User talk:Jcb/archive/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Omar Al Zabir[edit]

Brother, Omar Al Zabir photo. Copy to Omar Al Zabir blog.so it is free © .so this photo return The Wikimedia. Thank you brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Mazid Islam (talk • contribs) 09:39, 01 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files from a blog are normally subject to copyright. If you think the file should be restored, you may ask undeletion at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exemple.jpg[edit]

Hello,

You have recently deleted File:Exemple.jpg as a copyright violation. While I agree with the principle of the deletion, this image was very widely used as an example, and could have been easily replaced to avoid broken links by another version of a similar image. Since I do not have access to the old file, could you perhaps help by cropping and compressing File:Tournesol JPG01.jpg, to get a file of a weight, height and width similar to the old exemple.jpg ?

Thank you for your attention, Best regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ask in the help desk? Image editing is not my core business. Jcb (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore portait of "Claudia Erdheim"[edit]

Image: Warszawa_2016-04-14_-_Claudia_Erdheim_by_Adam_Erdheim.jpg

was given under ccby30 IMNSVHumble opinion, by her cousin ADAM_ERDHEIM. If such did not arrive 'correctly', PLEASE_contact the author. There was NO_REAL_REASON to remove THAT portrait which I uploaded in favour of Adam&Claudia_!!! Best, [w.] 10:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a valid permission arrives, the OTRS agent will take care of undeletion. Please be aware that OTRS has a backlog. Jcb (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do agree. IMO _SUCH_VALID_Permission_ was posted, a while ago. [w.] 21:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fwd: [Ticket#2016062010008281] Confirmation of receipt (Re: CC permission)
HOW_about THIsONE_??? [w.] 22:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please stop bothering me about this at my user talk page? Jcb (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NO, NOT_AT_ALL, beloved com'rade:

You removed the CORRECT upload of an image for which a correct OTRS-Ticket EXISTED at that time! That thatone ticket:2016062010008281 was not applied to the file "in_time", is not _at_all my fault. PLEASE_REPAIR_!!! See, e.g., https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete?page=File%3AWarszawa_2016-04-14_-_Claudia_Erdheim_by_Adam_Erdheim.jpg [w.] 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deine Änderugen gestern bei den Kirchner beildern[edit]

Wieso nimmst du mir das Replcmet raus, ohne zu verschieben? Der von der Kamera vegebene Dateiname ist als Titel ist wirklich nicht brauchbar. --Bobo11 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Could you give me a link to an involved file? Jcb (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:1K4A4112-b.jpg‎ File:1K4A4112-b Kopie.tif
I see. The issue is that the code you pasted has no effect at all. To get a file renamed, you should use {{Rename}}, not {{Universal replace}}. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tambo's block[edit]

Hello, Tambo knows very little English and asked me to help. What he added was the source "Gazdasági Tükörkép Magazin", the OTRS # "2010032610020682" and in the edit summary he cited hu:Vita:M4-es metróvonal where this OTRS # is mentioned as

A GTM Kiadói Kft birtokában lévő, a Gazdasági Tükörkép Magazinban, illetve Mélyépítő Tükörkép Magazinban megjelent szövegekre és képekre

meaning "for texts and images in possession of GTM Kiadói Kft [= GTM Publishing Limited Liability Company], published in Gazdasági Tükörkép Magazin or in Mélyépítő Tükörkép Magazin". I have no access to OTRS but I wonder: according to your edit summary "ticket does not mention this file" but it should mention Gazdasági Tükörkép Magazin. Moreover, though it is a different matter, this may be an old map in public domain, whether the former magazine published it or not (and a better version may be available, I saw that book covers use it). So my impression is that Tambo should be explained copyright rules for images published in magazines, and maybe also how to find better versions, but did not try to fraud. Oliv0 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the ticket might apply could be checked by a Hungarian OTRS agent, but a non OTRS agents may never tag a file as verified by OTRS. Doing so will lead to a warning, doing so again after the warning (as happened here) will lead to a long block. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he did not understand your warning in English and tried to answer in the edit summary while undoing your removal. Now I told him he should always use Template:OTRS pending with the OTRS # as a HTML comment. Oliv0 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked him. I hope he understands your explanation so that this won't happen again. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I tell him about this. Oliv0 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potenza - servizio ferroviario metropolitano - schema stazioni.svg[edit]

Scusami, perché hai cancellato questo file, che era quello corretto? Cfr. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linea1.pdf‎.--Arbalete (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently something went wrong. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--Arbalete (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" images[edit]

I see that you are still tagging images of US military emblems as "unsourced", when there is a source on the page. You should be aware by now that these deletions are contraversial and should be listed as articles for deletion, not deleted automatically without notice. I am sure there are more, but the most recent I have come across is [[File:466th Bombardment Group - Emblem.png]]. Even a brief look at this page shows that the source is listed as "Source= Mauer, Mauer (1969), Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II, Air Force Historical Studies Office, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. ISBN 0892010975". I believe it is your responsibility if you are not publicly posting these deletions to ensure that there is not a source listed, whether it is in the correct location or not. I presume you are working through a generated list that does not search the entire page for a source. Similarly, [[File:446 CES.jpg]] lists " Source: 446 AW/PA" (Although you may not be familiar with US military abbreviations, this identifies the source as the Public Affairs office of the 446th Airlift Wing and would be familiar to those likely to be looking for or using this image).

On the other hand, I do not oppose deletion of [[File:466th Bombardment Group - Emblem.png]] for another reason. The image does not exist in the source listed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, texts like '446 AW/PA' cannot be used as a valid source. Such a text can be placed by anybody and cannot be verified. Every year we have to delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/logos. The government PD license is only valid if the emblem can be verified to be created by a federal government organization. A hobby creation with such a license would be a copyright violation. I have seen some discussions about this subject in the past weeks and I see that several experienced colleague administrators agree with my nominations and, while fully aware of those discussions, delete those files anyway. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse question[edit]

May want to take a look at this thread and see if you can offer any insight. The user seems (?) to be making a good faith effort to comply with policy, but seeing as how the photos were deleted prior to the post, I'm not sure anyone otherwise univolved over at the teahouse are going to be very much help in shedding light on the issue. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strange picture...[edit]

Hello Jcb.

Looking at some pictures that were not categorised I found something strange. At Jan. 20th 2016 a new user uploaded File:Len_Wicks.jpg, saying he took the picture. 4 days later a different new user uploaded File:Armine Hakobyan and Len Wicks.jpg, stating not he took the picture, but *This image was taken by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff member using my camera*. The same picture in much better resolution. There are no hits at google images exept commons/wp. What to do, how to do it?

All the best and thanks, --Druschba 4 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The smaller one has no EXIF. The uploader may be the depicted Armine and may have received the picture as a thumbnail by email. I have deleted it as an inferior duplicate. I tagged the other file with 'no permission', so that permission from the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff member" may be sent to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. --Druschba 4 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diversity of plants image version 3.png[edit]

Just FYI:

If anyone would like to upload File:Diversity of plants image version 3.png and use as fair use, I have done so at v:File:Diversity of plants.jpg.

We also can (sometimes) import files from Commons that have been deleted if the deleter is willing to make the file visible for a short time. Let me know if you are okay with this and the next image that you've deleted being used in one of my resources, I'll contact you to have the image briefly visible so that I can import it to Wikiversity. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a file to be temporary restored, please request at COM:UDR - Jcb (talk)

Soshuvo[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, but Shoshuvo uploaded the same image deleted before, saying it's their work. Zero response to any messages or warnings here or on en. Thanks. 00:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 00:46, 07 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been dealt with by INeverCry in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice[edit]

Despite closed as "deleted" at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Afarin 1342.jpg, the file is still alive? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the log, the file was restored by INeverCry after an UDEL request. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-08#File:Karte_Afarin_1342.jpg. lNeverCry 22:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need help understanding[edit]

I'm the Wikipedian in Residence at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Fort Worth and have helped with edit-a-thons there. An editor worked on an article about Anthony Hernandez, a photographer who had an exhibition at the museum, and included a number of photos housed here at Commons. Those photos have almost all been taken down with the explanation "No OTRS permission for 30 days". One example is File:Aliso Village - 3 2000.jpg. I've been asked to try to figure out what happened, but I'm not an admin so I can't look at the deleted pages to see what happened. My guess is that there was some doubt that the uploader had the right to do so and grant the "CC-BY-SA-4.0 self" permission (I got that they did that much from the OgreBot uploads page; BTW what does "self" mean that context?), and someone told the uploader that they needed to submit clarification through OTRS and they either didn't or didn't post the OTRS pending template on the image pages. But I'm not sure nor am I sure, even if I'm right, just how the need for OTRS clarification would have been communicated to the uploader. The folks here at the museum want to help the uploader get the images back up and, if the issue is getting the right authorization from the photographer to the uploader to send to OTRS, to help them do that. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We received something at OTRS, but we had some additional questions, so my colleague sent a response with those questions on 7 August, but we never received an answer. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll pass that on and see what I can shake loose. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty delations[edit]

Dear Jcb,

I do not understand why you have deleted the files as follows

  • ‎(Missing source as of 30 September 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.)
  • ‎(Missing source as of 30 September 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.)
  • ‎(Missing source as of 30 September 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.)

and I do not understand the motivation "Missing source". I have completed the claim for putting in the lacking sources, and an e-mail has been being processed in progress which has been sent by the copyright holder, Mr. Pál Fischer who has already sent the permission in early August. I think your decision was a little bit hasty and ain't prudent. I know the files can be restored easily, so I would like to ask you for restoring these files without delay or tell me why the task (sourses) are not completed yet, that is, what is missing and I will do it immediately. If you do not fullfill my claim, I will put this problem to Administrators' noticeboard. I hope my claim is not impractical and as the old Romans say: to err is human. Thank you for your kind attention. Best regards Borgatya (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the OTRS procedure is completed, the files will be restored by the involved OTRS agent. Please be aware that we have quite a backlog at OTRS. We are all volunteers and we are very few, handling an enormous stream of incoming messages. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I have completed the claim and have put the missing sources but nonetheless, you have deleted them. It is not used to delete the files before finishing the processure. I hope you will restore them soon.Borgatya (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WLYB FM Logo Deletion[edit]

The current logo for WLYB FM on WIKIPEDIA is obsolete. I am the copyright owner and don't know how to make the changes. I uploaded the new logo and it was deemed a copyright infringement. Here is another copy of the correct logo via link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLYB (talk • contribs) 17:26, 09 October 2016 (UTC) https://www.google.com/search?q=wlyb+fm&biw=1024&bih=646&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA6oSDns7PAhXGJCYKHSqjC4IQ_AUICSgE#imgrc=lVj5z5HjKtPWpM%3A[reply]

--WLYB (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore these images[edit]

Since September 15th you have deleted the following images without permitting an opportunity for discussion. In each case, the page was loaded to commons by a bot, not by a human and your stated reason was that the images did not have a source. You have given this reason in the past for images that were sourced, and these images should be examined by others to see if they indeed have no source. If you believe they should be deleted, please restore them and list them in Commons:Deletion requests. Thank you

File:377 MDSS.jpg
File:377 LRS.jpg
File:377 CPTS.jpg
File:377 AMDS.jpg
File:37 TRG.jpg
File:37 SFS.jpg
File:37 OSS.jpg
File:37 MSS.jpg
File:37 LRS.jpg
File:37 CS.jpg
File:37 CPTS.jpg
File:37 CONS.jpg
File:36tfw-emblem.jpg
File:363rdaew.jpg
File:356th Tactical Fighter Squadron - Emblem.jpg
File:355tfw-takhli.jpg
File:354MSG.jpg
File:353d Tactical Fighter Squadron - Emblem.jpg
File:353cts.jpg
File:343rdwing-alaska.jpg
File:343 TRS.jpg
File:342 TRS.jpg
File:341 TRS.jpg
File:337 AS.jpg
File:33 OSS.jpg
File:33 MOS.jpg
File:33 FTS.jpg
File:325 SVS.jpg
File:325 SFS.jpg
File:325 MSS.jpg
File:325 MSG.jpg
File:325 MOS.jpg
File:325 MDSS.jpg
File:325 MDOS.jpg
File:325 CONS.jpg
File:325 ADS.jpg
File:325 ACS.jpg
File:324 TRS.jpg
File:323 TRS.jpg
File:321st Missile Wing.png
File:321 TRS.jpg
File:32 FTS.jpg
File:318 TRS.jpg
File:317 AS.jpg
File:315thtaw.jpg
File:315thsow.jpg

-(message without signature by Lineagegeek (talk · contribs))

Request declined for obvious reasons. Correct procedures have been followed and valid sourcing has been missing. This has been discussed before at several places, no need to keep repeating the discussion everywhere. Jcb (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it is not even true that I deleted all those files, some where deleted by other experienced admins for the same reason. Jcb (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has been discussed before, and you continue to fail to notify anyone. These images were transferred by a bot from en:wikipedia and notification of a bot does not IMO provide notification to anyone when the images are not posted on Commons:Deletion requests. In similar cases, your unfamiliarity with USAF standard abbreviations has resulted in the deletion of sourced images. I cannot see why you do not want your removals reviewed by another editor. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The files listed above have been deleted by three of the most experienced administrators of this project, all of them fully aware of the discussions. You have been told before that your artificial source cannot be verified and is invalid. Now make sure you do not remove any more problem tags from now on. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jcb, I just noticed you deleted the above files again. I was in the process of fixing the sourcing on those, would you mind restoring the files again. They are also located here. User:Reguyla/sandbox. Also, just FYI, most of those units can be sourced here. It's just a matter of matching the URL to the file. Reguyla (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, granting 48 hours to fix problem. Please drop me a note if you need more time. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll let you know tomorrow whats left. I think I found most of them I can already but I'll double check tomorrow when I'm a little more alert. Reguyla (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was talking with Revent about File:315thtaw.jpg, so he deleted that one. Just wanted to let you know so you don't think it needs to be restored again. Reguyla (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found all I am going to find at this point. There may be a source out there somewhere but at this point I feel like we have done our due diligence. Plus I found several we didn't already have so I will be working to upload those as well. Reguyla (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the efforts, you saved at least several files. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests[edit]

There's not much of a point in deleting my comments if you don't actually address them. (Also, there's nothing saying that I can't write additional comments outside of the discussion box.) Happy editing, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a DR page after closures causes problems with the archive bot. Jcb (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay then. I'll renominate the files after fixing any potential usage problems. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wine.com Image[edit]

Hi - Trying to get the logo on the wine.com page updated to reflect the new company logo that was introduced in 2015. I had uploaded the new version of the logo but you removed it - so can you please help me learn how I can correctly upload the correct logo? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyWojtczak (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kérés[edit]

Megkérlek, ne zárd le kétszer ugyanazt a törlési megbeszélést. Ez így a jogoddal való visszaélés. Éppen azért indítottam második jelölést, hogy más adminisztrátor intézkedjen. Nem hiszem, hogy csak az lehet érvényes, amit te gondolsz. Kérlek, vegyél vissza a despotizmusból. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugyanez érvényes mindkét törlési megbeszélésre. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, és ha nem értesz a magyar joghoz, akkor legyél szíves olyanra hagyni az eljárást, aki ért hozzá. Ne kontárkodj bele olyanba, amihez nem értesz. Nem szégyen valamihez nem érteni. Nem lesz tőle semmi bajod, ha ezt belátod. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Je hebt zelf lopen prutsen met die nominaties, waardoor niet te zien was dat daar al eerdere aan vooraf waren gegaan. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiába válaszolsz nekem hollandul. Magyar vagyok, magyarul írtam. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File redirects to the Main Page[edit]

I noticed several of these. Is there a purpose for this? It is confusing to me. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link to such a redirect? In the far past I have created some to prevent recreation of a file name. Nowadays that's not needed anymore, because we can simply protect for recreation. Recently I have created some, because a bug caused some file pages to pollute the 'broken redirect' maintenance list. Jcb (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered quite a few such as this. It was created as a redirect on 22 August 2016 by you. There were 3 deleted revisions as well, one from the original creator which failed to upload media, another marking it as a potential license issue. No media was ever uploaded so I do not understand why the page exists. I am curious if it is a broken script or some other code on your end. Another such file is [1] with considerably more revisions which you restored after my deletion. I do not care if it is restored or deletion, I simply want to understand whats happening. These two cases show under Special:DoubleRedirects which is why I am highlighting them.
I also observed a considerable noise of redirects being deleted, I restored some a while back ago then got distracted. I would strongly oppose deletion of file redirects that are generated after file moves unless the original filename is offensive or otherwise problematic (which would be the exception).
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Now, that's weird. If I create them, they disappear from Special:BrokenRedirects, but then they appear at Special:DoubleRedirects? Seems like the maintenance reports are making fun of us. Something goes wrong in the system. We may have to report this to the technical staff, so that they can fix the bug. Jcb (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced transfers from English Wikipedia[edit]

Feel free to speedy these without needing to notify me. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try, but you may still receive some notifications, because they are sent by a script. Jcb (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of old non-free revisions[edit]

Hey, we had a user replace two free images with completely different copyvio images (File:The Club.jpg and File:Karl Anderson & Luke Gallows.jpg). I've reverted the changes, but the older non-free revisions are in need of a deletion. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 15:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:IrmgardSedler.jpg[edit]

Could you explain your deletion of this file to me? It even had a OTRS recieved tag with the ticket number of a valid OTRS ticket (which I didn't process as I'm involved in this case). --Didym (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is probably invalid, because it comes from the depicted person rather than from the photographer. It's not good that the German backlog exceeds the 30 days period files with an OTRS received tag stay online, but that does not change the length of that period. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read that ticket? Also, usual practice is to reset the date of the OTRS recieved tag (not the OTRS pending tag, those files are mostly copyright violations indeed) after checking the ticket, not just deleting the file. The 30 days period is for files with invalid or incomplete tickets, not for unprocessed tickets.--Didym (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the ticket before I deleted the file. I often reset the timer for unprocessed tickets, but that's not needed. The file can be undeleted if a valid permission is established. And I don't want to spend more time on this. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fukuyama[edit]

Could you explain why all these files has been deleted? All of them has been uploaded from Flickr. You deleted them even without checking the source?--Алый Король (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They seem all derived from a video with unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What video? Did you open Flickr? Do you know how to open the website? If so, do you know what is EXIF? Have you ever heard about it? EXIF is very useful if you cannot differ video and photo. Restore photos, I don't have time even to make laugh on you. --Алый Король (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 The uploads are from the Flickrstream of the production company. The videos are on the official website and the Flickrstream is linked from the official website. The deletion makes no sense and Алый Король is right to be seriously concerned for whether sysop powers are being used competently. Please do some research, then provide a legally meaningful explanation. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

303 BG[edit]

You seem to have nominated this for deletion twice in a few weeks. It's been kept twice. I suggest you cease this now. PumpkinSky talk 12:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windpark Gries 2016.jpg[edit]

Hi, according to your user page you dont understand German, so how could you follow the statements of the discussion page? I took the picture myself. --Kla4 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My user page states basic knowledge of German. I am perfectly able to read German, like most Dutch people. I have read everything, I have compaired your upload to what could be found online and I have concluded that I have sufficient doubt about your statement to delete the file. Jcb (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. And did you realize that my uploaded image has more content on the upper border than the press image? So it cannot come from the press image. And I stated that there were several people present when the rotor was deliverd, taking photos. --Kla4 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I read everything. The file you uploaded obviously originates from the same picture as the version visible on several news sites. Jcb (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. But is difficult to argue with an idiot. --Kla4 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more such personal attack and you will find yourself blocked. Jcb (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, asshole. --Kla4 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably have poked someone uninvolved to hit the button, though can't really argue with the block reason. Reventtalk 20:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Begging_women_Muenster.jpg[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bettlerin_an_einer_Kirche,_Begging_women_Muenster.jpg]]

Why deleted? The person agreed to the photo. --Usien Max (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it irresponsible to keep a picture depicting a person recognizable in such a situation. Jcb (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right on image. She was paid for it. The predicament is assumed by you. Where is in the policies of Wikipedia or Commons that the image must be deleted.--Usien Max (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Defamation - Jcb (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:EL BANANERO.jpg[edit]

Hola amigo, veo que en no se ha basado en la lógica para borrar dicha fotografía, sino simplemente en la petición de alguien que no le agradó la fotografía y por ello la borró. Yo aporté con mi argumento mostrando fuentes que acreditan quien es el personaje y su humor validando el uso de la imagen como ilustración del mismo en la discusión de borrado. Así que le pido encarecidamente que restaure la fotografía ya que no se llegó al argumento válido para su borrado.--LocoWiki (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No es que cada uno quien se ve en internet debe figurar en un artículo en Wikipedia. En el momento de borrado, todavía no existió un artículo establecido en Wikipedia sobre usted. Jcb (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lo que quieres decir es que si tuviera el artículo ya creado no se borrabas la imagen? qué sentido tiene? aunque tenga o no artículo propio, puede estar mencionado en un anexo o en una lista de celebridades de internet como ya existen, solo es de agregarlo con las referencias correspondientes, la foto seguiría ilustrando a la celebridad de internet, entonces no le veo la lógica del porqué borrar la fotografía? además que soy yo quien la está donando pues soy el autor.--LocoWiki (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si una imagen está en uso en un artículo (o anexo) en Wikipedia, ya no lo borramos como 'out of scope', porque el uso en una prueba que es posible usarlo. Jcb (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Entonces quieres decir que si le creo el artículo deberías restaurar la fotografía para que sea utilizada en el mismo? porque esa esa sería la lógica que me estás implementando.--LocoWiki (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Por ejemplo aquí podría incluso reposar la fotografía ya que es un personaje conocido realizando este gesto.--LocoWiki (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madhusudhanduttatomb.jpg[edit]

Hi, I nominated this file for copyright violation yesterday. but I have noticed that was a wrong decision by me. This photo was clicked and uploaded in Commons by User:Jayantanth 8 years ago, but used in other websites without giving proper attribution, so I got confused and nominated for deletion. I am really sorry for this unintentional fault from my side. If you please restore the deleted file, that would be helpful. Warm regards, -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot :-) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Tsludwig[edit]

Hello. The author of files listed in this page has sent email clarification via OTRS. Unfortunately, yesterday he contacted us via OTRS again and informed that the files has been deleted before he had a chance to add necessary details in file pages. Could you please help restore the files? Thank you. ··· 👦 Rachmat04 · 💬 08:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachmat04: I have restored the files, but reset the OTRS tag to {OTRS received}, this is an unprocessed ticket. Please be aware that permission has to come from the photographer, not from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the photographer is dead. He passed away 25 years ago. (inserted by 71.59.18.184)
Copyright stays with the legal heirs of the photographer 70 years after his death in most countries. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is he gave me the rights free and clear. His legal heirs have no claim to this photograph. What do I need to prove this to you with someone who passed away in 2007? tsludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsludwig (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright cannot be transfered by spoken word, there needs to be a written document about that. If no such document exist, permission will have to come from the heirs. Jcb (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, tsludwig, uploaded this photograph. I have since found the written permission letter given by Carter Harman to me at the time of the recording session with the London Symphony Orchestra at Abbey Road Studios in 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsludwig (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Флаги России[edit]

Вы незаконно удалили файлы флагов ведомств России. Источники были указаны - Указы (Решения) об их принятии.Permjak (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting only one file - what's with the others?[edit]

Hello Jcb, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eisenbahnunfall von Hordorf - Lokomotive.jpg you deleted the nominated file. As I haven't tagged it first time correct, at deletion request there are some other files regarding same uploader, source and deletion reason. You did not delete them. Do you haven't seen the other files, is there a reason not to delete or have I took further actions? Greetings from Germany. --Quedel (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, deleted now. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're working in warp-speed? Thanks and have a nice evening! --Quedel (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful with your deletion nominations[edit]

Please see Commons:Village_pump#User_nominating_images_with_sources_for_deletion_with_no_sources_template. I fully undestand and support the need to deal with copyvios, but I am afraid your recent judgement, at least, seems to be lapsing, as you are not paying enough attentions to sources present in images before nominating them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should first make sure you know what you are talking about, before you do such drastic proposals in the village pump. You really think it would be great to undo the hours a day maintenance work I have been doing in the severely backlogged 'no source' maintenance category for the past six months? Jcb (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your work is creating more problems then it solves, then maybe we should do this. It seems like your approach to clearing the backlog is to delete everything without sufficient review. This is worrisome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's helpful to the project to ask the second most active administrator to stop contributing. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Please learn more about our project before you say such things. Jcb (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity is not quality. I comment you on your activity, and I am sure vast, perhaps 99%+ of your edits are very good. But particularly when someone is highly active, the <1% or such of their edits that are problematic can be so numerous they are a cause of concern. All I am saying is that some of your recent edits are problematic, from using a broken template on my user talk page (twice) to ignoring/not seeing clear sources in an image, and using wrong templates (you cannot use Template:No source where there is, clearly, a source; another template or Deletion discussion should be used instead). Again, please take those comments in a constructive fashion: I know you are doing a lot of good things here, and you should be thanked every day; instead I fully realize how annoying it is when people complain more then they give due thanks. But sometimes, complains are needed. Both of us can make errors, and someone has to point them out, for the good of the community, and to improve our own standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The broken template at your talk page must be a problem with your talk page, I used normal sig. Jcb (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion after source was added[edit]

Hi Jcb,

Can you please explain me why you deleted 79e_R.I.jpg, 82e_Régiment_d%27infanterie_de_ligne..jpg and 7e_RTA_est_son_drapeau_en_1917.jpg. In all three cases you added a no source indication on the 15th/16th of October. In all three cases User:Bloody-libu removed the no source indication after fixing the corrupt information template on the files (which was hiding the source information) and giving an explanation (in French) on the sourcing and indicating that whether they are in the public domaine is another debate. And then directly after that you just delete the file. Given that User:Bloody-libu removed the template these are contested no-source indications, which means they should be dealt with using a Deletion Request. Instead of that you opt for a direct deletion. Note that these files are circa 5 years old. Please explain yourself.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'no source' tag is meant for situations where there is insufficient source information to determine copyright situation, so this is not 'another debate' but instead it's the exact reason for the tagging. Syntax errors are not a reason to tag the files, I have fixed many syntax errors recently, e.g. this one today. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that might be a difference in opinion between us, but that's a discussion for another time. Can you please elaborate on the main issue at hand: you deleted 3 files 0-1 day after they were tagged by yourself and after another user contested these tags. What is the reason for that? Basvb (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather interested in this answer as well, to be honest. Reventtalk 05:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not prepared to babysit the files if one and the same user keeps removing 'no source' tags over and over again without adding source information and without converting to regular DR. If they disagree with the no source tag and are unable to add adequat source information, they must convert to DR instead of just removing the nomination from their own uploads. Jcb (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You state that User:Bloody-libu was removing no-source tags over and over again. I did not see the evidence of this (please point it out). I see one similar action on three files. After that action I did not see any attempt from your side to explain to User:Bloody-libu that they are not supposed to remove no-source tags but should rather raise a deletion request if believe there is a source.
However, whether or not Bloody-libu made mistakes in their actions is not the main issue here. It's what happened afterwards. In reaction to the error you perceived in their actions you did not restore the no-source template or convert the discussion to a deletion request (the latter being the most constructive). You just deleted the file immediately. Doing so you did not allow for any due process or the normal 7-day time to provide sources. And on top of that you were both the nominating as the deleting party. In doing so you did not give others the opportunity to raise their concerns. ::::What if the file could be kept, like many of the files I added sources for after you tagged them with a no-source template? If you delete those files without giving anybody the opportunity to raise their concerns than you don't allow others to correct the mistakes you potentially make. And we all make mistakes, I also make mistakes, it's how we deal with our mistakes when they are pointed out to us what is most important.
When I look at this issue and the issue surrounding the block of Piotrus I see a common issue. That issue being that you use your administrative abilities in cases where you are involved/the one raising an issue. I was of the understanding that administrators are not supposed to delete files they nominate themselves, or block users they are involved with in a conflict/issue. Do you believe that administrators are allowed to delete files they nominate themselves? Please answer this question, it's the main question I have at this moment.
On the files at hand: I am planning on restoring them and starting a Deletion Request to discuss the source/license issues. If you have objections to me (as in me personally because of possible involvement or discussions between us in the last days) restoring them please state so and I will raise the issue at COM:AN for another administrator to handle. Basvb (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-cats and semi speedy-cats can be emptied by any administrator. Regular DRs cannot be delete-closed by nominator and cannot be keep-closed by uploader. The Bloody-libu issue has been going on for some time, but will probably not be seen anymore, because the involved files all had a filename starting with a number and earlier today I completed the part of the maintenance category of files starting with a number. Please feel free to undelete and send to DR the Bloody-libu files, the best outcome of course would be that they end up saved. Jcb (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. I disagree about the fact that administrators can delete their own speedy tagged images. But I guess we'd need some input from others to settle that disagreement. I didn't see the earlier issues between you and Bloody-libu. Thank you for allowing me to restore and DR the files. Basvb (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion which you should be involved with (concerning your block of Piotrus, and several other administrative actions you've taken). It would be appreciated if you could take part in the discussion, giving your side of the situation. Nick (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, but no thanks. Fae has wasted enough of my time today, as he will do tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, etc. If I have to respond everywhere where Fae is complaining about me, I won't find time for anything else. Jcb (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions and decisions as an administrator have significant impact on my upload projects, especially the interpretation of IP law and Commons policy of what is sufficient "reasonable effort" for Commons to host public domain material. As my upload projects account for a significant percentage of our public domain GLAM related collections, it is no wonder that my uploads will keep on coming up as relevant.
You are not specifically required by policy to respond to questions on AN regarding your competence to retain sysop rights for this project, however it remains a common view that all administrators must be prepared to answer questions with regard to their actions when using sysop rights. The evidence can speak for itself well enough in your absence, including a refusal to be accountable. --Fæ (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on VP[edit]

A discussion has been raised on the VP with regard to your use of the 'no source' template. You are not obliged to comment if you don't want to, this is a courtesy notification after discussion with other users on IRC. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for fixing the malformed DN, I crashed while doing it. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see the scope issue claimed for this deletion at all. They are donated, professional art assets, and can be used for all kinds of illustrations across Wikimedia properties. Furthermore I have already said that there is an open OTRS ticket for this item, and they would have all been handled by the (backlogged) OTRS process... It's going to create a lot of extra work for the OTRS handler if they remain deleted. czar 16:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the files as 'out of scope', which cannot be resolved by an OTRS permission. One of the three files was in use and therefor not 'out of scope'. I kept that file, to leave it to the OTRS procedure. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I challenged that they had no educational value in the DR, received no response, and they were deleted anyway. I have contributed many such art assets before and no one has ever made such an argument, nevertheless deleted them after I said as much czar 16:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see why it is out of scope. The images are to illustrate en:Epistory and I do not see anything wrong with them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They showed a group of people rather than a video game. Two of the three were not in use, I kept the one in use. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: @Czar: I see I was misleaded by the double DR. I will have another look at the case. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:KarlMa1.jpg[edit]

Dear Jcb, could you be so kind and explain to me why you write messages on my talk page about images of which I am neither an author nor I have uploaded them? Additionally, source (for File:KarlMa1.jpg) is clearly stated, but under wrong parameter. Thanks in advance for your answer! --Roberta F. (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. These notifications are placed by an automated script. I've seen some recent discussions about the script making errors sometimes. As for the source: I have been searching, but even the hyperlink in the description field could not help finding information necessary to determine the copyright situation. The work seems to be from Austria, so the current PD-1923 license does not apply. In Austria, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, so what is missing here, is source information about the author. Jcb (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the authorship File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg and File:Khudoyor-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg & ...[edit]

@Jcb: Hello, regarding the authorship File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg and File:Khudoyor-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg please see the site “Hayzag” Foundation, article Agakhanyanc Okmir Egishevich = Агаханянц Окмир Егишевич - section Miscellaneous where it is indicated that: Author of the submitted materials and photographs is Khurshed Khudoyorovich Yusufbekov = “Автор присланных материалов и фотографий - Хуршед Худоерович Юсуфбеков” + as a confirmation today I got a letter: Letter from the site - Agakhanyans Okmir Egishevich “Hayzag” Foundation mailbox@hayazg.info To: khurshed.yusufbekov@bk.ru today, 0:11 = “Кому: khurshed.yusufbekov@bk.ru сегодня, 0:11” (20 October 2016) – if necessary I can put the copy of the letter on the discussion page.
Regarding the other two photographs ([File:Okmir Agakhanyanc (right side)-and-Khudoyor Yusufbekov his sons Khurshed-Isfandiyor.jpg]]; [File:Khudoyor Yusufbekov (right side) his son Khurshed-Okmir Agakhanyanc-Isfandiyor Yusufbekov (left side).jpg]]), where I am with my father Yusufbekov, my brother and Agakhanyanc - source is indicated for this 2 photos as temporary during the discussion period (Ellin Beltz with which you are in contact and is informed of the detail, also as well as INeverCry) on Discussion page Commons:Undeletion_requests (Author:Shabdolov Charogabdol – photographed by my late cousin with my camera, indicated - Source: Temporarily for Commons:Undeletion_requests – during the discussion did not delete them, seems that it was decided that they are part of explanation if anyone has question or doubts. Regarding File:A view of the Soviet High School-established in 1936.jpg and [File:Amdinov family.jpg]] these are harmless photographs, if included into in corrected category, please correct it. Regarding my self photograph [File:Maksumov.akbar.jpg]] - close friend of our family, my father’s ally, Where the author of this statement - “the author of the photos are not only known, the photo can be unfree” probably wants that the file be uploaded on wikipedia.ru as “unfree = несвободные” with whom one can agree in File:Akhunakov.akhmadkhan.jpg a source is indicated where it is uploaded several years ago, corrected today as [PD-Russia]] – I think you will agree.. Respectfully, Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The files were nominated as copyright by НоуФрост for being out of scope. I'm sorry, but I have difficulties understanding you. It seems НоуФрост and you are both Russian. Maybe you could talk to him in Russian to see if you can resolve the case? Jcb (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request: File:Euskal_Herria_euskalkiak2.svg[edit]

Hi, Jcb. Yes, I removed it from WP:ES. It's not a secret, actually I announced it in P199's discussion page. It's true that nobody did agree with my opinion, but in quite a month nobody did oppose to it as well, and I argumented my opinion in the correspondent discussion pages of four or five WPs. Anyway, if it is an erroneous map, what would be the process to delete it? Thanks for your answer. --Pompilos (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the file, because it's against our rules to delete it, not because of a wrong process. The map has been in the article for over four years. We don't delete a map just because there are users with a different point of view. Especially for maps, there are often different points of view and we host maps representing them. Also the map may be in use somewhere outside Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, althought it is an obviously wrong map, I understand your reasons. Thank you for the explanation. --Pompilos (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My conservatism collage[edit]

I apologize for that mess. I'll be more careful from now on. I am uploading a new one which is actually fully in the public domain, just to let you know. TheEfficientMan (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request: Category:Galleries created by Choe Kwangmo[edit]

cat is empty. thank you. 최광모 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San_Carlos_-_HIMNO_CAROLINO.ogg[edit]

Hola, solicito deshacer borrado, puesto que este archivo no fue copiado de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnaTdBPbEeY, por el contrario, me temo que descargarón el archivo de wikipedia y lo subieron al youtube, puesto que el formato es ogg, fue el archivo San_Carlos_-_HIMNO_CAROLINO.ogg fue producido con GNU/Linux, fue publicado hace años en Commons..., por favor explique porque considera que se trata del mismo archivo, puede fijarse los derechos de autor del archivo que se encuntran declarado en su información interna. Gracias por su atención.--Micnous (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, fue subido en Youtube en 2010 y aquí en 2016. Jcb (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted files search[edit]

Dear Jcb! Search files with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Gangut1702 pages have been removed. But some have permission from the photographers from OTRS: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Свято-Троицкий_храм,_с._Горыньград_Первый_42.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Свято-Троицкий_храм,_с._Горыньград_Первый_31.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1. In addition, some were simply trivial dokumentami. At least I beg to restore files that have the confirmation of permission to OTRS. Excuse me for my english (thanks translate.google.ru). Yours faithfully, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored File:Свято-Троицкий храм, с. Горыньград Первый 42.jpg. The other file has a copyright problem with the depicted plate. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Sincerely, --Dogad75 (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing blank author and source fields with "..."[edit]

Your mass edits inserting "..." rather than any real information in author and source fields into other people's uploads, is unhelpful and may be assessed as disruptive. These changes mean that the unlabelled images are much harder for anyone else to repair later on without specifically searching for your use of periods rather than leaving them blank.

Edit-warring such as here to reinsert the use of "..." as the defined source and/or author is highly inappropriate. Should you continue, as you have a recent history of using your sysop tools to "win the argument" including blocking those you are in disagreement with rather than discussing your changes, I shall have to raise your disruptive behaviour on AN, so that I have administrator support on the record before reverting your inappropriate use of "...".


As examples, see the list below covering the last few weeks. I believe all of these changes by yourself should be reverted as unhelpful. -- Fæ (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of use of '...' in information parameters 29-9 to 24-10
  1. 2016-10-24 22:19 Reverted edits by Fae to last revision by Jcb
  2. 2016-10-24 21:56 [2]
  3. 2016-10-24 21:41 [3]
  4. 2016-10-24 21:39 [4]
  5. 2016-10-24 21:31 [5]
  6. 2016-10-24 21:26 [6]
  7. 2016-10-24 21:15 [7]
  8. 2016-10-24 21:15 [8]
  9. 2016-10-24 16:39 [9]
  10. 2016-10-24 16:37 [10]
  11. 2016-10-24 15:28 [11]
  12. 2016-10-23 22:11 [12]
  13. 2016-10-23 22:07 [13]
  14. 2016-10-23 21:52 [14]
  15. 2016-10-23 21:47 [15]
  16. 2016-10-23 21:46 [16]
  17. 2016-10-23 21:47 [17]
  18. 2016-10-23 21:43 [18]
  19. 2016-10-23 21:42 [19]
  20. 2016-10-23 21:41 [20]
  21. 2016-10-23 19:59 [21]
  22. 2016-10-22 15:58 [22]
  23. 2016-10-21 16:25 [23]
  24. 2016-10-21 16:21 [24]
  25. 2016-10-21 16:20 [25]
  26. 2016-10-21 16:19 [26]
  27. 2016-10-21 16:19 [27]
  28. 2016-10-21 16:19 [28]
  29. 2016-10-21 16:18 [29]
  30. 2016-10-21 16:18 [30]
  31. 2016-10-21 15:53 [31]
  32. 2016-10-21 15:51 [32]
  33. 2016-10-21 15:50 [33]
  34. 2016-10-21 15:50 [34]
  35. 2016-10-21 15:50 [35]
  36. 2016-10-21 15:48 [36]
  37. 2016-10-21 10:57 [37]
  38. 2016-10-21 09:48 [38]
  39. 2016-10-21 09:43 [39]
  40. 2016-10-21 09:43 [40]
  41. 2016-10-21 09:42 [41]
  42. 2016-10-21 09:42 [42]
  43. 2016-10-21 09:35 [43]
  44. 2016-10-21 09:34 [44]
  45. 2016-10-21 09:29 [45]
  46. 2016-10-21 09:27 [46]
  47. 2016-10-21 09:26 [47]
  48. 2016-10-21 09:26 [48]
  49. 2016-10-21 09:26 [49]
  50. 2016-10-21 09:25 [50]
  51. 2016-10-21 09:24 [51]
  52. 2016-10-21 09:06 [52]
  53. 2016-10-21 09:04 [53]
  54. 2016-10-21 09:04 [54]
  55. 2016-10-21 09:00 [55]
  56. 2016-10-21 08:59 [56]
  57. 2016-10-21 08:58 [57]
  58. 2016-10-21 08:57 [58]
  59. 2016-10-21 08:57 [59]
  60. 2016-10-21 08:53 [60]
  61. 2016-10-21 08:53 [61]
  62. 2016-10-20 23:39 [62]
  63. 2016-10-20 23:34 [63]
  64. 2016-10-20 22:49 [64]
  65. 2016-10-20 22:49 [65]
  66. 2016-10-20 22:32 [66]
  67. 2016-10-20 22:31 [67]
  68. 2016-10-20 22:27 [68]
  69. 2016-10-20 22:26 [69]
  70. 2016-10-20 22:27 [70]
  71. 2016-10-20 22:25 [71]
  72. 2016-10-20 22:21 [72]
  73. 2016-10-20 21:49 [73]
  74. 2016-10-20 21:48 [74]
  75. 2016-10-20 21:45 [75]
  76. 2016-10-20 21:32 [76]
  77. 2016-10-20 21:32 [77]
  78. 2016-10-20 21:30 [78]
  79. 2016-10-20 21:17 [79]
  80. 2016-10-20 21:12 [80]
  81. 2016-10-20 21:12 [81]
  82. 2016-10-20 21:10 [82]
  83. 2016-10-20 20:49 [83]
  84. 2016-10-20 11:55 [84]
  85. 2016-10-20 11:55 [85]
  86. 2016-10-20 11:54 [86]
  87. 2016-10-20 11:49 [87]
  88. 2016-10-20 11:33 [88]
  89. 2016-10-20 11:33 [89]
  90. 2016-10-19 22:42 [90]
  91. 2016-10-19 21:46 [91]
  92. 2016-10-19 21:33 [92]
  93. 2016-10-19 21:27 [93]
  94. 2016-10-19 21:20 [94]
  95. 2016-10-19 20:58 [95]
  96. 2016-10-19 20:57 [96]
  97. 2016-10-19 20:54 [97]
  98. 2016-10-19 15:48 [98]
  99. 2016-10-18 16:34 [99]
  100. 2016-10-18 16:32 [100]
  101. 2016-10-18 16:01 [101]
  102. 2016-10-18 14:57 [102]
  103. 2016-10-18 14:48 [103]
  104. 2016-10-18 14:47 [104]
  105. 2016-10-18 14:47 [105]
  106. 2016-10-17 23:00 [106]
  107. 2016-10-17 22:59 [107]
  108. 2016-10-17 22:59 [108]
  109. 2016-10-17 22:58 [109]
  110. 2016-10-17 21:56 [110]
  111. 2016-10-17 16:15 [111]
  112. 2016-10-16 22:36 [112]
  113. 2016-10-16 22:20 [113]
  114. 2016-10-16 22:19 [114]
  115. 2016-10-16 22:15 [115]
  116. 2016-10-16 21:57 [116]
  117. 2016-10-16 21:56 [117]
  118. 2016-10-16 21:52 [118]
  119. 2016-10-16 21:51 [119]
  120. 2016-10-16 18:51 [120]
  121. 2016-10-16 18:42 [121]
  122. 2016-10-16 18:36 [122]
  123. 2016-10-16 18:28 [123]
  124. 2016-10-16 18:23 [124]
  125. 2016-10-16 18:23 [125]
  126. 2016-10-16 10:58 [126]
  127. 2016-10-16 10:53 [127]
  128. 2016-10-16 00:33 [128]
  129. 2016-10-15 23:58 [129]
  130. 2016-10-15 21:52 [130]
  131. 2016-10-15 21:48 [131]
  132. 2016-10-15 21:43 [132]
  133. 2016-10-15 21:28 [133]
  134. 2016-10-15 21:24 [134]
  135. 2016-10-15 21:22 [135]
  136. 2016-10-15 21:18 [136]
  137. 2016-10-15 21:05 [137]
  138. 2016-10-15 21:05 [138]
  139. 2016-10-15 16:35 [139]
  140. 2016-10-15 16:30 [140]
  141. 2016-10-15 16:28 [141]
  142. 2016-10-15 16:24 [142]
  143. 2016-10-15 16:21 [143]
  144. 2016-10-15 16:19 [144]
  145. 2016-10-15 16:18 [145]
  146. 2016-10-15 11:32 [146]
  147. 2016-10-15 11:31 [147]
  148. 2016-10-15 10:43 [148]
  149. 2016-10-15 10:42 [149]
  150. 2016-10-14 23:54 [150]
  151. 2016-10-14 23:53 [151]
  152. 2016-10-14 23:50 [152]
  153. 2016-10-14 23:48 [153]
  154. 2016-10-14 23:47 [154]
  155. 2016-10-14 22:34 [155]
  156. 2016-10-14 21:52 [156]
  157. 2016-10-14 21:52 [157]
  158. 2016-10-14 21:50 [158]
  159. 2016-10-14 21:49 [159]
  160. 2016-10-14 21:48 [160]
  161. 2016-10-14 21:46 [161]
  162. 2016-10-14 21:44 [162]
  163. 2016-10-14 21:31 [163]
  164. 2016-10-14 21:23 [164]
  165. 2016-10-14 21:12 [165]
  166. 2016-10-14 21:10 [166]
  167. 2016-10-14 20:42 [167]
  168. 2016-10-14 20:41 [168]
  169. 2016-10-14 20:00 [169]
  170. 2016-10-14 11:24 [170]
  171. 2016-10-14 11:18 [171]
  172. 2016-10-14 11:14 [172]
  173. 2016-10-14 11:14 [173]
  174. 2016-10-14 11:11 [174]
  175. 2016-10-14 11:11 [175]
  176. 2016-10-14 11:10 [176]
  177. 2016-10-14 11:08 [177]
  178. 2016-10-13 23:03 [178]
  179. 2016-10-13 22:09 [179]
  180. 2016-10-13 22:09 [180]
  181. 2016-10-12 21:53 [181]
  182. 2016-10-12 15:53 [182]
  183. 2016-10-10 22:16 [183]
  184. 2016-10-10 22:13 [184]
  185. 2016-10-10 22:12 [185]
  186. 2016-10-10 22:12 [186]
  187. 2016-10-10 22:08 [187]
  188. 2016-10-10 21:07 [188]
  189. 2016-10-09 22:24 [189]
  190. 2016-10-09 22:24 [190]
  191. 2016-10-09 20:50 [191]
  192. 2016-10-09 20:50 [192]
  193. 2016-10-09 20:49 [193]
  194. 2016-10-09 19:53 [194]
  195. 2016-10-09 18:39 [195]
  196. 2016-10-09 18:37 [196]
  197. 2016-10-09 18:31 [197]
  198. 2016-10-09 18:28 [198]
  199. 2016-10-09 17:01 [199]
  200. 2016-10-09 16:52 [200]
  201. 2016-10-09 16:51 [201]
  202. 2016-10-08 23:56 [202]
  203. 2016-10-08 21:15 [203]
  204. 2016-10-08 21:14 [204]
  205. 2016-10-08 21:03 [205]
  206. 2016-10-08 21:01 [206]
  207. 2016-10-08 20:45 [207]
  208. 2016-10-08 20:43 [208]
  209. 2016-10-08 20:42 [209]
  210. 2016-10-08 20:42 [210]
  211. 2016-10-08 00:10 [211]
  212. 2016-10-08 00:10 [212]
  213. 2016-10-07 23:18 [213]
  214. 2016-10-07 23:18 [214]
  215. 2016-10-07 23:18 [215]
  216. 2016-10-07 23:17 [216]
  217. 2016-10-07 23:17 [217]
  218. 2016-10-07 23:17 [218]
  219. 2016-10-07 23:16 [219]
  220. 2016-10-07 23:15 [220]
  221. 2016-10-07 23:13 [221]
  222. 2016-10-07 23:07 [222]
  223. 2016-10-07 23:06 [223]
  224. 2016-10-07 23:05 [224]
  225. 2016-10-07 23:02 [225]
  226. 2016-10-07 22:44 [226]
  227. 2016-10-07 22:38 [227]
  228. 2016-10-07 00:08 [228]
  229. 2016-10-06 23:01 [229]
  230. 2016-10-06 23:00 [230]
  231. 2016-10-06 22:31 [231]
  232. 2016-10-06 21:45 [232]
  233. 2016-10-06 21:44 [233]
  234. 2016-10-06 21:33 [234]
  235. 2016-10-05 22:06 [235]
  236. 2016-10-05 22:06 [236]
  237. 2016-10-05 22:05 [237]
  238. 2016-10-04 22:26 [238]
  239. 2016-10-04 16:33 [239]
  240. 2016-10-04 16:32 [240]
  241. 2016-10-03 21:49 [241]
  242. 2016-10-03 21:49 [242]
  243. 2016-10-03 21:48 [243]
  244. 2016-10-03 21:46 [244]
  245. 2016-10-03 21:43 [245]
  246. 2016-10-03 20:42 [246]
  247. 2016-09-30 11:58 [247]
  248. 2016-09-30 00:46 [248]
  249. 2016-09-30 00:46 [249]
  250. 2016-09-30 00:46 [250]
  251. 2016-09-30 00:46 [251]
  252. 2016-09-30 00:46 [252]
  253. 2016-09-30 00:41 [253]
  254. 2016-09-30 00:29 [254]
  255. 2016-09-30 00:27 [255]
  256. 2016-09-29 23:11 [256]
  257. 2016-09-29 22:03 [257]
  258. 2016-09-29 22:02 [258]
  259. 2016-09-29 22:02 [259]
Given this previous edit of yours, if you refuse to engage in this discussion because it was started by Fæ (which, incidentally, you shouldn't be doing), please treat the questions as if they were asked by me. odder (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All those files had sufficient source/authorship information at the description page to determine a valid copyright situation. We have Category:Images without source, which is extremely backlogged. In the past few months, mainly @Ellin Beltz: and myself have decreased this backlog from 56k to 52k, while still daily new files enter the maintenance category, mainly because the transfer bot introduces syntax errors. This job is impossible to do if thousands of files without a problem keep polluting this maintenance category. If the above mentioned edits would be reverted, that can hardly be explained to be anything else than a willful attempt to disrupt this important maintenance job. Jcb (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a fair number of those files' source/authorship information was nowhere near "sufficient", which is easily demonstrable if you check any of the links provided by Fæ. I am also very sorry to hear you say "If the above mentioned edits would be reverted, that can hardly be explained to be anything else than a willful attempt to disrupt this important maintenance job." which is clearly an assumption of bad faith and, quite frankly, very, very disappointing (to say the least). odder (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prepare the request for COM:AN as it seems obvious that you are not prepared to back down from the inappropriate use of "..." rather than using meaningful text.

@Ellin Beltz: as you have been mentioned in the above, implying that you are a party to these changes, do you have any view to give on the use of "..." for parameters in infoboxes? I note that you do not seem to have done this yourself at least for the last month. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never replaced any infobox parameter with "..." Yes, I spend a lot of time in "no source" images. Yesterday I found sources for over 100 images from the same series and manually replaced each one. I do not "no source" en masse and I don't add anything to any file unless I feel it's an informational improvement. With that said, I have not reviewed the foregoing statements and I am making no statement on the behavior of others. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What you are doing is probably what most of the community would expect when fixing sourcing. It's that which is missing in Jcb's actions and remains a mismatch in the defensive comments made and reverts to the edits of others. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, In my opinion you're starting this discussion a bit strong (in the second sentence talking about unhelpful/disruptive instead of asking Jcb why he is working like this). That being said, I agree that the use of "..." in the author and source fields is uninformative, and would advise you (Jcb) to stop adding it like this. I clicked a few random cases: [260], here there is a source provided, why not copy it to the correct field? In other cases the works are clearly PD, in these cases I would prefer to use Template:Unknown if we truly don't know the sources. Fae, odder, do you guys think using unknown (if applicable) is the prefered method? (relevant search query) Basvb (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Basvb: I agree that "is unhelpful and may be assessed as disruptive" may seem strong, but it is accurate. Unfortunately we've been here before with Jcb reverting my edits with no edit comments, then using sysop rights out of process, such as blocking my accounts, or making the page admin-edits only as the next step rather than discussion. You'll forgive me if my assertion is 'positive' in this context. It seems fair to expect any administrator's behaviour to be better than non-administrators, not the reverse.
Though 'unknown' may be suitable in some situations, if you keep on looking through the examples, this varies. In many cases the source or author is known and in the description field, so they can be referred to or copied over if necessary. Editorial judgement and a practical understanding of copyright is required to resolve these correctly, not something that one template or phrase can do.
As there are around 600 relevant images from 2016 (I have no idea if they go back further), I'm getting these ready via a report at User:Fæ/sandboxL to illustrate the issue. I believe we need to have a discussion on AN to have those remaining reverted and avoid future contention over the use of inserting dummy text to stop automatic warnings. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the plan is to replace the "..." with a blank line (I would be in favor of that), then it is probably a good idea to also look at dots inserted by others than Jcb, as well as cases with 4 and 5 dots (saw some of those). Basvb (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Jcb's use of "..." on image pages for more opinions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore these images[edit]

Dear Jcb! Since October 24th you have deleted the following images without permitting an opportunity for discussion. All picture what I have uploaded is from personal collection Анатолий Похилюк (File: Свято-Троицкий храм, с. Горыньград Первый 31.jpg), Василий Николаевич Грицак (File:Иван Грицак, унтер-офицер Российского императорского флота.jpg File: Грицак Иван Макарович.jpg File:Кавалерист лейб-гвардії П. М. Грицак та матрос навчального судна «Миколаїв» І. М. Грицак.jpg File:Матроси лінійного корабля «Імператор Олександр ІІ» М. І. Орлов та І. М. Грицак.jpg File:І. М. Грицак під час служби на лінійному кораблі «Гангут».jpg File:Список нижніх чинів 3-ї роти навчального судна «Миколаїв».png File: Estate_Goryngrad.jpg) and They give me that honor to put it on internet and Commons. They all sent emails to confirm: permissions-ru@wikimedia.org Thank you Gangut1702 (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as an OTRS agent processes the ticket and finds it in order, the files will be restored. Please be aware this may take some time, OTRS has a backlog. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Regards Gangut1702 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor restaure estas imagenes[edit]

Files uploaded by Freddycanaviri777 (talk · contribs)

HUBO UN ERROR AL BORRAR LOS ARCHIVOS QUE SON DE MI PROPIEDAD FREDDY CANAVIRI APAZA, EN OTROS SITIOS WEB ESTAN MIS ARCHIVOS CON MI MISMO NOMBRE FREDDY CANAVIRI APAZA, SOLICITO LA RESTAURACION DE ESTOS ARCHIVOS, QUE ES MUY BUEN APORTE PARA LA HUMANIDAD Y LA HISTORIA DAR A CONOCER LA INFORMACION QUE CONTENIA ESTOS ARCHIVOS, MAS ADELANTE DARE UNA EXPLICACION MAS DETALLADA EN LA ENCICLOPEDIA WIKIPEDIA Y NECESITO ESTOS ARCHIVOS, ESTE ES MI SITIO WEB http://freddycanaviriapaza.wixsite.com/elfinviene Freddycanaviri777 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadie ha dicho que tenemos dudas sobre su propiedad, pero los archivos están fuera de los propositos de Wikimedia Commons. Si usted no está de acuerdo, puede pedir la restauración en COM:UDR - Jcb (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fichier "Conversation dans la neige" Musée élise Rieuf[edit]

Concernant la suppression du fichier image "conversation dans la neige" d'Elise Rieuf vous voudrez bien noter que le tableau et les droits attachés sont la propriété du musée Elise Rieuf. Le fichier a été déposé par le musée lui même afin qu'il soit utilisable sur Wikipedia.Musée rieuf (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcb, I answered in French on their talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jcb (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore File:Mary Field Garner USH.jpg[edit]

Hi, could you please restore File:Mary Field Garner USH.jpg? I have replied to your concern about incorrect information on the photo on the OTRS noticeboard. [261].Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been established that this would be public domain. The picture is stated to be from 1943, so {{PD-1923}} cannot be applied. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken after 1923, that's correct. Would you consider 2003 the publishing date then (then it would enter the public domain in 2063)? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the copyright situation, but a valid PD rational will be needed before requesting undeletion, which can be requested at COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb/archive/12&oldid=303805688"