don't really care about the photographers respectively the depicted people's reputations and wishes at all. But that's another discussion that does not have to concern you, it's just something I have to give vent to from time to time. --Tsui (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Alex_Gilbert_-_2016.jpg

Update: Have re-uploaded with my own permission under my Commons Photography Account. Thanks. Please disregard this message.

Thank You --TheDomain (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Yamamoto Kanae

Hello, can you please clarify your reason for closure, "non-USA works" ? Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 07:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a long standing practice not to delete files for URAA reasons when they are free in the source country. Please paste {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} instead. Jcb (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The documentation of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} says : "This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012. Files uploaded after this date which the template would apply to should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are". I do not see where URAA reasons would apply if not to such cases. — Racconish^☎ 09:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly advise. Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 10:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My advice is not to bother about URAA restaurations. Nobody knows exactly how we should deal with this subject and even the WMF has been changing their point of view. DMCA takedown requests for this subject are still unheard of. Jcb (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly advise is a polite way of saying : kindly provide an explanation based on community positions and not your personal opinion . The community consensus seems to me to be clearly expressed in the template documentation I quoted. Kindly explain on what basis, aside from your personal opinion, you discard it. Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 11:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As a very active admin here, I come accross a lot of discussions and decisions by colleagues and apparently the current standard practice is not what is expressed in that template. Unfortunately I do not keep an archive of links to such discussions or decisions and I am not prepared to spend the rest of the afternoon digging into it. Jcb (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What about COM:URAA then ? Please understand I don't want to bother you but I am just following the standard procedure in case of disagreement on a DR closure, which is to contact the closing admin and to ask him to revise his closure or better explain it. I don't want to waste your or my time about this, but to take an informed decision about a possible renomination. Thanks, — Racconish^☎ 11:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Over the years we have had massive deletions and massive undeletions of NOT-PD-US-URAA files and still nobody exactly knows. But what we do know is that the supposed copyright protection in the USA only exists imaginary. There are no known situations in which such a protection could be exercized. Jcb (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I just found what you have in mind : Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Kindly confirm. If such is the case, it might be useful to change your closing rationale to URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. — Racconish^☎ 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I will go to bed less stupid tonight . — Racconish^☎ 12:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I forgot to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1949 in Cologne. The following files seems to be in PD:

• File:Cologne Germany Arbeits-Pass-1949-für-die-Britische Zone-01.jpg
• File:Cologne Germany Arbeits-Pass-1949-für-die-Britische Zone-02.jpg
• File:Cologne Germany Arbeits-Pass-1949-für-die-Britische Zone-03.jpg

{{PD-GermanGov}} Best, --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Files with Template:GJSTU1

Did you notice that the files below had a license tag which is currently in discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GJSTU1? For example, This version before the SD nomination had the license tag (which was removed by the nominator). The template has been used over a year, and there seems to be a good chance that it survives the DR. In any case, I think the decision to delete these files should wait the closure of the DR. I'd suggest that the files should be nominated in the said DR and discussed as a whole, in order to ensure consistent results.

• File:JASDF Raytheon T-400 in flight (1).jpg
• File:JASDF Raytheon T-400 in flight (2).jpg
• File:JASDF Raytheon T-400 in flight (3).jpg
• File:JASDF Raytheon T-400 in flight (4).jpg
• File:JASDF Raytheon T-400 in flight (5).jpg
• File:JASDF Boeing 747-400 (1).jpg
• File:JASDF Boeing 747-400 (2).jpg
• File:JASDF Boeing 747-400 (3).jpg
• File:Military police at JGSDF Camp Yamaguchi 2012.jpg
• File:General Barrons and VADM Ito after a meeting.jpg

whym (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not notice that. User:Scanyaro removed the license when he nominated as copyvio, which is bad practice. I will restore the files. If the decision is to delete the template, then the files can be deleted at that moment. Jcb (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Humanoo (talk · contribs) files

Hi!

Don't you think it's better delete all his files? He is a copyright violator, all images have the same caracteristics.

Tks. Yanguas (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(Forgive my English, not too good)

Deletion is progress per COM:PCP - Jcb (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis skull by bricksmashtv.jpg

I have seen that you originally deleted File:Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis skull by bricksmashtv.jpg without discussion, and then after it was restored immediately deleted it again in the same ground without a discussion again. I am in personal correspondence with the author, and I can confirm without a doubt that BricksmashTV on Wikipedia, Deviantart and Wordpress are all the same person by the name of Gunnar Bivens., I find it frustrating that you repeatedly have deleted the image in question without a discussion, as is the unwritten policy about all dinosaur restorations and photographs and such. Please restore the image and begin a proper discussion, allowing another admin to choose whether to delete said image or not. Thank you, IJReid (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring administrator forgot to remove the speedy deletion tag, that's why the file got deleted again. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Hansmuller in own category?

Dear Jcb,

I wouldn't have created a category about myself. However, now it's there i just thought i should follow the convention of Dutch veteran wikipedians of putting their userpage into their category. What to do? Vriendelijke groet, Hansmuller (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Gebruikerspagina's horen niet in een afbeeldingen-categorie te staan. Als een administrator of andere gebruiker die actief is in het onderhoud van Commons zo'n categorisatie tegenkomt, dan zal die worden verwijderd. Wat sommige andere Nederlanders misschien doen weet ik ook niet. Ik zou meer in de categorie 'Dutch veteran wikipedians' vallen dan jij, ik liep hier al zo'n 9 jaar rond toen jij hier begon, maar ik heb nog nooit van een dergelijke 'conventie' gehoord. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Johan, dat is een onlogische reactie, ik had het niet over jou of mij maar over anderen. Kijk maar in de categorie en je ziet wat ik bedoel (ongeveer de helft, ook links, wel minder dan ik dacht). Groeten, Hansmuller (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Als een administrator iets tegenkomt dat niet hoort, dan kan hierop actie worden ondernomen. Er is echter geen beginnen aan om dan maar meteen een zoektocht te starten naar vergelijkbare problemen en dat doen we dus ook doorgaans niet. Jcb (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's first edit on NL-Wikipedia took place on 19 March 2006 & his first edit on Commons on 18 May 2007. No arguments, but I like to stick to the facts. Regarding users & categories: it doesn't sound foolish to make a distinction between "users" (working on articles in Wikipedia) and "persons" (being active in committees etc.), especially to keep these two things separated. If conventions prescribe otherwise, no problem. I like Category:Goudurix (speaking of user pages in Categories). Vysotsky (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed - Jcb (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx. Vysotsky (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi, could you please revisit your deletion of a few maintenance categories? I didn't have time to look any further, but Category:Media missing permission as of 20 June 2016 to Category:Media missing permission as of 30 June 2016 all contain files. I suggest you delete the files or recreate the category. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Both categories were empty at the moment of deletion. I have deleted the files. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jcb

Thanks very much Jcb, I now understand your point but haven"t learn"t enough. Which type of media are being upload on wikipedia to prevent deletion?. --Cynthiakruz (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Typically at least not media of which you are not the copyright holder. So if you find something on a website, don't upload it here. Jcb (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks Cynthiakruz (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Image of E.O.J. Westphal

Hi Jcb, The photographic image of my father (Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal) has been deleted. I am the sole owner of the image, which I uploaded, as I inherited the photograph when my father died. Unfortunately I am not tech/media-savvy enough to get through the process of uploading it properly to the page. Can you help? Regards, Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:193:8300:8F77:24B2:CE3D:E507:16EC (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder normally is the (heir of the) photographer, not the (heir of the) depicted person. Owning a physical copy of a picture does not mean that you are the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Museum Catharijneconvent

Dag Jcb, onlangs heb ik - namens Museum Catharijneconvent - foto's gedoneerd. Deze staan/stonden in de categorie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Textiles_in_Museum_Catharijneconvent. Jij hebt hier 'the' aan toegevoegd: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Textiles_in_the_Museum_Catharijneconvent Mag de 'the' ajb weer weg? In de naamgeving van Museum Catharijneconvent gebruiken we geen het/the. Daarom kreeg bv deze categorie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_contributed_by_Museum_Catharijneconvent ook geen 'the'.

Groet, Marieke — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.125.4.194 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Beste Marieke, ik heb de hernoeming niet uitgevoerd of bedacht, ik heb slechts een technische onderhoudshandeling uitgevoerd die daaruit voortvloeide. Zo te zien heeft User:Sailko dit gedaan. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! If i inderstod correctly, "the" is necessary in English language(see similar categories about 'the' Louvre, 'the' Metropolitan Museum, 'the' National gallery). Also the other categories in Dutch should be all renamed, sorry, the basic language of Wikipedia Commons is English. Please let Marieke know. --Sailko (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sailko geeft aan dat 'the' in het Engels een noodzakelijke toevoeging is. Categorisatie gebeurt hier altijd in het Engels. Jcb (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The? Some collections of UK museums in Commons: Collections of Pontefract Museum‎, Collection of Staffordshire County Museum, Collections of Tate Britain‎, Collections of Tate Liverpool, Collections of Tate Modern‎, Collections of Wrexham County Borough Museum‎, Collections of Bankfield Museum‎, Collections of Derby Museum and Art Gallery‎, Collections of Herbert Art Gallery and Museum‎. Vysotsky (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

They look like minor museums, compared to the ones I linked, and by the way, no one of us is native English speaker, as far as I can see. I don't mind picking a standard with or without, I just noticed the most popular museums have it, and in the case of catharijneconvent 80% of categories had and 20% no, so I made all the same.--Sailko (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all the responses. Sailko, are you now going to add a 'the' to the collections of Tate? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.125.4.194 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Imruh Bakari

Hi Jcb You deleted this man's picture despite the fact he donated the pic and gave us permission (it was a WMUK editathon) and proved it to COmmons.

Did you not see that?

It should be re-instated.

Here is part of the dialogue: Dear Jon,

I can confirm that I have copyright of the photo I sent you through Savannah Mediaworks, and that I am happy for it to be released under an open license (CC-BY-SA) as per Wikipedia requirements.

Yours Imruh Bakari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowFratello (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted this picture over a year ago, because the OTRS procedure was never completed. Also Imruh Bakari is probably not the copyright holder. Normally the photographer is the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Undelate

Hi Jcb, may I ask you if you can finalize this undeletion request I made? Appartently 2 files of mine were cancelled as duplicates, but they were not duplicates (see message of another user). It looks like it only miss an admmin to finalize the request, otherwise it will be cancelled soon. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not usually process undeletion requests. Somebody will handle it. Jcb (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Per nom?

You closed this DR «per nomination», but, while there might be some interesting lessons to be extracted from that DR, a nomination is something that it didn’t include at all: That DR was created by converting a speedy nomination over lack of permission, and the user who created it (me) voted for keep. There’s no way deleting these files was done «per nomination»; I’d like to see the closing remarks amended to show something accurate, at least formally. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faveo Helpdesk Community Edition Screenshot.jpg

Why did you close this discussion as delete? Contrary to what you stated, I did provide a valid reason for deletion. The only other commentor did not provide a valid reason for keeping, and even his logic didn't make sense, since this is the only file with this license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think OSL is incompatible with our licenses? Jcb (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your undoing of my tagging of the file as having no license

The file right now does not have a license. Quote with my own bolding:

[...] the author has released it under a free license (which should be indicated beneath this notice), and as such follows the licensing guidelines for screenshots of Wikimedia Commons. You may use it freely according to its particular license.

License tag wrapper for free software screenshots. Only valid as a license when a valid license template or license template name is provided in required parameter "license".

— Template:Free screenshot/doc

Template {{Free screenshot}} is not a license. Josve05a (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. License added. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Better now. Nemo 21:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) However you did not specify which version of the license they released it under. In order for this license to be valid, a version number must be given. Sorry, I know I might be nit-picky...not trying to be too assertive, just want to see this resolved so we all can be happy to have saved a file from future discussions (again). Josve05a (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Josve05a (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the EN-wiki article as well, so that we don't have to search for the version number next time. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's hope here won't be a next time :) Josve05a (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Message from Vvirginie

Hi, I'm the owner of the file : Logo Accessi Prof.jpg, so I don't understand why you delete this file the 14 july. Could you explain me the reason of this delete ? --Vvirginie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvirginie (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dolf Unger, Gerrit Jan Heering en geografische afbeeldingen

Beste Jcb,

Ik zie (nu pas) dat je een aantal afbeeldingen uit het artikel over Dolf Unger, een foto van Gerrit Jan Heering en een paar geografische afbeeldingen hebt voorgedragen voor verwijdering. Inmiddels zijn ze ook verwijderd. Wat betreft de geografische afbeeldingen was je opmerking terecht; ik heb er niet bij stil gestaan dat ik het auteursrecht van de Bosatlas-uitgever (daar komen ze vandaan) heb geschonden. Ik dacht "een Bosatlas uit 1961, dat is zo lang geleden, die mag ik wel op Wikipedia zetten. Bovendien waren ze toen al openbaar, dus waarom nu niet?" Fout dus, ik weet niets van auteursrecht, sorry. Maar de foto's uit het Dolf Unger artikel komen uit een familiealbum dat ik in 2009, na diens dood, van de kleinzoon van Dolf Unger heb gekregen. Familiefoto's dus, ik ben ver weg familie, en hij zei "ik heb liever dat een Unger ze heeft dan dat ze in de vuilnisbak belanden", omdat hij geen nakomelingen heeft. Ik denk dat ik integer heb gehandeld door, in een encyclopedisch artikel, wat van deze familiefoto's te gebruiken, ter illustratie. Wat heb ik hiermee fout gedaan? En wat betreft de foto van Gerrit Jan Heering, die komt uit de DBNL, een service van de KB in Den Haag. Ik heb toestemming gevraagd, en gekregen, van de DBNL-redactie om deze foto, die zelf weer uit een jubileumboek uit rond 1920 komt, te gebruiken voor bij het (al bestaande) artikel over Heering. Het bestand is inmiddels verwijderd van Commons. Hoe los ik dit op? --Hansung03 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Bij het gebruik van foto's uit een familie-album geldt (net als bij andere foto's) dat het van belang is wie de fotograaf is. De fotograaf is immers de auteur. Als de fotograaf al meer dan 70 jaar geleden is overleden (deze termijn geldt voor de meeste landen in Europa) dan is het auteursrecht verlopen en kan de foto worden gebruikt. Zo niet, dan zal er toestemming moeten komen van de fotograaf of van diens erfgenaam. Jcb (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de uitleg. De foto's bij het Dolf Unger artikel, zowel het portret als het exterieur van de galerie, komen zoals gezegd uit een familiealbum. Geen idee wie de fotograaf is. Laten we zeggen zijn vrouw. Die is overleden in 1954, dus nog geen 70 jaar geleden. De enige erfgenaam die ik ken was zijn/haar kleinzoon Dolf, en die is overleden in 2009. Andere kleinkinderen zitten in de VS. Moet ik die letterlijk om uitdrukkelijke toestemming gaan vragen om deze foto's op Wikipedia te plaatsen? En wat betreft de foto van Heering, is de toestemming van DBNL per mail voldoende voor legitieme plaatsing? --Hansung03 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Een toestemming van DBNL is waarschijnlijk waardeloos, omdat zij een dergelijke toestemming alleen maar kunnen geven als zij het auteursrecht bezitten, wat nogal onwaarschijnlijk is. Als duidelijk is wie de fotograaf is van een bepaalde foto, dan kan er inderdaad toestemming gevraagd worden aan een kleinzoon van die fotograaf, maar let op: toestemming voor gebruik op Wikipedia is onvoldoende. De rechthebbende zal expliciet toestemming moeten geven voor vrijgave onder een specifiek benoemde vrije licentie, bijvoorbeeld CC-BY-SA 3.0. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hankyu-logo.svg

Can u tell me in English or any other language that I understand why did u delete this file?--Sanandros (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of permission by copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Querweltein Unterwegs chinesisches Cover mit Drache.jpg

Hello Jcb. Thanks for your work, but you deleted a image i uploaded:

• File:Querweltein Unterwegs chinesisches Cover mit Drache.jpg

Can you explain why? The creater and owner Stephen Iwanowsky sent his permission to publish his work under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. The file will be undeleted as soon as a valid permission has been processed. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Icelandic artist deleted photos

Hi, I was helping Icelandic artist about wikipedia. He wanted to donate some photos of his artwork/installation to the Commons with creative commons copyright. I told him to create user name on wikipedia and upload the pictures and read instructions and make sure they were donated under the creative commons tag and it was the copyright holder that uploaded. He did that and uploaded three photos he has copyright to, I explained to him what it meant. Sadly it seem that all the photos were immediately deleted by you. The photos are

"See It" project, Iceland, installation 2011.jpg

"Dialog" project, Iceland, Installation 2008.jpg

Fiann Paul.jpg

Could you please undelete these photos?

Being a wikipedia volunteer myself I do not have time to help him more than direct him to what he shall do and tell him to read the instructions. It seem that the condition are extremely hash and unfriendly for people like him who want to help adding to the commons. --Salvör Gissurardóttir (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Verification via OTRS seems necessary for these files. Then he can also explain who the photographer is of the picture depicting him and provide us with a valid permission from that photographer. Jcb (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photos from the National Gallery in Prague

Hi, you have deleted photographs, which I received officially from the National Gallery in Prague, with the permission of its general director. I have correctly quoted National Gallery as the source of photos. I have already asked for additional statement of the institution for OTRS, and I hope that deletions can be reverted.--NoJin (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS is indeed the right way to follow - Jcb (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of large number of historical files uploaded by Mo-yan

Hi. I see you closed this deletion request recently and deleted all of the files uploaded by User:Mo-yan. I was surprised by this outcome. You mentioned in your closing statement that some of the images could be found on this page (a website hosting photos originally taken by a person called "Mo-yan"). This is indeed true, but all of the photos on that site are very small (330x218 or 700x470 pixels for the larger ones), whereas the images uploaded to Commons were larger. That website was not actually produced by the photographer ("Mo-yan"), but it contains a link to Mo-yan's own website, which is no longer in existence. It is however archived on the Wayback Machine, and all of the original photos can still be seen here. Again, all of the photos on the site were smaller in size compared with those uploaded to Commons. For example one of the photos (No. 83 on this page) is only 496x320 pixels, whereas the version uploaded to Commons was 1000x641 pixels. My question to you is: were any of the images uploaded to Commons previously published on the web in the same size? If all of the images uploaded to Commons were actually larger, doesn't this imply that the uploader was indeed the original photographer and owner? These are all extremely valuable historical images of trains taken in the early 1960s by someone who is presumably now in their 70s (his website says he retired in 2001), so it is really sad that a bona fide new editor who appears to have honestly uploaded his own images ends up having them all deleted. Based on the above, I'd be grateful if you could reconsider your decision to delete the set of images. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think verification via OTRS is really necessary in this case. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Raffaele Calzini.jpg

Hi! I copied over the source of this file (http://www.bellaciaoag.it/foto/grandi/calzini.jpg, "Autore sconosciuto" (i.e., "Author unknown:)) when I transferred it here from it.wp – which I did because it appeared to be eligible. The file is licenced {{PD-Italia}} as a "simple photograph". Do you see some problem with that? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your so called "source" only tells us where it is supposed to have been grabbed from the web. No source is provided to any aspect of the copyright situation. We have e.g. no way to know whether PD-Italy could apply. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

About a deletion

Hello Jcb, excuse my low level in English. It is important to let File:Lans-en-Vercors. Square.JPG because of summers hollidays of administration of Lans-en-Vercors as I explain in a mail

1. to : 'Permissions - Wikimedia Commons (fr)' <permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org> (Charles Antonier)
   
2. object : RE: [Ticket#2016060910000415] TR: Demande de licence avec pièce jointe. Cliché Lans-en-Vercors

Sincerely 6PO 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As soon as the OTRS agent agrees with the permission, they will restore the file. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jcb,

I understand that the file will be restored to allow the mayor of Lans-en-Vercors to give authorization. Is it correct ?

Thank you very much for your answer.--6PO 11:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The file will be restored after we receive authorization. And please be aware that permission has to come from the photographer, not from the Mayor of course. Jcb (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jcb,

thank you for your answer.

1. The author of the image is an employee of Lans-en-Vercors ;
2. The Credit/Provider is the city of Lans-en-Vercors (as the image of Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance - File:New Task Force Kandahar Commander Optimistic About Upcoming Year 100909-A-+++++-071.jpg - is released by US Force Army)  ;

So the administration tell me I have to write to the Mayor (like File:Lans-en-Vercors. Jacques-Antoine Biboud.JPG; ticket: 2015113010024084 ) . Unfortunately his secretary don't give him the mail before summers holidays.

How receive authorization about a file who will be in Commons before put it on Commons ? It seems impossible.

I am waiting for your answer but don't have trouble with me.

Very sincerely --6PO 13:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I cannot help you, please finish this with OTRS. Jcb (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jcb,

thank you very much for your patience. I shall follow your advice.

Very sincerely--6PO 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion

Hi JCB, can you check this page. writing bottom on the page All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. If is it ok can you undelete [File:Kazakhstan at the 2016 Summer Olympics.jpg this photo]. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

For undeletion requests, please use COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeletions regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Macreanu_Iulian

Hi JCB, I've raised several issues regarding your decisions in this DR. Please express your opinion on those. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not take into account your comments in that DR, because that was not managable. In the list of over 300 files, several contributors left their comments, but you decided to leave your comments in a separate version of the list. If you provide valid undeletion reasons at COM:UDR I'm fine with undeletion. But for now I am not going to spend more time on this case. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo Deletion

Hi you have deleted a profile image from a Stephen Fears profile page which we have full copyright for and we would like it added back on please. I have tried to email ccommons but have had no response and also updated our link in flickr where the phot is also available - please can you add it back in to the page at the top in the info box?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/feargroup/28709750840/in/album-72157638668152903/ — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.41.168 (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of permission can be sent to OTRS. Please be aware that the copyright normally belongs to the photographer, not to some random "we". Also we don't have 'profile page', we are not Facebook. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Vladslo

Dag Johan. Ik zag dat je in de gallery van Vladslo alle plaatjes van het Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Vladslo weer hebt terug gezet. Er is een subcategorie bij Vladslo van dit kerkhof. Het lijkt mij beter om een gallery te maken bij deze categorie en ze daar in te zetten en in de gallery van Vladslo alles van Vladslo behalve van het kerkhof. Eventueel een link naar de gallery van het kerkhof. Wouter (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ik kwam hem tegen doordat er maar 1 afbeelding meer in stond. Gallerieën met slechts 1 afbeelding worden verwijderd. Een gallery hoeft niet strak overeen te komen met een categorie. Je zou met kopjes en subkopjes kunnen werken op de pagina zelf. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Figure 2.6 The United States Unemployment Rate.jpg

FYI, I was undeleting and adding the permission to these as a group, because I needed to clean up the file pages, and you re-deleted it while I was still working. See the ticket if you have concerns, or poke me. Revent^talk 15:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, apparently I overlook it in the deletion log. I saw (and kept) several of these files, but apparently I missed one. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I think I must have hit save seconds before you hit the button. Now to rename them to something less terrible, lol. Revent^talk 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain me ...

this revert. In Germany law it is a copy vio. --Codc (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

First it is NOT a copyvio in Germany, see COM:FOP#Germany. Second, if a picture itself is not stolen from somewhere, but a depicted object may cause a copyright issue, you cannot use speedy deletion. You must start a regular deletion nomination instead. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong and this is the same case like wrapped Reichstag. Regular deletion is started. --Codc (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am confused

I am confused regarding this edit. The source is claimed to be English Wikipedia, which surely is no source at all? - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It was kept a few months before in a regular DR, so not eligible to be tagged as {no source}. English Wikipedia is wrong of course. Jcb (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am confused too

As you seem to be insensible to arguments, prefering to bury your head in the sand i opened Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Public_Domain_photos_by_National_Park_Service.2C_clearly_marked_as_such.2C_but_delete_by_Jcb_just_because_it_lacked_an_template. Tm (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dzielnice_i_osiedla_w_Chełmie.jpg

if falsehood and inaccuracy is invalid proof of deletion (???), please show valid reasons for deleting such images... (google translation), --Tecra (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We do not judge the factual content of an image, it's up to local Wikipedia to do so. Jcb (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images. I think you made a terrible mistake in doing so, for several reasons

First, you had your administrative bits removed several years ago. If I recall correctly the main reason was that either you had been a terribly insensitive bully, or you were unaware of how your behavior looked like that of a terribly insensitive bully. I was one of the individuals you targeted. When you had your administrative bits restored you told me that you hoped I would let bygones be bygones.

Fine, but as one of the targets of your bullying, there is absolutely no way you should close a deletion discussion of files I uploaded. You should have left the closure to an uninvolved administrator.

Second, if you checked a few of the files I cropped, and you disagreed with how I cropped them, you should have stopped, and informed me, specifically, as to what you thought I missed.

I did my best to be tactful, years ago, when I had concerns over what I saw as lapses in your closures of other discussions of other people's uploads. Then, a few weeks later, when someone made a completely indefensible nomination of material I created you made a completely indefensible delete closure. It took me well over one hundred hours to finish uploading the 700+ files that WikiLeaks released from Guantanamo. It took that long because the WikiLeaks site was under a denial of service attack. Over about ten weeks I did get them all uploaded. But it took about twenty hours longer than it should have, because you had deleted files I needed. Although you couldn't give a meaningful explanation for your deletion, you refused to restore. Every day, for ten weeks, during the 100 hours or so I spent on that project, I had lots of time to think about the appearance of malice your intransigence presented.

I call upon you restore these files, re-open the discussion, and be specific as to instances where you thought I missed proprietary material. Geo Swan (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

How dare you suggest that I deleted these (out of scope) copyright violations to bully you? I have clearly explained my closure. If you disagree, go to COM:UDR, but then you should come with some real argument, not with wild accusations having nothing to do with the actual DR at all. Jcb (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RAOBZFCH (talk · contribs) files

Hi Johan,

You deleted the picture of Ambassador Martin Dahinden from his page in German (and maybe also from all other languages?). It says because of a missing permission? Why is that? The Embassy of Switzerland (which created and edited these pages) is the copyright owner of the picture in question. Please undo it or let us know how we can upload a picture so it's permitted in Wikipedia terms!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAOBZFCH (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images

Hi Jcb,

Please check re-uploaded files in Category:The Wire (JTF-GTMO) cropped: are these ok or not? Sealle (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

These files were apparently missed in the DR. I checked them and all (still) had copyright issues. Jcb (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal work

Hello,

I'm surprised by your choice "not out of scope" on this page [3]. File:Honore kolora.jpg, as File:Honore busto.jpg are just personal works by user Odilino. IMHO, they are "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.".--Markov (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The file has been in use in a Wikipedia article and is therefore in scope. It's not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide differently. Jcb (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check OTRS for deleted images

Hi. I have seen that you have deleted two images I uploaded: File:Batalla de Noordhom -Hugo Cañete-La Guerra de Frisia.jpg and File:Batalla de Lochem-Hugo Cañete-La Guerra de Frisia.jpg. The authorizations for both images were emailed to the OTRS system (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) on 10 June 2016 by Ediciones Platea. Could you please check it and restore the deteled files? Thanks --Hispalois (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. As soon as the permission has been processed and the OTRS agent finds it valid, the files will be restored. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File Red de museos para la atencion a personas con discapacidad.webm

I am resending the mail I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org back on 27 May 2016. Please let me know if you have received it.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog, but when the message is being processed you will hear from us. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ithaka-Ithaka Darin Pappas-in Brazil-Photo Barbosa-2007.jpg

Hi,

Sorry to bother you with the following but I need to understand to not doing it wrong later.

File:Ithaka-Ithaka Darin Pappas-in Brazil-Photo Barbosa-2007.jpg is a photo used for this album cover. At this point, don't we need to be sure that the uploader is Joao Barbosa?

In general, when an uploader says that his upload is authored by someone and says that he is this someone, do we need an OTRS evidence or is good faith enough?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"when an uploader says that his upload is authored by someone and says that he is this someone" - in principle we assume good faith, otherwise we would have to delete all own work uploads from every user. Regarding this file: I could not take into account the album cover, because you didn't link to it in the nomination. But still I would assume good faith. The uploaded file contains full exif and cannot have been extracted from the album cover. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb:

Thank you. I have a problem with good faith and I may have asked for permission a little too much... OK, when the quality is too good and unfindable on the web, I'll assume goodfaith. In the case of Ithaka/Barbosa, it was clear that the cover derive from the photo; I was going against the flow.

I didn't find in No permission since a parameter to add a reason. Is there is one? If there isn't, I may use the talk page.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What I often see is that a reason is inserted behind the tag after tagging. That works fine. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016 Summer Olympics opening ceremony 1035326-olimpiadas abertura-4006.jpg

How is FOP not a valid reason for deletion in this case? It is clearly a derivative work of a copyrighted work of art, portrayed in a context that I do not believe fits within the definition of being permamently located in a public place (i.e. it is only temporary for use during Olympics and Paralympics, and ticketed events are not nessecarily considered public places). ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read what others wrote in the DR. No need to repeat it all here. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I did. And its completely invalid. The first does not provide clear legal citations. Second and third talk about importance and signifigance (invalid argument). The fourth is correct and brings up good points, but doesn't quite factor in that there actually was a second cauldron in a different location with a smaller sculpture. Going by the precedents of other Olympics with public cauldrons (i.e. Vancouver), this looks more like its going to be permament than the one in the Maracana. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Julia Efimova in Budapest.jpg

Dear friend,

You recently deleted the picture File:Julia Efimova in Budapest.jpg . The matter is that I am the author of this pictures. I agree that the term «My collection» is not clear but I just wasn’t too familiar with the proper terms. Sorry for that. I am the author and the owner of copyright. Could you please undelete it. Thank you in advance. Goldsgym (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS. They may want to see a full resolution version of the picture. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor

Hi Jcb, Hope all is well,
Just to let you know "that certain editor"'s still cropping their own work [4][5][6] , I've not said anything to them however the discussion on their EN talkpage indicates they're fully aware of what they're doing and couldn't careless, As you're the recent admin to have dealt with them I thought it'd best to let you know, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This crop doesn't look problematic to me. The problem with this user mainly was that he kept nominating his own uploads from years ago for deletion for no apparent reason. Jcb (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah right sorry, I guess I'm being over-cautious here so sorry about that, Anyway thanks for your help again, have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roycegrubic

Hi. These file's usage in a Wikipedia article does not change the fact that they are uploaded to Commons only to showcase the artist's skills. The Wikipedia articles are created by the uploader (see the uploader's global contribution [7]) and this is clearly an effort to promote the artist among Wikimedia projects. Also the reason for deletion is explicitly stated in COM:EDUSE indicating that such files are out of scope. Therefore I believe this is a clear case that these files should be deleted. Please reconsider. Thank you. --Wcam (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If files are in use in a Wikipedia articles, that's a demanding reason to not delete a file for scope reason. There is nothing to be reconsidered here. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Please use a regular DR"

Komolyan az a megoldásod, hogy visszavonogatod a jogsértésre jelölést, és adminisztrátor létedre arra kényszerítesz, hogy egy nehezebb eljárást vigyek végig, amikor egyértelműen jogsértő képről van szó? Ha szerinted DR-re való, akkor miért nem írod ki DR-re? Ráadásul úgy, hogy te tudsz angolul, vagyis neked jobban menne a DR kiírása. Kicsit visszaélsz amúgy azzal, hogy adminisztrátor vagy. Nem ártana elgondolkodnod a lemondáson. Csak úgy mondom, barátilag. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If the file itself is not stolen from somewhere, but a depicted object may cause a copyright problem, you must use a regular DR. Also when and administrator declines a speedy nomination, you may not revert that. I have warned you before for this exact same behaviour. Jcb (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are administrators who helpfulness anything that's not found. You just commands deeds (what is allowed to do it, what you should not), but not so much you can do, if you believe the cancellation of the meeting is appropriate, you can write it out. The only skills in short supply, and threatened to withdraw. This seems to be more important to you than it is to avoid the offending images uploaded. In this approach, I think we should not be in the administrator. Now you can safely block the view to edit my sake. At least confirmed for what I said. (Machine -translated text, errors may occur.) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:RalphFlanders1910.jpg

JCB, I see that this file was deleted while I was away on a camping trip. The file description clearly indicated that the source was a physical copy provided by an individual, who happens to be a descendant of the depicted person, and therefore could not be cited in the manner requested as a link to someplace on the web. The 1910 date of the image determined the copyright status as being in the public domain, since the unknown photographer can be presumed to be dead for over 70 years. Please consider undeleting this file. I'll look for a reply here. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We cannot presume that everybody who could have taken a picture in 1910 must have died before 1946. The license template is based on publication before 1923, but no source was indicated to support publication before 1923. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The image was a headshot when Mr. Flanders was an editor of a machine-tool magazine, Machine, used in that magazine during his period there between 1905 and 1910, so it meets the pre-1923 publication criterion, too. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your speedy keep

You've kept the file nominated for deletion twice. It does not mean that expect every file I nominate to be deleted finally, on the other hand you can't just keep them without paying attention to the presented argument. Did you just follow this discussion? I would be thankful of you could bring your voice there, or at least say why my arguments did not apply in that RD, instead of pushing swiftly the keep bottom! Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This particular file is obviously too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and has been correctly licensed with {{PD-textlogo}}. No valid reason for deletion. Jcb (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So, you did not follow the discussion regarding the files attributed to rebel/terrorist groups. I wonder how you could be so ignorant of that! --Mhhossein ^talk 04:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photo of Moshe Ha-Elion?

Hello, my name is Antonia and I created the page about Holocaust survivor Moshe Ha-Elion. I don't understand why did you delete several photos in the Moshe Ha-Elion article. Would you be so kind to add them again? All the photos were correct and were under Creative Commons or public domain. Thank you very much and greetings from Madrid / Antonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk • contribs) 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see your files were deleted by a colleague, not by me. You can request undeletion at COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bro

The original source for File:2012 Busan International Motor Show in Heo Yoon-mi (3) allows free use due to the CCL 4.0 International Mark. Source There is no reason for this file to be deleted--고려 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Verified and restored. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You !--고려 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Warning

Thanks for letting me know about Non-Free material on Wikimedia Commons. Will do better next time. SaintSummit (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Кое-что за даром.jpg

Hello! I imagine this film, and so loaded with permission poster of the film producer. Restore please. Здравствуйте! Я представляю этот фильм, и поэтому загрузил постер с разрешения продюсера фильма. Восстановите пожалуйста. DENAMAX (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

He confirmed producer https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001905606047 https://vk.com/alexeytalyzin Alex Talyzin. DENAMAX (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Alex Talyzin (moviemagic@mail.ru) sent a letter to OTRS. DENAMAX (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We received a letter from a producer? DENAMAX (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me here, contact OTRS instead. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand. The letter was sent OTRS. Thank you. DENAMAX (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Giorgio De Chirico alla sua mostra di Milano.jpg

I'm changing the coppyright of the photo. Can you please verify if i have done the correct choice for publishing in Wikipedia?
Thankyou
--Asch58 (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If the license at Flickr has been changed, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

sorry to much complex for me. Do you thik I can upload again with new copyright?
Second: I have seen that under italian low after 20 years the photos are in public domain if thei are not artistic. Can I upload under this statement?
--Asch58 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you must request undeletion if you want it back. Jcb (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photos of Moshe Ha-Elion?

Hello, my name is Antonia and I created the page about Holocaust survival Moshe Ha-Elion. I don't understand why did you delete several photos in the Moshe Ha-Elion article. Would you be so kind to add them again? All the photos were correct and were under Creative Commons or public domain (I took many of the photos that you took out!). Please add again the photos in the article as soon as possible. Thank you very much and greetings from Madrid / Antonia Tejeda Barros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please request undeletion at Com:UDR / Por favor pide restauración en COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Verify license in OTRS

Hi Jcb, could you please verify the licensing of File:Eugen Eger 1953.jpg in OTRS? I and other de.wikipedians have some doubt. The picture was registered as an "own work" of a younger user, what is not possible in view of the date of the photograph. Thank you very much, --= (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The permission in the OTRS ticket seems fine, but the information at the file description page was incorrect. I have changed it in accordance with the ticket. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --= (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS

Hola Jcb. Hay un usuario que no es miembro de OTRS y en esta imagen el usuario añade un tícket de OTRS indicando su permiso (ver ticket:2012051810000701) ¿Podrás verificar si ese tícket de OTRS es válido dentro de esa imagen? porque ni Russavia pasó la revisión de la licencia de la imagen. Gracias. Ks ^{[在这里找到答案]} 17:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

El permiso de Vitalykuzmin.net está bien. El único es que Russavia no tiene que hacer nada con eso. Borré su nombre de la plantilla. Jcb (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfecto. Ahora sí lo veo bien. Saludos. Ks ^{[在这里找到答案]} 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

Blasons uploaded by Micheletb

Please stop notifying that such files have "no source": being hand made blasons no source is needed. You can add "source:own work" on these files if this seems necessary to you for whatever reason, it does not add anything. Being the author of the file File:Riazan blason.png, and this being a blason, no further source is needed : it is my own work. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Micheletb: , it is a bit unbelievable that you are an admin here on Commons (but in fact nothing surprises me here anymore). Please compare COM:Source. There is also evidence needed for the file description, but you also give nothing!?! ↔ User: Perhelion 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Micheletb, if it's your own work, just add {{Own}} to the source field. And Perhelion is right, you have to add a description as well. Those things are your responsibility. I am not creating a list of uploaders with special needs. If I come accross one of your uploads in the state as File:Riazan blason.png, I will tag it and you will receive a notification. It's up to you to fix it. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Perhelion: and @Jcb: , please use commons sense. What makes you think the source may not be the author in such a case?

Those files (there is a whole series of a few hundreds in the same state) were uploaded in 2006. The COM.source policy was then the following one, with no need to systematically add both "source" and "author", since -quite obviously- if you are the author of a vector graphic file you are also its source (which may be different for photographs, where derivatives are frequent, but that is another thing). Unless otherwise specified the {{Own}} is implicit in that case. So these files were conform to common's policy at that date.

If for some reason the policy has changed, and implicit information should now be explicated lest the file be severely deleted, this should not change the status of past conformant files (what would happen with disappeared contributors if such a rage were allowed?). So, if a missing {{Own}} bothers you on such old uploads, it's much easier for you to add a {{Own}} directly in that case, than to (1) flag the file with {{Lacking insignia source}} and (2) flag the file with {{No source since}} and (3) check the author is still active somewhere to (4) notify the author, for (5) the author to add the source and remove the tag. Pfiew...

As a matter of fact, you did add the {{Own work}} tag in its correct place. Why would anybody make more fuss of it? - Just explicit the implicit information and that's that.

As to the file description, the File:Riazan blason.png file can be justly and fully described as being the blazon of w:Riazan, as its title suggests. Adding the file name in the "description" field won't add any information (though of course feel free to do so if you want) since the title is searched and retrieved by the search engines.

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Micheletb: I only see that you are trying to avoid. Also the COM.source policy at 2006 says both "source" and "author" are needed. You have now removed the tag {{Lacking insignia source}} without any edit comment (that is also a fail for an admin). Why?? There are many information left on the file and the only thing what you do is to debate vigorously and revert people which try to correct. That's a shame and not common sense (but a Commons sense). The template says clear "“Own work” is therefor no proper source." Is it to meticulous to add the Category:Symbols of Ryazan? So if you are not willing to add information the file is out-of-scope and can be deleted!? ( what goes around comes around ) ↔ User: Perhelion 09:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity pictures Upload

Hey I want to upload pics of some Pakistani celebrities to link them to their wiki, they have authorized me to do that. How is it possible to avoid copyrights violation? how do I use a proper channel to do that? please help me on that. I am already warned to get blocked if I upload any other image. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rf fangirl (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

First make sure the authorization comes from the photographer, not from the depicted celebrity. Then ask them to send their permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anetta Kahane

Hello Johan, what exactly was missing in the upload of that picture hours ago? I think it is an original from their official website in Germany, which you deleted here. I could make good use of it. Kopilot (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the photographer released it into a valid free license. Jcb (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What evidence would you accept? The website allows the use and the institute is lead by Anetta Kahane herself. If they send you a permission per mail, would that be sufficient? Kopilot (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The photographer (not some 'they') has to send permission to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the photo deletion

Hello Johan hoping you're fine. You've deleted this photo File:Free sotoudeh s (5090402899).jpg. Does it violate copyrights? It is uploaded on flickr under creative commons liscence.--Marwa Ahmed Atia (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It was correctly taken from Flickr, but there was too much doubt about the Flickr user being the actual copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That Rhamphorhynchus picture

What's the problem? The artist released into the public domain (apparently, I can't read Russian) uploaded it to the Russian Wikipedia, and someone else uploaded it here. Abyssal (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We have no evidence that the original uploader at Russian Wikipedia is the author. Jcb (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Armada Music logo.svg

So why does this pass the threshold of originality but File:Armada Music Logo.svg does not? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you as this question in this wording. As far as I can see, I have never taken a decision regarding File:Armada Music Logo.svg. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove of copyvio Sendak

Sendak recently died so his work is still copyright protected. Freedom of panorama is not quaranteed inside buildings. So why have you took out the copyright violation templates? --Micha (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Gestumblindi: maybe you know that better. --Micha (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not an accepted procedure for 'no FoP' issues. Please use a regular DR instead. (The 'nominate for deletion' link from the left menu). Jcb (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Micha and Jcb: In a way, I agree with both of you: File:16 05 001 sendak.jpg and File:16 05 011 sendak.jpg most likely should be deleted for lack of FoP - in fact, "doubly" so: Apparently, these photos ware taken in the US ("exhibit at the Breman Museum in Atlanta, GA"), and the US have FoP only for works of architecture, so there is a deletion reason apart from Micha's remark that FoP is not applicable inside buildings. The same applies to two other files in Category:Maurice Sendak, and File:Irma Black Seal.JPG also doesn't seem to be licensed correctly (certainly not "own work"). So, I agree with Micha. But I also agree with Jcb; as FoP issues are often complicated, the accepted procedure on Commons is a regular deletion request, not speedy deletion. Though it may seem a bit bureaucratic in this pretty clear case (as there is no realistic other outcome than deletion, I'd say), I think that's how it should be done. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: This files are _obvious_ copyright violation and I have just remarked it how I should as a copyright violation what it actually is. If you think there shoud be a regular DR instead, because your unsure than it was your turn to change it. Just to remove it was just wrong because you just restored the illegal situation. --Micha (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Red Scinde Dawk stamp.jpg

Only because Scinde Dawk‎ is on my watchlist did I notice this had been deleted. No philatelist seems to have noticed but as the first Asian stamps I am pretty sure I can fix the source issue even though the known examples are scarce finding the source should not be too much trouble as they are well written up. Obviously no reviewed bothered to let any philatelic editors know. I do watch quite a few stamps but it's impossible to watch them all, so some like this one may slip under the radar. If you temporarily restore it I'll have a look and see if I can rescue it, if ot just delete it again. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: , User:Michael Romanov made a mess of it by reuploading the file without waiting for a proper undeletion. I have fixed the situation and restored the original upload. Please fix the information fields. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my reuploading. I did not know that you are discussing this issue on this page. At least, I added the missing info. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For future cases please be aware that it is not acceptable to simply reupload a file if you disagree with deletion. You can try to get a file undeleted, e.g. by asking and administrator or via COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. The original uploader was Fconaway and we will find the missing info to avoid another deletion. Ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Palacio de Recreación y Deportes.jpg

I was permitted to use that image by its owner. Why you deleted it? Investigate before doing something only because you want. Seriesphile (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to do this, I was permitted to use the files you deleted only because you wanted to do it and how the hell I'm going to prove this when that was months ago? You should stop wasting people's time. Have a great night. :) Seriesphile (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

further information

Dear JCB.

Is reversing File:Image30000.JPG a result of my not well used delete application? I also read the article in which this file is used and with that information I could find something of the shape of the image in the premises of the Zona Franca. I will adjust the categories and try to make something more of the image with some more info. (were you previously also engaged in the NL wikipedia?) --Jos1950 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that you created an invalid nomination. The uploader was not notified and the nomination was not added to the nomination list of that day. If you use the 'nominate for deletion' link from the menu, the system will do it correctly for you. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Undeleting?

Hello, you deleted few files in Category:Center_for_Early_Medieval_Studies,_Brno. OTRS email should be already in czech inbox. Could you undelete files Centrum raně středověkých studií 01.jpg to Centrum raně středověkých studií 10.jpg? Thnak you. Dominikmatus (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As soon as an OTRS agent processes the ticket and finds the permission valid, the file will be undeleted. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in Switzerland - no Copyright problem

Chönntsch du bitte oisi Bilder, wo mir ufeglade hend, wider herstelle. Si stönd I de Schwiiz im öffentliche Ruum und sind vo daher durch {{FoP-Switzerland/en}} "works installed at or on publicly accessible places or ground may be pictured" zum Ufelade freigeh und nöd durch es Copyright gschützt! Hiir d Lischte (lueg au: User_talk:Wettiger_Nochrichte):

• File:Election poster Bernhard Blaser.jpg
• File:Election poster Roland Kuster.jpg
• File:Election poster Stephan Attiger.jpg
• File:Election poster robert obrist .jpg
• File:Election poster palit signer .jpg
• File:Election poster peyer .jpg
• File:Election poster brändli nicoder .jpg
• File:Election poster Kirsten ernst wettingen .jpg

--Wettiger Nochrichte (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with deletion, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Riechheimer Berg

Weshalb der Scan einer Ansichtskarte von etwa 1900 gelöscht werden soll, erschließt sich mir nicht. Wikswat, 2016-09-02

The message is a warning that the files will be deleted if you don't add proper source information. Jcb (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request Sep.1 2016

Hi, you removed two files (File:Ciconia7.gif and File:Ciconia8 yr1999.gif) that I already sent an OTRS request for, but I forgot to place the template. If possible, undelete, so I can place the {{|OTRS pending}} template.–Jozefsu (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The {OTRS pending} tag would not have prevented deletion. You have to wait for the ticket being processed by an OTRS agent. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Rigging1.png

Hi Jcb,I saw the tag you left on my file mentioned above that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I had to remember myself what the backstory was behind that upload, heh. I moved that file in a Good Faith move from Wikipedia to the Commons as by the information the original editor provided with regards to source, the content in question is public domain due to its age (1911) and therefore shouldn't need any permissions. Please advise, thanks! RegistryKey (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a work from the UK, so the UK copyright rules apply. Copyright has only expired if the author died before 1946. Do you have any information on when the author died? Jcb (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: as a matter of fact I do thanks to some quick research. My justification is as follows:

• 1. Per Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and its cited source Everything Explained That Is Explainable: On the Creation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's Celebrated Eleventh Edition, 1910-1911 by Denis Boyles, the Eleventh Edition is public domain.
• 2. The work is available in scanned format on Project Gutenberg, which strives to only accept works that are public domain, albeit under US law.
• 3. According to the prologue for the volume containing the entry for rigging, found here, (actual entry for rigging found here to here) the main contributor for that article is one David Hannay, who died on the 29th of May, 1934, which would make his work there now public domain based on UK law as you state. RegistryKey (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I am convinced. I have untagged the files and corrected the licenses. Jcb (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Image

Hi Jcb, I'm glad someone's on the ball!, I wasn't aware the uploader was the actual flickr uploader too ... I just assumed someone had taken it from the flickr account... until I saw their bloody flickr name!, Never thought I'd say this but thank you for declining!,
It's a good job I'm not an admin ... It'd be one big nuclear disaster , Anyway thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to ask but could you delete File:Peugeot 205F, Hendaye, France. (16879166299).jpg and redirect it back to File:Peugeot 205F in Hendaye, France, April 2015..JPG please?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you :) –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DR question

Hi Jcb. I saw you deleted File:Flag of the National Defense Force (Variant).svg as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the National Defense Force (Variant).svg. Would that close also effect File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg? If I remember correctly, I think it's exactly the same as the deleted image except for the different colored background. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

TU Wien

Dear Jcb, The english Name of the "Vienna University of Technology" changed to "TU Wien", therefore the categories should be moved. Here are the infos of the official universitywebpage: https://www.tuwien.ac.at/en/services/public_relations_office/publishing_web_print/corporate_design/ JoKalliauer (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See my previous message at your talk page. Please respond there if you want to respond. Jcb (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

DR for photos de ND de Chrétienté

Pq avoir supprimé mes photos? Il est interdit de publier sur ce site et sur un autre?: ND de Chrétienté (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

S'il vous plaît envoyer la preuve de l'autorisation a OTRS - Jcb (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

If this file is from 1904[8] than it is in the public domain. So why delete? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright situation depends on when the author died. Do you have any information on this? Jcb (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

File:20 CHF 1890 131415.jpg

original sources are now indicated Thank you for an answer --Carlomorino (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The source site states: "Copyright © CNG 2002-2010", so unfortunately we cannot keep the file. Jcb (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2006092710009217 --Carlomorino (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I somehow overlooked the OTRS tag when I checked earlier today. Everything seems in order now. I have removed the 'no source' tag. Jcb (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Maria galina 2015.jpg

Sorry me ugly english. He (a.k.a. user:Petro Gulak) upload her photos, which made he. They know each other well. Why yuo delete files, why don't wait OTRS? --Be nt all (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. If a valid permission arrives at OTRS, they will undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. --Be nt all (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks so much for deleting all those images but I have to ask - How on earth did you find those images or atleast the category ?, Not gonna lie I nearly had a bloody heart attack! , Anyway thanks again it's extremely appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not the first time, you asked me for help in June :-) - Jcb (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I know but I never told you about the D2 category so was surprised you somehow knew about it :), I mean don't get me wrong I'm not complaining but I'm just surprised that's all :),

Ah well thank you anyway :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Source please?

This image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Cornelius.png was kept, but still has no source. Would it be possible to have more clairity than ... for source, author and date when image is retained? Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have this information either, but it's clear that there is no copyright issue. That's why I placed the dots, mainly to remove it from the Images without source maintenance cat. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

为何删除合理使用的图像？

File:DECLogo.png
为何删除合理使用的图像？
--Leiem (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It was stolen from here - Jcb (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wellcome DR

Hi, could you please revisit your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC? The closure appears wrongly worded as the nomination was not created because the Wellcome attempted to revoke a copyright license, but because the license used by them on their website was incorrect. The RAMC are the original material donors and it is their copyright statement that matters to us, not what the Wellcome may have posted on their site or their catalogue, as the Wellcome have never claimed to represent the copyright holder or have a direct claim of copyright.

Please keep in mind that I'm in dialogue with the Wellcome on this, and though almost all of the images will be kept, we all wish to retain a positive relationship with the Wellcome and in turn, they will want to respect their relationship with their source donor.

I would like the DR to stay open for long enough for all the copyright licences to either be replaced by a correct public domain statement, or for the remainder to be deleted after consideration. There is no point in making a separate list, as it already exists in the DR, but I would agree that for all these images the current license can be removed as it was never valid. Consequently these images will left as unlicensed until the license is replaced with a PD statement. I'll work on automating that, but would prefer the DR to be reopened first as I don't want any claim that I'm taking action in a pointy way.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A DR is not the place to store your work in progress, you are disrupting the process with such a DR. Please take the list to somewhere, e.g. in your user space, take your time to work the list, and when you are ready create a new DR with the remaining files, this time with a valid explanation. "The copyright of the files has been changed by the Wellcome to CC-BY-NC-ND." won't work of course. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not my work in progress. I am not going to sort this out personally.

The Wellcome have not revoked the license, nor have they changed it. The licence given was wrong and must not be kept on the images.

The only process that fits this situation is a DR. Commons is hosting images which we have been officially alerted to as copyright violations, even if the majority might be kept as public domain. Either we delete the lot as a precaution without a proper review as copyvios (which means that they will never be uploaded again, I doubt that I will have the time to pursue this or any other volunteer will invest time sorting it out when we can no longer see the files), or we have a single DR for everyone in our community to help out with, and which acts as a permanent record of the decisions to keep or delete.

I do not have an infinite amount of time to review these 1,000+ images this week. I am a volunteer not a machine or an employee of the Wellcome Library.

If you are determined to vigorously defend your hasty closure of this large and complex deletion request, I will have to raise it for other administrators to consider at COM:AN. I would prefer not to waste my time in this way, or that of other administrators. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have taken the precaution of putting the most recent email on OTRS at ticket:2016090610022455. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just as a short note. Jcb, your recent block of Faebot also cought Fae's main account in the autoblock. I doubt this was intentional so I removed the autoblock. Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to uncheck the autoblock. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, because you do seem to be having competency related issues today, Jcb. A Creative Commons licence is indeed not revocable, but that is only the case when content has been released under that licence by the rights holder, where a third party (who is not the rights holder) provides the wrong licence details and subsequently informs us of their error, you cannot just bat away their concern with a 'licence is not revocable' DR closure, the correct course of action (and I cannot believe I'm needing to tell you this - how long have you been an admin here ?) is to update the licence, and if that then requires content to be deleted, you do so.

I'm also shocked at the lack of competency in blocking a bot - autoblock should always be disabled, because you don't know what other bots are connected via the same IP address.

I trust you will revert your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC as a matter of some urgency and apologise for the autoblock of Fæ. Nick (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, I doubt Jcb will ever apologise for their actions. It's been 3 hours so far and all I see is a continued and apparently wilful defensive misreading of the case.

Now raised at COM:AN#Admin support needed for Wellcome Library request, please consider this a notification. --Fæ (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello Jcb, bot didn't reomove it. Does my contribution have been true? Good wikis. Uğurkent (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the bot doesn't work properly. Jcb (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Restaurant, Canobie Lake Park.jpg

Not sure that you noticed the DR when you deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you forgot to remove the 'no source since' tag. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought you were supposed to check if it is correct that source is missing before you delete. Otherwise we could just have a bot delete after 7 days. ;-)

Of course I do, but no source was added in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:RLMetcalfe.jpg

Do you really read the descriptions? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the information that's needed to determine the copyright situation. Everything seems fine now. Jcb (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Mixed Ukrainian-Russian writing of "Putin Hello" at the fence at Kerch, Crimea, August 2014.jpg

Hi! I noticed that you deleted this file. could you please explain me what exactly was wrong with this file so I can re-upload it? Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't reupload the file. It has been previously published on the web. Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not to explain this on the talk page before deletion. not nice. --Pozytyv (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted request.

Hi Jcb. Can you delete this photo? I installed for testing purposes only, thanks.--Kingbjelica (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Montaje de Ada Lovelace.png

Hello, Jcb.

I'll be short as I'm going to sleep right now: I just discovered that you deleted the this image just because it was nominated to deletion by a user, but it seems that you ignored the facts that I mentioned in the deletion request discussion: the image was perfectly attributed. I don't really understand how could the image be deleted without even answering what I was pointing; if I'm mistaken, I'd like to know why. Thereby, I request you to double check the deletion; if it applies, I'd like to know the reasons.

Thanks. --Racso (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have read your comment, I have visited the other image at Commons and I have concluded that there are many differences between the two files, to the level that I don't think that one is a derivative of the other. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are differences! It's a new work that uses content from another one! The portrait in the uploaded picture (Ada's portrait) is taken from the other Commons file, but the background was put by one other person I referenced (who works for the Karisma Foundation, who uploaded the picture to Flickr with a CC license). The issue that Wdwd mentioned was that two authors were not referenced (Alfred Edward Chalon and Jackie Aim), but they were the people who made the original portrait and sketch; I took their names from the original file in Commons, so it doesn't make sense to ask for more permissions from them given than that image has them.

Also, saying that the image isn't a derivative work actually makes the deletion even worse: if it's not a derivative work from the other Commons image, then the picture was correctly imported from Flickr as these two authors weren't even necessary to be mentioned!

Finally: I know there's no problem with the file license, as I simply uploaded the image as an example during a workshop because a representative of the Karisma Foundation (the Flickr account holders) told me to do so. This is just a [weird] misunderstanding. What bothers me is the fact that the image was deleted without even answering what I was saying in the discussion. I request you to check this once last time before I appeal the deletion. I really didn't expect this to get this complex. Thanks.--Racso (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take it to COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop closing deletion requests related to my upload projects until the thread on COM:AN with regard to your actions in closing the Wellcome DR and blocking my accounts has been resolved. As you are avoiding scrutiny of your actions by failing to respond to the questions raised there, it is inappropriate for you to continue to close related deletion requests in this way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you are ignoring my request. I hope you understand that your behaviour in avoiding questions about your actions as an administrator, then pointedly continuing the behaviour that is being actively questioned on AN, looks immature for anyone trusted with sysop tools. You have crossed the line, so I'm afraid I will be unable to trust you in the future for any sysop needs. --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nant-y-moel

I don't understand why you've deleted this. If you've looked at the OS map or the plethora of mixed names of images in that category, you'd understand why a redirect is useful. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually you created (and I deleted) Nant-y-moel, without the 'Category' prefix. Jcb (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I get it now. My mistake. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Physical computing

Could you please restore this, deleted without any evident discussion. It is not the same thing as "embedded systems", as would be evidenced by reading the WP article on this WP:NOTABLE topic. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The category was empty when I deleted it. No 'evident discussion' or whatever crap is needed. If a category is empty we just delete it and when it's no longer empty you can just recreate it. Jcb (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not empty. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a valid reason for refusing to restore this? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

File:2ndPrinceChun2.jpg

Hello, Jcb/archive. You have new messages at Strainu's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Robert von Haug

Please stop reverting my editions. The photographs were taken by me and are GFDL; the original painting is public domain. Both licenses are correct. --ecelan (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you digitize a 2D work, that will not create a new copyright for you. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

1. That depends on the country you are in. Even in the States en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. had to be fought to make this point clear. Rechtlich unklar, politisch falsch: Zur Mannheimer Abmahnung der Nutzung gemeinfreier Bilder So, yes, it can create a new copyright: Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.
2. You also deleted the "own work", which was what you were asking for in the first place.

If it bothers you so much, just delete the GFDL license, it's on your head, but don't go around insulting people with "fake source/license". So, please stop nitpicking on images that are perfectly well licensed. There is enough garbage in Commons to clean up, you don't need to harass good faith users, and make them loose their time.

--ecelan (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the source and licensing. If you ever waste my time this way again, I will just proceed and speedy delete the involved files. Jcb (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Inserting bad metadata

[9] [10]

Please do not deliberately insert bad metadata into a file description, just to make an automated warning disappear. That is really unhelpful long term - no metadata is automatically recognisable, a faked value is not, yet is still neither source nor author.

Have you been doing this to other images too? Is this now going to be a big cleanup needed? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If the copyright situation is fine and clear anyway, then the warning is not needed. We use these warnings to track down files with copyright issues. The categories should not be polluted with files that are fine anyway. No "cleanup" or whatever action from your side is needed or desired. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifications of pending deletion

Hi Jcb. You notified me that you'd tagged File:30th Infantry Division SSI.svg for deletion as it was lacking a source. I wasn't the original uploader - I simply moved it from enwp to here - so please could you make sure that you notify the original uploader on their wiki in the future, please? Also, the source information for this image was given in the description, and it looks like it was accidentally removed from the correct parameters by a bot by this edit last year for some reason. So I've fixed this, but don't know if the same problem will be present in other files... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The notification is done by the automation, not manually. It would be unworkable to check the automations every move. It seems the bot removed the contents of the source field, because "Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia]" does not qualify as a valid source. Jcb (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have raised with the bot operator. This was a very obvious public domain file, so it is worrying that it should ever be marked for deletion, and even worse that there may be many others like this that may be templated by volunteers who will not make the effort to look at the file or its history or have already been unthinkingly deleted. --Fæ (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

File:30ArmoredBdeDUI.jpg

Your edits to this file's image description unfortunately were not useful, since all United States official military emblems are by definition work-for-hire for the United States government. AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please show with a link that this is indeed a United States official military emblem, or leave the tag alone. Jcb (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In an ideal universe, somebody would go around doing just that, but it it's not strictly required to save this file from being deleted, so unfortunately for you, your attempt to hold this file hostage will fail, unless de-facto Commons practices change drastically from what they have been for a number of years...

By the way, it's past time to archive your user talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You're now on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Share and enjoy. AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You have decided that you want to waste my time one way or another and then you call me counterproductive? Jcb (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to thrive on drama, there could be a difference of opinion on who's "wasting time". AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about "unproductive"

Then adding a no-source tag to a file description page which gives a source, but in the wrong slot, would appear to fit the definition: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:309tfs-tuyhoa1.jpg&action=edit&undoafter=170522680&undo=206327119
AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

File:MG 2637 copy (Copy).jpg

I actually reverted my 'OTRSpermission' on that, when going back through and double checking... I thought I had sorted out all of the ones with the problematic EXIF, but apparently missed one when going back through. I'm told by the uploader that he 'knows' it was a borrowed camera, but I'm going to ask for verification from the other person. Revent^talk 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: , the reason I filled the source field was that the files popped up in Category:Images without source, which seems unnecessary. As soon as OTRS is completed, could you take care of the source field? Jcb (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I intended to... they are on jetphotos.net, but the actual 'source' for us was the photographer. Revent^talk 19:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

File:George R. Dekle 2016.jpg

A bot message tells me that you deleted an image file I uploaded to COMMONS. (I can't easily find the date you deleted it.) I'm wondering why you deleted it? A permissions Email was sent by the copyright holder on June 27, 2016, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and as good-faith average Wikipedian with not a lot but some experience re permissions, I am quite *sure* that the permissions Email sent was perfectly adquate with all ducks in a row. (I can spill the contents of the Email here if you like me to do that.)

It isn't clear to me at all that OTRS has acknowledged *receiving* the permissions Email sent June 27. Could you confirm for me that the Email was received? (Thank you.) And if the content of it is less than adquate (which I very much doubt) could you please let me know what specifically is missing? (Thank you.)

On June 28, one day after the permissions Email was sent, the system said "current backlog is approximately 106 days". So I didn't think there was anything I had to do in the meantime. (If I didn't so something right, I can't correct it unless someone tells me what it was that was done wrong. I don't guess that anything *was* done wrong on my end.)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Info Jcb did not delete this because of anything on OTRS, but rather because it was over the 30 limit. However @De728631 did the second delete because OTRS permission was insufficient in their view. I'm sure they can provide their reasoning. By the way, if you click on the red-linked file File:George R. Dekle 2016.jpg, the comments in the deletion log are displayed. --Fæ (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fæ, a permissions Email was sent June 27 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so, I do not understand what you mean when you say "because it was over the 30 limit". Also, you are wrong about the second delete was based on "insufficient OTRS permission", because that admin who deleted never bothered to try and access or find the sent permissions Email, so how could that editor have any opinion about its content if that editor never read it? (They made assumption someone else did, but that assumption is bad because there are more indications that OTRS overlooked the Email to begin with.) So that user's "reasoning" was already explained to be *assumption* not reasoning. (I will look in the deletion log now and update here if I can find any reason to modify what I've written here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've spotted the thread on OTRS/N, that's probably the best place to keep questions together. I suggest you leave it to cool for at least a day and let OTRS volunteers respond there though. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked the deletion log and there's nothing new or useful/helpful there. (My belief is, both the rationales given there are *false*.) It is hard to know where to get help. I received no warning prior to deletion at any User talk, and no OTRS person has yet checked and confirmed whether or not the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org mailbox contains or doesn't contain the June 27, 2016 permissions Email sent by the copyright holder. (Are you with OTRS? The OTRS editor at this Talk is an admin, and the editor at OTRS/N is an admin. So it is a bit difficult to know where real help is supposed to come from!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Stay with it on OTRS/N. Keep in mind that it's not uncommon for files to be deleted before anything is done about permissions on OTRS, but undeletion is quick once that is accepted. I was an OTRS volunteer back four years ago, the backlog is a lot longer now but my help does not seem wanted by those in charge. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notepad++ screenshot2.png

Hello

I noticed that you have deleted File:Notepad++ screenshot2.png, subject to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notepad++ screenshot2.png nomination. I was of course unaware of the nomination.

But I don't understand why! More specifically, how does Microsoft come into play in any of this?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The appearance of Microsoft Windows, a copyrighted software, is visible in a way that's not below TOO. Jcb (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the image right now. I see no part of Microsoft Windows (Taskbar, Start menu, shell, charms, etc.) being visible.

Please tell me that you don't mean the blue frame around the image. We had thousands of DRs and they establish that the frame is well below TOO. (Not even de minimis.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's talk business. In the event that you do mean the blue frame, please send me a copy of the full image so that I can use it on English Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what image you are looking at, the one I deleted does not have a blue frame. If you think I made a mistake, please request undeletion at COM:UDR. If you just want to receive the file, please send me an email and I will send you the file. - Jcb (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'll send you an email immediately. However, you can upload it to OneDrive or Google Drive instead and share it; then delete it when I said I received it. But your call. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Should be in your mailbox. Jcb (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Notepad.2B.2B_screenshot2.png Josve05a (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Envío de autorización para derechos de autor de varias imágenes

Buenos días Jcb, Hace tiempo subí varias imágenes a Wikipedia Commons, pero sin enviar los derechos sobre esas imágenes. Tengo dos preguntas: 1. ¿puedo incluir en un mismo documento varias imágenes que pertenezcan a un mismo fotógrafo?. 2. En la plantilla de envío de permiso, para enviar a: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Por la presente declaro que soy el titular de los derechos de autor exclusivos de Nombre1: http://www.ejemplo1.es Nombre2: http://www.ejemplo2.es Nombre3: http://www.ejemplo3.es Consiento que dicha obra se publique bajo la licencia libre {{PD-user|Aqui pondría mi netiketa de Wiki, ¿no?}} Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos de autor de mi imagen, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no me serán atribuidas. Soy consciente de que la licencia libre solo afecta a los derechos de autor, y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas. Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia. Nombre del fotografo, 14.IX.2016

No estoy de acuerdo con este párrafo: "Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades". ¿lo puedo eliminar del escrito? Muchas gracias por tu ayuda. Disculpa que te pregunte cuestiones quizás muy obvias, pero soy novato en este tema.

Un cordial saludo,--Hard (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Si, puedes incluir varias imágenes en un solo documento. La parte sobre uso comercial y la posibilidad de hacer modificaciones es obligatorio. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Muchas gracias Jcb. Espero enviar hoy mismo el documento. Un cordial saludo.--Hard (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion of 888ligaen-logo.png

Hi Jcb, I started a dispute of the deletion tag on the file's talk page, which is also now deleted, without any response (only your deletion). I work with the company which owns the copyright - are we are donating the image under licence CC0. I believe I used the correct licence tag - please advise on what to do. Handboldspiller (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please send permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictures deleted from Alltec GmbH

Hi Jcb,

I would like to ask you, why you deleted our pictures for example File:Stahlblock mit farbigen Anlassbeschriftungen.jpg , our company is verified though the wikipedia team and we have the rights of the pictures and would like to share them. Ticket: Ticketnumber 2014011010008301 https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber={{{1}}}

Thanks a lot Felix

--Alltec GmbH (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please request undeletion at COM:UDR. The ticket is in a queue I cannot access. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Rprpr

I believe your decision has been misguided or misinformed, but before I'll consider renominating for deletion, I'd like to hear you out if you want to reconsider and correct your decision.

In addition to Commons:Screenshots, there is an essay Commons:Collages that explains about license compliance. Screenshots are derivative works from Wikimedia standpoint, so I'd like to quote they must comply with any binding attribution or copyleft requirements.

Template:Incompatible license explains very well why these files are thought to be a copyright infringement of original works being depicted in the screenshot: The CC BY-SA 4.0 license is one-way only, which means original works of CC BY-SA 4.0 may be licensed GPLv3 only in the derivative work, but not the other way around. In my view, the author (assumed to be User:Rprpr) has not corrected the license information to be in compliance with the conditions of the GPL.

There is also an ongoing discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Non-free revisions of File:Inkscape0.45.png, where User:Gazebo has explained license incompatibilities more in depth. Though you've not claimed so, the deletion request was not to pull any harm on User:Rprpr, but simply to point out what I think are copyright violations.

It's not as simple as removing the CC BY-SA 4.0 license notices from the images: That could be seen as a (copyright?) violation of User:Rprpr's rights (even though it is more likely he doesn't have permission to use the license in compliance).

Also non-sense that File:Debian 8.2 GNOME desktop.png was tagged with source as Ubuntu, when the screenshot illustrates a GNOME desktop on Debian GNU/Linux 8.2. The original uploader had tagged these with {{Own work}}, but it's more likely a case of {{Self-photographed}}. In any case, the source should be something more clever than Ubuntu, as in an URL or a precise source.

I am midly disappointed and feel this event was rushed. In the event that you disagree with me, I ask you to give reasons that I see to be more valid or refrain from closing the second nomination for a second opinion. 80.221.159.67 16:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC) (edited: 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC))

(EC)I don't think my closure has been misguided, misinformed or rushed. I have taken my time to review this DR. I disagree with you about what you call "conflicting" licenses, the files have a combination of involved licenses. Everything seems fine. Jcb (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: There is no permission from User:Rprpr for the GPL, which I will still hold to be a copyright violation. Which part of Template:Incompatible license is inaccurate in your opinion? 80.221.159.67 16:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have requested licensing@fsf.org to reply to clarify the dispute. It feels odd that I feel this to be necessary while you are an OTRS reviewer and Commons administrator.

I can request to email their response to you or OTRS if you want to do so. 80.221.159.67 18:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: You still have not explained what you think to be wrong with Template:Incompatible license, yet you seem to acknowledge the argument that there is no consent from original work copyright holders to create a derivative work under different copyleft licensing terms. Please explain yourself, as I can agree with User:Fae that avoiding questions like this is immature from an administrator. 80.221.159.67 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have reviewed my decision and concluded that I still agree with my decision. Case closed. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: You have not explained yourself with supporting references for why you think there is no incompatibility. In fact, all represented facts considered I believe the current facts represented speak against you. You're still avoiding my question where I asked for an explanation. I have more reasons to believe that your decision to keep the files has no validity if you have no references to support your statement. 80.221.159.67 15:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Technocentre - Orange gardens.jpg

Hi

Regarding this request : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Technocentre_-_Orange_gardens.jpg that you have closed with the reason : "image not found at indicated site"

if you look the picture at the bottom of this page : http://www.interconstruction.fr/immobilier-entreprise/eco-campus-chatillon-92/
(he first picture of the gallery below the Google map)

you will see this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Technocentre_-_Orange_gardens.jpg
which is similar to the one downloaded in Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Technocentre_-_Orange_gardens.jpg

Same view, same frame, same point of view... the only difference is the moment when the 2 pictures have been taken

I suppose that the photograph (from the architect company) had taken several photos of the same scene.

But the photograph is certainly not the user who had downloaded the picture in Commons (see the description of the picture, he wrote "Author: Cabinet d'architecte BRIDOT&WILLERVAL" and "Source cabinet d'architecte")

Maybe you could you reconsider your decision for this delete request.

Regards. --57.66.185.161 13:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Technocentre_-_Orange_gardens.jpg is similar to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Technocentre_-_Orange_gardens.jpg , both links go to our server to the same file! Jcb (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oups. Sorry. Bad copy/paste of the link

here it is: http://www.interconstruction.fr/file/2016/06/Eco-Campus-Orange-Gardens-2.jpg

--57.66.185.161 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

These pictures are definitely not the same, they have just been taken from the same place, clearly not even the same day. No copyright violation here. Jcb (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dos cuestiones: Enviar borrador de autorización de derechos de autor para que me confirmes que esta todo bien y obra huérfana

Buenas tardes Jcb. Tengo dos cuestiones que preguntarte:

1. Ya he elaborado el documento plantilla para enviar a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Pero antes de hacerlo, quisiera asegurarme de que todo esta bien. ¿Te puedo enviar el documento para que lo revises y me digas si hay algo que debería cambiar, quitar o incluir? Si finalmente, te lo puedo enviar, ¿donde te lo envio? ¿Lo copio aqui mismo? Muchas gracias por tu comprensión y tu paciencia.

2. Una de las fotos que colgué se encuentra actualmente en un Archivo General de una Universidad. Desde allí me dicen que no conocen el nombre del fotógrafo. Y como desconocen el nombre del fotógrafo, el Archivo dice que no me puede hacer una autorización para publicarlas. ¿Se puede considerar como obra huérfana y por lo tanto se podría publicar sin mas?

Muchas gracias por tu ayuda. Un cordial saludo,--Hard (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Por favor envia el documento directamente a OTRS. Si algo falta, ellos van a ayudarle completarlo. La foto huérfana va a ser dificil. Mejor dejarlo, porque es casi imposible darla una situación válida de copyright. Jcb (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, Jcb. Así lo haré.--Hard (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Лавров95 2

This decision is absolutely inappropriate. Woul you please now undelete these files and transfer them to Russian Wikivoyage, please? --Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, these files are not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. I see no valid reason to make an exception for these files. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I asked you? I am not asking to make an exception.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to undelete them for immediate transfer and immediate redeletion after transfer. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictures deleted from Riccardo Silva page

Hi Jcb,

Thanks for making sure the images on this page were correctly. Is there any way to get the portrait image re-instated. We have permission to have the image here.

Cheers Njm 78 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what file you are talking about. If you received a valid permission for a deleted file, please send it to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight championship and tj perkins

I know that I cant upload things in the fair-use license in commons, but can I upload images in the fair use license to post on wikipedia, please tell me how?

Fair use is allowed at English Wikipedia, see: en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard - Jcb (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Undelete

On 10 sep 2016 03:23 Ida_Laura_Veldhuyzen_van_Zanten_KNVvL50.png was deleted from Commons. Jcb: Missing source as of 2 September 2016. It contained 'own'. After 2 september I added 'PD-self' and so expected no deletion. The image is completely mine and others may use it. Did I have to remove the deletion command of 2 september, to prevent the deletion? Please restore the image. Rob Veldhuyzen van Zanten (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please restore File:Olegs Latisevs.jpg

Hello, Jcb. Thanks for your attention to page Oļegs Latiševs! You decide to remove this picture, because "suspected copyright violation ; Olegs Latisevs may not be the photographer since he's on the photograph El Funcionario (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)". Can I ask you to restore this image, because I can assure you that it was given to me by the hero of this article Olegs Latisevs, from his personal archive. This photo was taken solely at the request of the author Olegs Latisevs, there is no other copyright holders. You may have seen similar photos Oleg Latyshev in the same uniform. This is possible because in this t-shirt he has performed on a variety of tournaments, including the Olympics. If recovery is not possible, that you recommend me? Can I ask Olegs Latisevs another photo, the right to the possession of which he will give me. Amatour82 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Although many people think that they are the copyright holder of any picture depicting them, in principle the photographer is the copyright holder. Please forward evidence of permission from the photographer to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Image deletions again

Hi JCB, I'm really sorry to bother you,
Could you do me a favour and delete everything in this album except "Rio 2016 paralympic cauldron (29505414506).jpg, "Rio 2016 Paralympics opening ceremony (29430402532).jpg" and "Front Entrance QEC.jpg" as these 3 images have nothing to do with me,
I hadn't realized the images I've uploaded were all Public Domain Mark,
Thanks and again sorry to bother you,
(BTW thank you for deleting eerything in the other album too, Right I'll FO now),
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you :), Have a great weekend, –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fondation Louis Vuitton

Hi,

Thank you for closing this DR, but I think you forgot this file.

Regards. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - would have been found anyway, because every day I check Category:Deletion_requests_September_2016 - Jcb (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Product recalls - Images from the United States Food and Drug Administration

Thank you for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:RECALLED – Dog and Cat foods - Dry (9524140142).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:RECALLED – Dietary Supplement (9615815604).jpg. They are only two out of a few thousands similar uploads in Category:Product recalls, where I think a large part infringes with Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging. Would you mind taking a look at this and suggest a proper action? - 4ing (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

They will need to be looked at one by one and a proper nomination will have to be made. I think the 'no permission since' process is the most suitable for this. Do you have the 'No permission' link in the left menu? If not, you can enable it by selecting 'Quick Delete' under 'Maintenance tools' in your preferences. Jcb (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have enabled this function. Do you also know of a tool for mass nominating files for deletion or for missing permission (e.g. to avoid bombing the uploader with one message per file)? - 4ing (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have the 'Perform batch task' link in the left menu? Jcb (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't... - 4ing (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

See Help:VisualFileChange.js. This tool will be very helpful. Jcb (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - you have been most helpful! - 4ing (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion; Riccardo Silva profile picture

Hi Jcb, You recently removed the Riccardo Silva profile image, citing " Copyright violation: Image was already in use on the web before it was uploaded here.)" Is there any chance you would be able to clarify this? I'm not au fait with Wikipedia yet and whilst I didn't upload the image, I just wondered if you would be able to help me by explaining explicitly what can and cannot be uploaded? If an image already exists online and permission from the copyright holder is given, is that sufficient?

My interpretation from the cited reason is that categorically, an image that is available anywhere else online cannot also be used for Wikipedia - is this the case? Many thanks 86.129.134.8 16:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We want to be sure there is a proper permission from the photographer. File that can be found on the internet have a high risk of not having that permission. They can be accepted at Wikimedia Commons, with the help of OTRS. If you contact them, they will help you establishing a valid copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of 3 image files deleted by Jcb

Dear Johan, Please undeleted the following files that you deleted 17 September 2016:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discipline_band_01.jpeg

2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discipline_band%27s_Matthew_Parmenter_a.k.a._The_Magic_Acid_Mime.jpeg

3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koid%279_Magazine_featuring_Discipline_band_(April_2012).jpg

The basis for your deletion due to copyright appears to unsupported.

I am the sole copyright owner of items 1 and 2, and I granted Creative Commons share alike rights to Wikipedia. Please immediately undelete these files.

For item 3, Kevin Scherer is the sole copyright owner, and he informs me that he emailed a Creative Commons release to Wikimedia today at email address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please undelete the item 3 file as well.

If you require additional proof of copyright and license granting, please let me know specifically what documentation you require.

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Best regards, Matthew Parmenter Strung Out Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciplineband (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please contact OTRS - Jcb (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide me the relevant URL or email address for contacting OTRS so we may present the information to them. There are several pages mentioning OTRS, and I am not sure how to follow your instruction to contact them. The link you provided redirected to your talk page (did not work). Disciplineband (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Dear Jcb, OTRS permission letters have been sent for each of these three files. Please undelete these three files pending review of the permission emails by OTRS. Disciplineband (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You must click on the word 'OTRS' of course, not on the word 'talk'. And no, the files will not be undeleted before review. The OTRS agent will take care of undeletion if the permission is valid. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Roggel.jpg

FYI, I had removed your "no source" template on this one but then immediately afterwards I noticed something that made me send it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roggel.jpg. De728631 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Jcb (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Syro-malabar emblem.svg

Was it delated only because requested or you'd checked before what it really presented? --Winnetou14 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have compared the file with the original and concluded that this is a copyright violation. Jcb (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Envio de permiso de tres fotos a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Hola de nuevo Jcb, te señalo tres dudas que tengo:

1. Acabo de enviar los primeros tres permisos a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ¿sabes cuanto tiempo suelen tardar en contestar? Si, finalmente los permisos están bien, ¿puedo revertir el borrado de las fotos, no?

2. Por otro lado, han borrado la foto de una persona ya fallecida. Su hijo, propietario de la foto de su padre, me la dió para poder colgarla en Wikipedia. Entiendo que si el hijo emite un permiso para poder utilizar la imagen de su padre, no haría falta conocer el nombre del fotografo, ¿no?

3. El envío del documento a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ¿tiene que hacerlo obligatoriamente la persona que tiene la propiedad, o puedo hacerlo yo, en el caso de que esa persona me haya dado su permiso para utilizar esaimagen en Wikipedia? En el caso de que la pudiera enviar yo, le pondría copia a la persona dueña de la foto para que tubiera constancia fisica del envío de su autorización a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Muchas gracias por todo.--Hard (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Por favor trata estas cosas con OTRS. Ellos pueden restaurar los archivos si el permiso es válido. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File talk:Zeljko Pahek, artist, with signature (2015).jpg

The image is under CC 3.0 license!!!

http://www.usus.org.rs/novosti-2/395-zeljko-pahek-error-data-chronicles-by-a-burnt-out-robot

Why deletion...? The original image source for Commons says explicitly (at the BOTTOM of the page, in English): "Biographies and photos of the authors (unless otherwise noted) are licensed under Creative Commons: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"... It's a standard license for Serbian Association of Comics Creators (USUS, national society) and we, Wikipedia users, never had problems using that source. --Stripar (Diskussion) 13:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is the photographer of the picture? In most cases copyright belongs to the photographer rather than to a website where the picture is found. Verification via OTRS may be needed. Jcb (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Red ribbon.gif

Zou je deze afbeelding terug kunnen zetten? In de beschrijving staat gewoon een valide source (weliswaar is de source afbeelding verwijderd, maar ook in die beschrijving staat een prima source). Daarnaast viel het me op dat je zowel de nominatie/no-source tag toevoegen deed als de verwijdering. Dat lijkt me niet helemaal handig, zeker als er in het bestand gewoon een source vermeld staat.

Ik begrijp dat er veel afbeeldingen zijn zonder source en dat daar dus veel werk aan is en ik waardeer ook zeker de inzet die je toont door die achterstand weg te werken. Ik zou je echter toch willen oproepen om iets voorzichtiger te zijn met het taggen/weggooien van deze afbeeldingen. Als er gewoon het woord source of bron in de beschrijving staat zouden afbeeldingen niet via een no-source weggegooid moeten worden, maar bijv. via een verwijdernominatie omdat de source incorrect is. Het is uiteindelijk toch een stuk mooier als afbeeldingen indien mogelijk behouden kunnen blijven voor gebruik in de encyclopedie? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Het is echt niet zo dat ik een bestand tag omdat de bron in het verkeerde veld staat. In dit geval was er geen bron aanwezig. (Een link naar de plek op onze servers waar het bestand voor het eerst is binnengekomen telt niet als bron.) Ik zie geen basis om het bestand terug te plaatsen. Je kunt natuurlijk altijd een verzoek doen via COM:UDR, maar naar mijn inschatting is dat zonde van je tijd, tenzij je met nieuwe informatie komt. In dit geval hebben we een indicatie nodig dat de afbeelding werkelijk bij United States Department of Health and Human Services vandaan komt. Daar was namelijk de PD-licentie op gebaseerd. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bij het bronbestand (File:Red ribbon.jpg) staat op haar beurt weer een bron http://aidshistory.nih.gov/imgarchive/photo/ribbon.jpg dat is momenteel een dode link. Niet de meest perfecte bron, maar wel een bron en was die destijds gecontroleerd dan was er geen probleem. De eisen zijn door de jaren heen strenger geworden (mbt OTRS toestemming en bronnen controleren). Die strengere eisen met terugwerkende kracht op alle bestanden toepassen zou betekenen dat grote sets volledig valide vrijgegeven bestanden verwijderd zouden moeten worden.

Ik ben een beetje teleurgesteld in het gemak waarmee je veelal volledig valide bestanden lijkt te nomineren (en in dit geval ook zelf verwijderd). In het geval van File:RodeRotshaan.jpg plaatste je wel degelijk een tag terwijl de bron in het beschrijvingsveld aanwezig was. De combinatie van gevallen is wat me tot mijn voorzichtigheidsoproep deed komen. Basvb (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ik zie dat ik in het geval van de roderotshaan de sjablonen door de war had gehaald, wel vraag ik me af of dat geval niet een bredere discussie behoeft omdat die bron algemener een probleem heeft (meerdere auteurs). Zulk soort discussies passen beter in de vorm van een DR dan via een tag naar mijn mening. Via een tag is later lastig te herleiden wat er exact als redenatie is gegeven, via een DR is dat minder een probleem. Basvb (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Met die link kunnen we wel wat, die is nog wel te verifieren. Hiermee kan ik het bestand wel terugzetten. Wat betreft dat andere bestand, zoals je inmiddels op je eigen overlegpagina hebt kunnen lezen heb je daar gewoon de tag verkeerd gelezen. Kan gebeuren, maar ik wil wel graag dat je ophoudt te suggereren dat ik zomaar een beetje loop te taggen. Ik let echt wel op wat ik doe. Natuurlijk kan ik ook wel eens iets over het hoofd zien, maar het beeld dat jij nu schetst is niet eerlijk. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Het beeld dat je "zomaar wat loopt te taggen" is niet het beeld wat ik probeer te schetsen, en die benaming heb ik volgens mij ook niet gebruikt. En de afbeelding red ribbon was erg complex, omdat die linkte naar een reeds verwijderde afbeelding waar dan weer een bron stond. Dus het kan gebeuren dat dat over het hoofd gezien wordt, maar dat aanwijzen is dus ook de voornaamste reden waarom ik hier om terugplaatsing kwam vragen. Ik hoop dat je dit overleg kunt zien als precies dat, overleg. Ik geef geen commentaar omdat ik commentaar wil geven, ik geef commentaar omdat ik denk dat er ruimte is voor verbetering. Basvb (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Zoals op deze pagina te zien is, ben ik altijd bereikbaar voor overleg. Het genoemde beeld is ontstaan doordat je hierboven dit schreef: "Ik ben een beetje teleurgesteld in het gemak waarmee je veelal volledig valide bestanden lijkt te nomineren" - Jcb (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reuploads of deleted images

You may want to review the latest entry on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unsourced Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR which are mostly images you, and Natuur12, have already deleted. Maybe they should be blocked for the type of images as well as reuploading deleted images. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done by Elcobbola - Jcb (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Borrado indiscriminado de imagenes

Hola Jcb, sinceramente me dejas mas que sorprendido al ver que no habeis tenido en cuenta las observaciones de las imágenes en las que aseguro que hay varias fotos que hice yo. No entiendo vuestra política de borrado. Sé que varias de las imágenes que subí no las había realizado yo. Pero tengo que decir a mi favor, que todas ellas me fueron dadas por los propietarios de las mismas con el exclusivo fin de ponerlas en Wiki para mejorar cada uno de los artículos. Nunca con el fin de provocar el mas minimo problema a Wiki Commons. Dicho esto, ¿puedo retrotraer las imagenes que hice yo?. Me parece que es justo y que ya que os habeis tomado tiempo para realizar las comprobaciones, comprobeis que hay una serie de fotos que son mias, y que deberían estar en Wiki. Ya he comenzado a enviar las autorizaciones de las fotos y espero poder enviar todas a lo largo de los próximos meses. Lamento todas las molestias causadas, pero pido que las fotos sacadas por mi puedan regresar a Wiki. Gracias por todo. Un saludo.--159.237.12.82 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Se puede pedir restauración en COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Te lo agradezco Jcb, pero quizás para futuras ocasiones, y para no perder tiempo ni vosotros, ni yo, quizássería conveniente no efectuar un borrado indiscriminado de las imágenes y ver una por una. Quizás es más costoso, pero acabamos ganando tiempo todos. Muchas gracias. Un saludo.--Hard (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Hard, deberías enviar los permisos de todas tus imágenes a OTRS. Si los agentes de OTRS aceptan los permisos correspondientes, te tendrían que pasar el tícket de OTRS aquí con los permisos y después solicitar la restauración en COM:UDR. --サンティ ^[talk] 12:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC).

 Comment Muchas gracias Jcb. Un cordial saludo.--Hard (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo erased

Hi Jcb Why did you erase my photo (Discurso_origens.png)? Did I do something wrong? Now I have replaced it for another, I just cut it on paint but it is also mine. Please tel me if it is not OK and why. I understand the rules of commons and I Whant to make it right. Thanks Arpnunes (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted per this request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Arpnunes - Jcb (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Some Air Line pics

Hi u just deleted File:1974 Air Nauru Fokker Fellowship at Bonriki, GEIC.jpg and File:1974 Air Pacific Heron at Butaritari, GEIC.jpg. But did u check also the permission part where the user on panoramio in the comments section allowed to use the file under CC. So it's techincaly a double license with "All rights reserved" and CC. I don't wont to interfere in your decision and just undelete it.--Sanandros (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If a trusted reviewer marks the review as 'failed' and nominates for speedy deletion, normally the file will be deleted without repeating the review. But in this case the reviewer apparently made a mistake. I have restored the files and marked them as reviewed. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No Problem. The old Problem of not having enough reviewer and admins leads us to work faster unfortunately also to make more mistakes.--Sanandros (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Aino Kishi pics obtained from bing search.jpg

Hi, you deleted File:Aino Kishi pics obtained from bing search.jpg for (Copyright violation: Sourced from http://www.generasia.com/ Copyright © 2016 generasia All Rights Reserved.) But, I could confirm that the image had CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Please visit http://www.generasia.com/wiki/File:kishi_aino.jpg and read the terms at the bottom.--Raynor999 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

At that site, the picture seems to be a violation as well. See the copyright notice in the picture itself. This should go via OTRS - Jcb (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Tomasz Sakiewicz.JPG

I am confused about deletion of File:Tomasz Sakiewicz.JPG. The source video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHh5RFf1cIs is tagged as CC-BY-3.0 and the uploader used {{YouTube CC-BY}} to indicate that. What is the issue? --Jarekt (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for your message. I restored the file. Jcb (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:MartinSchancheMisterRallycross.jpg

Sorry, maar kan het niet nog sneller? Ik was nog bezig met die medewerker die de Deletion Request voor mijn file gemaakt had, toen had jij die al deleted. Men moet toch de uploader iets aan tijd geven zelf te reageren, of niet? RX-Guru (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nee, copyvio spoelen we meteen door het putje. Als je het er niet mee eens bent, dan kun je terugplaatsing aanvragen via COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Het was MIJN eigen werk, geen copyright misbruik. Tekst en foto zijn door mij destijds gemaakt. Dat had ik ook al op de disc pagina verklaard. RX-Guru (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Zoals gezegd, ga naar COM:UDR. Daar zullen ze je hoogstwaarschijnlijk doorverwijzen naar COM:OTRS - Jcb (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darryl Glenn Official Photo.jpg

I'm new at this, so I wouldn't be surprised if I uploaded this incorrectly.

Should I have uploaded it to Wikipedia instead of Commons?

The photo was sent to me by the Darryl Glenn campaign, who told me it was free of copyright.

How should I have done this?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikWiki0 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of permission should be sent to OTRS. Please be aware that a proper permission will have to come from the photographer. A 'campaign' does not typically operate a camera. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andriy Melnyk grave.jpg

Hi. Can you explain me why you kept this file (File:Andriy Melnyk grave.jpg)?--Andriy.v (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to see above TOO - Jcb (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Albany Vietnam Veteran Memorial

Hi, this is a file that I added but was deleted because I did not have permission from the artist/creator. I have tracked them down, they are deceased. Is this enough to bring the image back, and what proof do I need to provide? Thanks, Drbones1950 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If the author has died, his legal heirs are the new copyright holders. They can send their permission to OTRS - Jcb (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DEU Rothenstadt COA.svg

Hello Jcb, please revalidate your decision. I know you made a good and important job in administrative maintenance. In fact every file need a source, but sometimes there are small exceptions, for example on PD-COA. In the DR was a reference for the file so your decision was invalid. I strongly hope you be not induced personally by the user (or me?). Regards ↔ User: Perhelion 21:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You removed the {no source} tag twice, both times without adding proper sourcing. The first time the (obsolate) regular DR was not even there. It's important that you do not remove problem tags without solving the problem. The first time your edit even removed the file from all problem categories, still unsourced. I have compared the logo in the source link to the deleted file and I concluded that they are not the same. So the deleted depiction of the COA is still unsourced. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, maybe this is the "right" answer to this, but than you have to delete many COAs (but this should not be a reason against rules, the next self-nominating[11])

As admin, unfortunately your explanation and statement is very inconsistent. A remove of a {no source} tag is correct if it is replaced by a DR for this reason. On the other hand, German COA are PD so there is high probably no source for license needed!? The given reference shows clear the same COA not a logo!! Sorry but if this is your view you handle clear unobjectively and/or personally.[12] I strongly hope that is not you last word to this. Goodbye and good night PS: I'm sorry for removing the first no-source-tag, if it was that wrong. I never seen deleted an COA for this reason before. ↔ User: Perhelion 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The first removal attracted my attention. I don't want to need to put every file I tag on my watchlist, so you should never have done that. A 'no source' tag can be converted into a regular DR, typically with an explanation of the conversion, but that's not what happened here. A redundant DR was added. Then you removed the tag for the second time. By then it should have been very clear to you that you were disturbing the process. To stop this, I have removed the file. Anyway, it's still an unsourced version of the logo. The color and the border are both different. The license can only be applied to an official government version. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You're really strict, but it is more like quibbling. Adding or converting, the differnce really don't matter. I've given a comment on removing the tag direct to the DR, it makes also really no sense to add an additional DR for removing the tag!?! For me it is now clear what I've suspected beforehand. I did not want to embarrass you. but you show no insight. The file will be 100% restored. ↔ User: Perhelion 22:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Standing Rock Territory Dakota Access Pipeline.jpg

You deleted my photo under claims of copyright.

Please explain.

I provided a link to Google's copyright rules for Google Earth, which you claimed was false. Here is a link with a descriptions directly from Wikipedia regarding Google's Copyright rules.

Copyright Every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides. Google allows non-commercial personal use of the images (e.g. on a personal website or blog) as long as copyrights and attributions are preserved.[104] By contrast, images created with NASA's globe software World Wind use The Blue Marble, Landsat or USGS layer, each of which is a terrain layer in the public domain. Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation. This means that those images can be freely modified, redistributed and used for commercial purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc9949 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Google explains where to go if you want a Public Domain map, but they are not NASA or USGS. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

--Okay, Thanks for the clarification. I though Earth was considered public domain. Do you know where I can make the same map using public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc9949 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

---Is this acceptable? It's from USGS.

Location of the Standing Rock Staging Area

Jc9949 (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, USGS is fine. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photos by user Pavel Otdelnov

Dear Jcb, you have deleted my 23 pictures:

1. File:56.2354828 43.5809789 (Белое море).jpg
2. File:Конструкция.jpg
3. File:Кокс.jpg
4. File:Завод. Лето.jpg
5. File:Домна. Рассвет.jpg
6. File:Переход. 2012.jpg
7. File:Пейзаж за стеклом. 2012.jpg
8. File:Игра. 2013.jpg
9. File:П-44. 2014.jpg
10. File:Окраина. 2014.jpg
11. File:Автопортрет в лифте. 2014.jpg
12. File:Стоунхендж. 2013.jpg
13. File:Ковчег. 2014.jpg
14. File:Автосервис. 2014.jpg
15. File:Сегодня рейсов нет. 2015.jpg
16. File:Полоскание. 2013.jpg
17. File:ТЦ. Инсталляция. 2015.jpg
18. File:Self portrait. 2015.jpg
19. File:ТЦ. LEGO. 2015.jpg
20. File:ТЦ ю №5.jpg
21. File:ТЦ. №10.jpg
22. File:Shopping mall.jpg
23. File:Pavel Otdelnov. Glory to Labour.jpg

The pictures were nominated to delete at 20th of September, 2016. The same day I wrote letter to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org): "I hereby affirm that I, Pavel Otdelnov, the creator and of both the work depicted and the media as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Павел_Отдельнов&ilshowall=1 I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Pavel Otdelnov September, 20, 2016"

I sent the letter from my mailbox: pavelotdelnov@yandex.ru My ticket number is: #2016092010021894 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Павел Отдельнов (talk • contribs) 11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC) The same pictures you have deleted and the same mailbox you can see on my own website: http://otdelnov.com/en Please, check carefully and get my pictures back.

Sincerely yours, Pavel Otdelnov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Павел Отдельнов (talk • contribs) 08:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The files can be restored if the OTRS agent finds the permission valid, but this may take some time, because OTRS has a backlog. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that before deleting you as a administrator and member of OTRS team should check the author's name in the list of queries. This is a matter of one minute. I know Pavel Otdelnov and I asked him to write a letter to the OTRS. And now I look like a jerk, because it did not help. And now the article in ruwiki (and in enwiki too) has lost illustrations. Finally, Pavel told you the ticket number - you could (you have to) fix this situation. Instead, you offer to wait. --Gruznov (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, everybody has to what for his turn, you cannot jump the queue via the user talk page of an individual OTRS agent. (Anyhow, I am not going to process a ticket in Russian) - Jcb (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jcb! What's happening with checking out my files? Two weeks passed by, but I'm still waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Павел Отдельнов (talk • contribs) 13:26, 03 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know and I'm not gonna check. Please just wait patiently. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

:File:L76ex.gif

Hello,

In the Commons:Deletion requests/old Rennes transport symbols I forgot the file File:L76ex.gif in the list, could you delete the file ? Thanks. --Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you / Merci :) Cdlt, Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Palestine and Palestinian territories

Hello . Can you Merging these Categories . Category:People of Palestine and Category:People of the Palestinian territories --بدارين-bdareen (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Jcb (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of File:Thomas-sowell.png

I'm committed to following copyright laws, but was chagrined to find that the picture was deleted with, for all intents and purposes, no notice. I added it at least two months ago, and I remember spending some time to find an image free from copyright. But now it is gone, and I don't remember where I got it -- should I at least have gotten a chance to double check your analysis? The edit log has "(Copyright violation: The purported source is an extract from the below source, which is licensed under "Standard YouTube License", thus unusable on Commons.)" Is there any way I can check that, now? Any vestige of the old file left? Klortho (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The link User:Inops provided with his deletion nomination was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvYqaxSPp4 - Jcb (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The video you found was an incorrectly licensed YouTube video. The clip is an extract from the above video from the Hoover Institution which is under the "Standard YouTube License". Perhaps you could contact the Hoover Institution for a free-as-in-freedom image of Dr Sowell -- he works there and has appeared a few times in their "Uncommon Knowledge" TV series. If you can get a hold of the right person, I can't imagine they would object to releasing a still from one of their clips. The process is usually a bit cumbersome though.

User:Jcb probably knows the process better than I do. --Inops (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiangong 2

" license does not apply". You deleted an image from CNSA with this statement. This is not enough. I'd like to know why "licence does not apply" here [13] and "applies" there.[14] MachoCarioca (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you see my name here, you can ask me that question. When dealing with a DR, you cannot expect me to compare the file to every single other file on our servers. Jcb (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So, as I see it you deleted the image for a POV not a rule. The question is simple and straight: why "licence does not apply" here [15]. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The file was licensed as {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, but there was not sufficient explanation for that license to apply. Jcb (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Bartłomiej Misiewicz (2014).JPG

Jcb, It happen again. You deleted File:Bartłomiej Misiewicz (2014).JPG with source "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-txwsWCdm0s (ca. 25:00 min)". The source page is tagged as CC-BY-3.0. The file used license template {{YouTube CC-BY}}. Everything seems fine to me. What goes wrong? --Jarekt (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, I do not understand why I didn't see this. The difference with a normal CC license template is clear enough. I will check my computer to see if there may be some caching problem. Last days I have been experiencing incomplete views from other websites as well. Jcb (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No source tags

You should not restore no source tags in cases like this or this. If you disagree with them you should start a standard deletion request, not (re)tag them as lacking source when a source was actually present. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You can convert them into a regular DR, but you are not allowed to remove them without providing an adequat source. Jcb (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In the cases I edited the sources were present but badly formatted in the information template, eg. originally indicated in the description field. I have not reverted anything without indicating the source... if the source was adequate or not (in several cases probably inadequate), is not material for a DR discussion? Am I wrong? --Cavarrone (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If I tag a file as {no source}, of course I have looked for source information at the image description page. If there is insufficient source information to establish a valid copyright situation, then a {no source} tag will be added. One more thing, it seems today you somehow decided that my edits have to be systematically checked by you. We call that stalking. Stop that. And to be honest, you created quite a mess behind me. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, nothing personal and I apprecciate your work. I just had the impression you "missed" in good faith such misplaced informations. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

.... and indeed a few of your "missing source" tags were eventually incorrect/fixable, eg. File:Romaore11 fotoscena.jpg. Could you reconsider File:Passengers boarding a train at Union Station in Regina, Saskatchewan, circa 1915.jpg? Source seems quite accurate to me, it is also verifiable in the Regina official website (regina.ca): [16] --Cavarrone (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Same for File:Rudolph W. Riefkohl.jpg, source seems quite accurate and detailed, isn't it? --Cavarrone (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The first has not source that supports publication (not creation) before 1923, which is necessary for the license. The second has no source with which we can verify that the US goverment is the source. The current source information is too vague to establisch a copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File talk:Parole-0.2.0.2-de.png

Adding {{Kept}} to a discussion page that already has the template for the same deletion request is not helpful. Special:Diff/206526570 and Special:Diff/208137917. 80.221.159.67 04:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's done by a script when I remove the nomination template from the file description page itself. Apparently the first message was placed manually, without removing the nomination template. These things may occur occasionally if people try to interfere manually with the procedures. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sock of recently blocked user

Jcb, you blocked Soshuvo yesterday for repeated copyright violations. They're returned as Saniasliza doing the same thing (and linking the same article on the English Wikipedia to those images). Would you mind reviewing and handling as needed? Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Jcb (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Do you mind if/when the next one pops up I let you know about them? They haven't communicated at all on en, despite several requests and seem very resistant to change / unwilling to learn. There's a language barrier, but the Bangladesh wikiproject also tried to communicate and didn't get much. Ravensfire (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Revise deletion decision?

Hi Jcb- you closed this deletion request because it was in use. That's an easy thing to fix, I didn't know that was a problem. I changed the image used, can you revise the request, or do I need to resubmit? Tedder (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please make sure a file is not in use before you do such a nomination in the future. Admins have sufficient workload without such cases. Jcb (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know the process for dupes. Will do. Tedder (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

BayerFull-Koncertowo-Plakat-002.jpg

few seconds to find Miesiąc (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and you, as nominator, are the one to spend those few seconds. Jcb (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam Football League uploads

Hi Jcb. I noticed that you deleted some files uploaded by Vietnam Football League as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vietnam Football League. The same editor has uploaded quite a number of files over the past few days as own work, but all of them seem to copyrighted photos of soccer stadiums or fair use logos. I've tagged two with {{Npd}} and one with {{Speedy delete}}, but I'm wondering if there's a way to take care of all of the files at once. I know you can nominate multiple files for deletion, but not sure if that applies here since they all seems to be candidates for speedy deletion. Would you mind taking a look at these uploads when you get some time?

Finally, there is also the issue of the editors username. Something such as that is not really allowed on English Wikipedia, but Commons seems to be a little more lenient when it comes to promotional/organization names being used. Does Commons have anything like en:Template:uw-username for advising editors that their username might be inappropriate?

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For mass nominations (speedy or regular DR), you can use VisualFileChange. See Help:VisualFileChange.js - Jcb (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Jcb. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Images produced with non-free software

Hi Jcb, could you explain more on this deletion. What do you mean by "the software generated the image"? It is me how generated the image, using open data as a source and using the software as a tool. What is the difference with creating images using other non-free software (e.g. from Adobe Illustrator as I stated earlier)? The software is just a tool, if I used QGIS (an open-source software), no one would notice the difference. Your deletion does not line up with the Wikimedia Commons rules. It's not a screenshot, nothing of the software is visible. This image was by definition "a work created using non-free software" and the guideline says: "this does not prevent you from uploading works created using non-free software". Please explain. Wormke-Grutman (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The source of the data was not indicated at the image description page. The only description you added was 'Digitaal terreinmodel van de Vlaamse Ardennen (aangemaakt met ArcGIS software)'. If the underlying base map comes from a valid free source, you can tell so at COM:UDR and request undeletion there. Jcb (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

About Deletion of Photos Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 Heritage Walk Team

[17] On this page you just deleted the photographs taken by Arjun K Mohan. That was very sad. Those photos are the only documentation from kerala team who participated Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 [18]. I already explained the reason for the bad description and title. Arjun K Mohan is not an experienced photographer or Commons user. You just deleted them - we have no documents to prove our Hertaige walk. We had taken nearly 300 photos of various historic monuments in Kerala. Sadly we fogot to take photographs of the team. Only these photos left. You just deleted that. Lot of unwanted selfies are flying on commons and photos which are required for documentations are get deleted. Feeling very sad after contributing lot of photos to commons. --Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think the files should be restored, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR. Please be aware that we are deleting lots of 'unwanted selfies' as well. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is much more helpfull if you check the pages and descriptions before executing the real deletion. And I think that is better than going to UD and put a request to get those files back. OK you are deleting a lot of selfies and I understand the volume of deletion requests and out of scope files. But checking the linked pages and Details of files are much more important than just doing a delete. Somebody put a UD request for these files. For me it is just deleted. And in future I resist to put the group photos of events. It is better to be wikinome than be on the screen.--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 14:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)